The means of grace in the form of absolution.
We still treat absolution under a special section, because this doctrine belongs to the doctrines at which Christian knowledge makes an examination. Under general addresses about "gospel" and "reconciliation through Christ" many ambiguities were and are hidden. These ambiguities are revealed by the objections raised against absolution.
That the gospel in all forms of testimony promises the forgiveness of sins acquired from Christ, that is, absolution, has already had to be explained repeatedly. Luther and the Lutheran Church in its confession use the term absolution to describe another special form of the proclamation of the gospel. This is the form according to which forgiveness of sins is pronounced to one or more persons from their confession of sins by a public minister of the church or also by any Christian. The Smalcald Articles, under the overall title "Gospel," besides the preached word and besides baptism and the Lord's Supper, also mention absolution as a way of "help against sin."806) Further, it says there under the chapter "Von der Confession" that "confession or absolution" should not be abandoned in the church, with the reasoning: "because absolution or the power of the key is also a help and comfort against sin and evil consciences, instituted in the Gospel by Christ" (instituta.).807') In an expert opinion Luther, Melanchthon and Bugenhagen say: "One must also leave room for the comforting free gospel, so that it can be said to a single man as well as to many. But what is absolution but the gospel, told to a single man, who thereby receives consolation for his known sin? So Christ’s
806) p. 319.<w:t>807) p. 321.
224 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 190]
example is Matt. 9, where he absolves the gout-ridden man individually, and Luke 7 also absolves Mary Magdalene individually, and more."808)
This absolution was and is annoying to many. Zwingli's campaign against Luther was also directed in particular against the absolution, which Luther had taught and held in very high esteem. 809) Zwingli's rejection of absolution is easily understood from his πρώτον ψευδός. Because Zwingli claimed of the Spirit in general that he had no need of a chariot, he believed he should still more particularly scoff at the fact that Luther saw even in absolution spoken by men a consolation for consciences. Zwingli writes: "From the Spirit comes the assurance of our spirit that we are sons of God, not from saying armpit-four." 810) Zwingli mockingly uses "Armpit-four" for "absolvers." This contradiction and derision has been evident through the centuries down to our own time. Also within the Lutheran Church one has wanted to dismiss with the abuse also the right use of confession and absolution. Here belongs the dictum of the farthest left pietists:811) "Confessional, Satan's chair, hell's den." 812) Here in America, not only representatives of Reformed church fellowships but also American Lutherans talked of "Roman leaven" when the fathers of our Synod taught and practiced confession and absolution.813) The old Norwegian Synod also had to present the Christian doctrine of absolution in the dispute it got into with the Augustana Synod over objective reconciliation or justification.814)
808) Ratschlag auf die Handlung zu Smalcald 1531. St. L. XVI, 1795.
809) St. L. XVII, 2021: "For the sake of this matters [absolution] I need the confession most of all and do not want to and cannot do without it, because it often and still daily gives me great consolation when I am sad and distressed.
810) Zwingli's answer, that these words: "This is my corpse" etc.. St. L. XX, 1131 f.
811) Kaspar Schade, Th. Großgebauer etc.
812) H. Schmid, Gesch. des Pietismus, p. 259 ff.
813) Der Lutheraner 1850, p. 113 ff.
814) Lehre und Wehre 1872, p. 161 ff.: "A document concerning the doctrinal dispute among the Scandinavian Lutherans about absolution." Der Lutheraner 1850, p. 113 ff.: "How great and pernicious is the error of those who deny the power of the pastors of the gospel to forgive sins on earth." Tenth Synodal Report of the General Synod, 1860, pp. 34 ff.: Proceedings on the Doctrine of Absolution. The theses are by Pastor Brohm. It is clear from the proceedings that consensus on the biblical doctrine was reached only through detailed negotiations. In L. u. W. 1874, pp. 138 ff,
225 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 191].
Luther, the Lutheran Confession and also later theologians have stringently proven from John 20:23 that Absolution is a scriptural way or form of proclaiming the gospel. In the words, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them," three things are clearly expressed: 1. That men who have received the Holy Spirit, that is, Christians, are to remit or absolve sins; 2. That this remission or absolution of sins refers also to certain persons (individuals), ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας, if ye remit the sins of any; 3. That with this absolution spoken by men the matter is settled before God, άφίενται αντοϊς, they are remitted.815) In order to avoid the meaning of Scripture, Zwingli allowed himself here also, as in the doctrine of the person of Christ, an alloeosis, an interchange (permutatio) of the concept of the subject. In the words of Scripture, the disciples, i.e., men, are mentioned as the persons who forgive sins: "Whom ye remit sins." Zwingli, however, maintains that the Holy Spirit must be substituted for the disciples. When Christ ascribes to the disciples what is nevertheless the work of the Holy Spirit alone, this is done "out of divine friendship." He writes: "Although Christ ascribes the binding and unbinding to the disciples, it is of the working Spirit alone. They preached, however, that the Spirit before" (that is, before, without word, directly) "had also made alive in them and 816)
Prof. F. A. Schmidt (then in St. Louis) takes the doctrine of absolution and defends the doctrines of the Norwegian Synod as Scriptural and confessional against the attacks of the Swedes and the Iowans. Testimonies of the old Norwegian Synod concerning justification and absolution: tract no. 4: "Om Retfärdiggjörelsen." Decorah, Iowans. 1872. — V. Koren, "Samlede Skrifter." III, pp. 45-74. Decorah, Iowans. 1911.[English translation by DeGarmeaux here.] — H. A. Preus, "Wisconsinisme," pp. 65-96. Decorah, Iowans. 1875. — E. Hove, "Retfärdiggjörelsen." Synodalberetning 1901. decorah. — "Festskrift." 1903. pp. 250-258 (J. B. Frich). Decorah.
815) Perhaps the reading άφέωνται (perfect tense) is preferable. But even if we read άφίενται (present tense), the translation "dem sind sie erlassen" is in place, because according to the context the present tense άφίενται denotes simultaneity with the εάν άφήτε, about the perfect tense άφέωνται Winer 6, p. 74.
816) What the Spirit had made alive in the disciples "before", He had also made alive in them by the Word, as Christ expressly declares Joh. 17:8: "The words which thou gavest me I have given them, and they have received and known truly" (scil. by faith in the Word) "that I came forth from thee."
226 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 192]
makes it alive at all times where he wills; therefore out of divine friendship the apostles' names are added, which is of the Spirit alone." 817) Thus not only Zwingli. In the Reformed camp the rejection of absolution is quite general.818) It is a self-evident consequence of the gratia particularis and the immediata Spiritus Sancti operatio. For if divine grace is particular, absolution would affect only the elect, and if the Holy Spirit acts immediately, the forgiveness of sins would not be in the Word of the Gospel at all, and thus could not be communicated by the preachers of the Word. But even in the Lutheran Church, the explicit denial of absolution, and the factual denial of it, have penetrated primarily for two reasons:819) first, because of a lack of understanding of the Gospel of God in general, as among the Pietists, and second, as a necessary concomitant of synergism. Like Calvinism, synergism makes the forgiveness of sins conditional on something good in man. In Calvinism this is aliquid in homine, what the Spirit has directly wrought beforehand or incidentally; in Synergism it is the facultas se applicandi ad gratiam, right conduct, "personal self-determination," etc. In both cases, neither the absolver nor the absolved knows whether the absolution "hits." However, what is annoying to a large church audience in general and in particular about absolution comes out in the main objections to it.
In general, it was and is objected that the practice of absolution with preceding confession of sin is lingering "Roman leaven".820) This objection is based on ignorance of both the Roman and Christian doctrines of Absolutton. According to Roman doctrine, absolution is an act a) which can be performed only by a Roman ordained priest, in
817) Zwingli's writing: "Daß diese Worte" etc.. St. L. XX, 1132.
818) Heppe, Dogmatik der ev.-ref. K., p. 486. 502. Cf. G. Plitt, Grundriß der Symbolik 3, p. 131 ff.
819) Cf. Caspari, RE. 3 II, 538 f.
820) L. u. W. 1874, p. 140 f. The Norwegian Synod was accused of "theoretical Catholicism" and "practical Catholicism" because of its doctrine of absolution, because it represented a doctrine "which aims at the erection of the cornerstone in the papacy, the sacrament of office," "an anti-Christian trend which, supported by a papist principle, works to dissolve Christianity into universalism and hierarchy.
227 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 192-193]
more serious cases by the bishop, and in the most serious cases by the pope,821) b) which is conditioned by three human works: repentance 822) a full confession 823) and the performance of an imposed satisfaction,824) , c) whereby the absolver as judge judges whether the required performances are sufficiently present or not, and then grants or refuses absolution.825) The Christian doctrine of absolution has nothing in common with this Roman abomination826). According to Scripture, the power of absolution or the power of the keys (potestas clavium) does not belong to one person or to some persons in the Church, but to all persons who have received the Holy Spirit, that is, to all Christians without exception. This is clearly taught in not only John 20:23 and Matt. 18:18, but also Matt. 16:19.827) According to this
821) Trident, Sess. XIV, c. 4. 6. 7, can. 10. 11.
822) Trident, Sess. XIV, c. 4, can. 5.
823) Trident, Sess. XIV, c. 5, can. 6-8.
824) Trident, Sess. XIV, c. 8, can. 13. 14.
825) Trident, Sess. XIV, c. 5. 6. 8, can. 9.
826) The most powerful description of this abomination, by which Christ's perfect satisfaction is denied and grace made uncertain, we have from Luther in the Smalcald Articles under the section "On the False Repentance of the Papists". M., pp. 313 ff. [Trigl. 481, Smalc. art., Part III, art. III, 10 ff. 🔗] Cf. Der Lutheraner 1850, p. 116 f. Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore also records the Roman abomination in its entirety in The Faith of Our Fathers. 26, p. 385 sqq.
827) All restrictions of the words Joh. 20:23: "Whose sins you remit" to the persons of the apostles or to the persons of the apostles and the "New Testament ministers" are carried into the text. Only Luther's version is in accordance with the text: "This power is given here to all Christians, although some have appropriated it to themselves alone, as the pope, the bishops, priests and monks; they say publicly and impudently that this power is given to them and not also to the laity. But Christ says here neither of priests nor of monks, but says: 'Receive ye the Holy Spirit.' To him who has the Holy Spirit, power is given, that is, to him who is a Christian. But who is a Christian? He who believes. He who believes has the Holy Spirit. Therefore every Christian has the power … to retain or remit sins. (XI, 745 f. Also XIX, 845 f. and often.) The right thing has Adolf Späth in Annotations on the Gospel according to St. John [p. 313-314]: "On whom is this power here conferred? Is it on a special class or order of men, the clergy, as Rome and all Romanizers teach? But when this power was conveyed by the Lord, the apostles were not all present; nor were those present on this occasion all apostles. John clearly distinguishes between the Twelve (v. 24) and the disciples (v. 19). And Luke tells us distinctly that others were gathered with the disciples (Luke 24:33) on that evening. Luther, therefore, is right in saying: This power is given to all Christians. Whosoever hath the Holy Spirit, to him
228 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ (193)-194]
every Christian, indeed every child, can absolve just as validly and effectively as a pastor, bishop, archbishop, and so on.828) And as for the conditions of absolution, the matter stands thus: Absolution is based neither on self-made contrition nor on true contrition wrought by the Holy Spirit through the law, neither on confession of all sins before men nor on any human satisfaction. Absolution is based only on the fact of the world's reconciliation through the perfect satisfaction of Christ and on the divine command,829) to proclaim in Christ's name the remission of sins that exists through Christ. And what is thus proclaimed for Christ's sake, wholly unconditionally by human worthiness or unworthiness, let man believe. But these points will be explained in more detail in the following objections.
At all times the further objection to absolution
this power is given, that is, to him who is a Christian. But who is a Christian? He that believeth. He that believeth hath the Holv Spirit. Every Christian, therefore, has the power, claimed by Pope and bishops, of forgiving or retaining sins. Well, then, some might say, we can pronounce absolution, baptize, preach, administer Communion. No, indeed! St. Paul says: 'Let all things be done decently and in order' (1 Cor. 14:40). We all have this power, but let no one presume to exercise it publicly, except he be called and chosen for this office by the congregation. But in private we may use this power. If, for instance, my brother comes to me, saving: 'Dear brother, I am vexed in my conscience, give me a word of absolution.' I am free to do this and tell him the Gospel, how that he should take hold of Christ's work, believing that the righteousness of Christ is trulv his own, and that his own sins are truly Christ's. This is, indeed, the greatest service I may do to my fellow-man.” — That in the words, Matt. 18:18: "What ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" are addressed to Christians, it is evident both from the preceding words ("Hath he not heard the congregation") and from the following words ("Where two or three are gathered together in my name"). And as for Matt. 16:19: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven", one can only wonder that it was possible not only for the Romans but also for Protestants (e.g. Meyer on this passage) to refer these words to a prerogative of Peter, be it as an apostle or as a head of the apostles or as a representative of the apostles. According to the whole context, the prerogative is described here not of an apostle, but of a believer in Christ, v. 13-17.
828) Smalc. Art, pp. 341, 67-69 [Trigl. 523 🔗]; Der Lutheraner 1850, p. 117: Luther. St. L. X. 1235 f., 1243, 1579, 1590.
829) Joh. 20:21: Luke 24:47.
229 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 194-195]
has been raised, that the forgiveness of sins is acknowledged to be a prerogative of God. If we were to concede to men the power and right to pronounce the forgiveness of sins on other men, we would erroneously, even blasphemously, transfer to men what is God's alone. — To this objection must be replied,830) that the forgiveness of sins is indeed a divine prerogative. God alone, against whose commandment sins have been committed, can forgive sinners their sins. No creature in heaven or on earth, no power in this world, not even an angel or archangel, can forgive sins. Whom God does not forgive, his sins remain unforgiven, even if all creatures would speak absolution in a unanimous chorus. But the question is whether God exercises his prerogative directly or indirectly. And here the Scripture says: indirectly, namely through the word of reconciliation, which came about through Christ, through the word of the gospel. God has commanded this word to be proclaimed to men, to his church. To men Christ says, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." Therefore Christ also says to men, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them." Both, then, stand established: both this, that God alone forgives sin, and that God does this through his gospel entrusted to men for preaching. And if someone "reads" absolution from scriptural words — it stands, after all, in every Evangelical passage — he has absolution through men, namely, through the word of the prophets and apostles, not through an immediate "interior Spiritus illuminatio."
More on the periphery is the objection that absolution is easily abused by the absolvers for carnal security, and on the other hand it is used to nourish "priestly pride" in the absolvers. — As far as the first objection is concerned, it must be admitted that absolution, together with confession, has often been used and will continue to be used in the future to cover up the inner apostasy from grace by outward churchiness. But all other forms of witnessing to the Gospel, the sermon of the Gospel, baptism and the Lord's Supper, were and are exposed to the same abuse. As far as the touching of the priestly pride is concerned, this
830) Luther, St. L. XI, 758 f.; XIII, 2438.
230 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 195-196]
objection applies to the Roman caricature of absolution, which attributes the power of absolution to a priesthood above Christians and created by the pope. The Christian power of absolution, however, is an authority that Christ has given to all believers, and in the public exercise of which the acting persons are only servants (ministri) and agents of the Christians.
Finally, an objection has been and is raised against absolution, which is probably the most widespread and also makes the greatest impression. The objection dresses itself in this form: "No man is a searcher of hearts or omniscient. Therefore, no man can know whether the person to be absolved has true repentance and true faith in his heart. Therefore no man should presume to absolve another man." — This objection is based on the idea that absolution is based on the repentance and faith of the absolver. On the other hand, it should be noted that absolution is not based on the state of man's heart, but only on the state of God's heart. But we know God's heart very well. Not as if we were omniscient, but because God has revealed His heart to us in the Gospel. From the Gospel we know for certain that God through Christ, before repentance and faith, is perfectly reconciled to all men and every human individual, that is, does not impute their sin to them, but forgives it, and that all Christians, thus also their public ministers, have the divine command to proclaim God's reconciled heart, namely the forgiveness of sins, to all the world, especially also to those who expressly confess themselves sinners and desire absolution. Therefore the spoken absolution, as Luther often expresses it, is in no case a "false key". There is not one man to be found among all peoples and in all parts of the heavens in regard to whom we have spoken an untruth, if we not only say to him, but also swear to him in the name of God: "God is reconciled to thee through Christ, imputeth not thy sins unto thee, but forgiveth thy sins." If he does not believe it, that is his pity. But it remains true that God is reconciled to him through Christ and that he should believe the reconciliation that has taken place on the divine command.831) As Luther rightly reminds us, the idea of the "wrong key" comes
831) 2 Cor. 5:18-20; Mark. 16:15-16.
231 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 196]
only from the fact that we base absolution on our repentance, our faith, our renewal, in short, our subjective nature and worthiness, instead of on Christ's perfect work of reconciliation.
We see, therefore, where the harm actually lies. Those who take offense at absolution lack the biblical concept of the general and perfect reconciliation of the world through the substitutionary satisfaction of Christ. They generally address Christ as the reconciler of men. They also ascribe to Christ's atoning work a "great" effect with God. Christ, however, is said to have "effectively" initiated a new "relationship" between God and man, as they like to address it in our time. In other words, the situation is understood as if Christ's work of atonement had caused a tendency in God to forgive sins; but this tendency would only then change into a real forgiveness of sins in God's heart when men had also changed their attitude towards God. The human change of mind, which is supposed to bring about the complete change in God's heart, is for some repentance and faith, for others, who have distanced themselves somewhat further from the Christian faith, renewal and sanctification, at least in principle This is connected with the fact that the Gospel is not presented as the proclamation or forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake, but as the announcement of a divine "plan of salvation" or as a proclamation of conditions, through the fulfillment of which man would attain the forgiveness of sins. Kirn, for example, also addresses a "historically perfected" reconciliation through Christ, but then limits the "perfected" reconciliation to the fact that it "makes the pardon of sinners morally possible forever." Pardon becomes a fact "insofar as the foundation of salvation, once accomplished, carries within itself the power to transform the life of humanity into its Godly form. 832) But all these limitations of world reconciliation to a mere inclination to forgive sins on the part of God or to a mere enabling of the same do not do justice to the statements of Scripture. According to the Scriptures, the world reconciliation of 1900 years ago
832) Grundriß der Dogmatik, p. 118.
232 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 196-197]
"historically perfected" reconciliation in the divine forgiveness of sins itself. The words: God "did not impute their sins to them," μη λογιζόμενος αντοϊς τά παραπτώματα αυτών, which authentically explain the words: "God was in Christ and reconciled the world to himself," do not read of a mere possible, but of an actual forgiveness of sins in the heart of God, which happened then when God was in Christ and reconciled the world to himself. Therefore, the Gospel is not the presentation of a mere "plan of salvation" or the presentation of conditions by the fulfillment of which man finally arrives at the forgiveness of sins, but the Gospel is an absolution of sins addressed to the whole world, which is to be believed by men. It is to be preached "among all nations" not merely of the forgiveness of sins, but the forgiveness of sins itself, εδει κηρυχϑήναι επι τω όνόματι Χρίστον μετάνοιαν και άφεσιν αμαρτιών εις πάντα τά εϑνη.833) Luther therefore says of the pastor who preaches the gospel that he cannot open his mouth without continually forgiving sin. (XI, 587.) And from here, that is, from the biblical concept of the reconciliation of the world and the gospel, the objection to absolution ceases. Without the understanding of these basic biblical truths, the open or secret opposition to absolution will not fall silent. We should not forget this also for our ministry practice. The experience we have in our American Lutheran congregations teaches us two things: 1. there is also in our country secret and open opposition to the general and private absolution that is common in our country. 2) The open and secret opposition is removed when we present the biblical doctrine of the perfect reconciliation of the world through Christ by public teaching, either from the pulpit or in congregational meetings, and then show that the gospel is nothing less than the divinely commanded presentation of the forgiveness of sins, "which all and everyone in particular are to accept [by faith].834)
833) Luke 24:46-47.
834) Luther, XXI b, 1849. Luther remarks on Luke 24:47: "Absolution is nothing other than the sermon and proclamation of the forgiveness of sins, which Christ commands to be preached and heard here. But because such sermons are necessary to be preserved in the Church, the
233 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 197-198]
It is of the greatest practical importance for every Christian to recognize and hold the relationship of faith to absolution. And what applies to absolution applies to the Gospel in general in every form of witnessing. It is also true of baptism. For baptism is also absolution, and private absolution at that, because the individual person (έκαστος) is baptized "for the remission of sins."835) Likewise, the Lord's Supper is private absolution because the communicants, as individuals, receive Christ's body given for them and Christ's blood shed for them "for the remission of sins."836) Now it is important for every Christian to recognize and hold fast, first, that faith belongs to the salutary use of absolution and the means of grace in general; God does not want the forgiveness of sins offered by Him to be despised, but to be accepted through faith. On the other hand, the Christian must not be misled into thinking that absolution and the means of grace in general are based on his faith or on something that is in him. The latter thought denies Christ in his perfect work of reconciliation and turns everything upside down in the acquisition of salvation. Christianity becomes a groundless subjectivism. Luther calls the faith that turns into its own object or ground of trust
one should also keep the absolution; for there is no other distinction here, except that the word which is otherwise preached publicly and generally to everyone in the sermon of the Gospel, is said in absolution to one or more persons in particular who desire it. As then Christ ordained that such a sermon of the forgiveness of sins should go forth and resound everywhere and at all times, not only generally over a whole multitude, but also individually, where such people find need of it: as … He says, "Whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven them." (XI, 721.)
835) Acts 2:38.
836) Matt. 26:27-28. Luther on the character of baptism and the Lord's Supper as private absolution: "To preach forgiveness of sins means nothing else than to absolve from sins; which also happens in baptism and sacrament (the Lord's Supper), which are also ordained to show and assure us of such forgiveness of sins. Thus to be baptized or to receive the sacrament is also an absolution, in that forgiveness is promised and assured to each one in particular by Christ's name and command; which you should hear where and how often you need it, and accept and believe it as if you heard it from Christ himself." (XI, 722.)
234 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 198-199]
as an apostasy from Christianity. He writes:837) "It is true that one should believe for baptism, but one should not be baptized on faith. It is a very different thing to have faith and to rely on faith and thus to be baptized from it. He who is baptized on faith is not only uncertain, but also an idolatrous, disbelieving Christian, for he trusts and builds on his own, namely on the gift that God has given him, and not on God's Word alone, just as another trusts and builds on his strength, wealth, power, wisdom, holiness, which are also gifts given to him by God." Luther says the same of both baptism and the Lord's Supper in the Large Catechism838): "I myself and all who are baptized must also speak before God in this way: I come here in my faith and also in the faith of others; nor can I rely on the fact that I believe and that many people ask for me, but I rely on the fact that it is your word and command; just as I go to the sacrament, not from my faith, but on Christ's word, whether I am strong or weak, I let God rule. But this I know, that he bid me go, eat, and drink, and give me his body and blood; this will not lie or deceive me.... Therefore it is ever presumptuous, foolish spirits who thus conclude: where faith is not right, neither must baptism be right. Just as if I wanted to conclude: If I do not believe, then Christ is nothing.... rather, turn it around and conclude thus: For this very reason baptism is something and right, that one has received it wrongly. For if it were not right in itself, it could not be abused. So it is said: Abusus non tollit, sed confirmat substantiam, Abuse does not take away the essence, but confirms it." And specifically of absolution Luther writes: "Afterwards think that the key or forgiveness of sins does not stand on our repentance and worthiness, as they teach and practice, for that is quite Pelagian, Turkish, pagan, Jewish, Anabaptist, enthusiastic and anti-Christian, but again that our repentance, work, heart and what we are, should build on the key and with all our heart confidently rely on it as on God's word. … You should repent, that is true, but that therefore the forgiveness of sins should be certain
837) St. L. XVII, 2213.<w:t>838) M., 494, 56 ff. [Trigl. 747, Inf. Bap., 56 ff. 🔗]
235 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 199-200]
and confirm the work of the key, that is to forsake the faith and deny Christ. He will not forgive and give you sin for your sake, but for his own sake, out of pure grace, through the key." We must not think that Luther is speaking hyperbolically when he addresses denying Christ and uses the predicates "pagan," "Turkish," etc., if we base the forgiveness of sins on repentance and faith. Christianity differs from all pagan religions by the doctrine that God is already reconciled to all men through Christ and offers forgiveness of sins in the Gospel, in which faith can only be considered as a means of reception (medium ληπτικόν). The forgiveness of sins already present through Christ and offered in the means of grace is the object or foundation of faith. He who reverses this relationship, and bases the forgiveness of sins on repentance and faith, certainly regards the matter as if God first became perfectly gracious to man for the sake of repentance and faith. With this, however, the Christian religion is again classified among the pagan religions of works.
According to this, the much-discussed question is to be answered whether absolution is to be named and pronounced conditionally or unconditionally. The question has already been touched upon repeatedly in another context.839) First of all, it must be remembered that, as the expression "conditional will of grace", so also the expression "conditional absolution" has been used in various senses. Luther, too, says in the counsel to the Nuremberg Council:840) "Every absolution, both general or private, has the condition of faith," but in this, as Luther immediately adds, faith is "only so much as accepts the absolution and says yes to it." In other words, faith is necessary on the part of the man (ex parte hominis) for the reception or acceptance of absolution. Then the expression "conditional absolution" has been used in the sense that absolution is based on repentance and faith. Luther cannot find words enough to reject conditional absolution in this sense, as is evident from the words just quoted. Also within the Lutheran Church, e.g. Paul Tarnov has asserted
839) Cf. II, 36 f., 652, 666.<w:t xml:space="preserve">840) St. L. XXI b, 1847 ff.
236 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 200-201]
that absolution was to be pronounced conditionally. Christian Chemnitz countered him very decisively.841) The latter's striking refutation of Tarnov is communicated by Walther in "Lehre und Wehre" under the heading "Is Absolution to be pronounced categorically or hypothetically?842) Christian Chemnitz's exposition is summarized in the sentence: "As Baptism and the Lord's Supper are given to everyone categorically after external confession of the mouth and actions, and no one speaks conditionally to the adult: 'If you have true repentance and truly believe, I baptize you,' or: "Take this, this is Christ's body," no one who outwardly confesses true repentance with his mouth and gestures is to be absolved conditionally, but categorically. For even if one were a hypocrite, as can sometimes happen, and pretended to repent, nevertheless absolution on God's part remains valid and begins to be powerful for salvation when that pretense has given way to a true confession. For 'God's gifts and calling may not repent of him', Rom. 11:29, 'so that God is true and all men false', Rom. 3:4." Walther counts "conditional absolution" among the "indirect deviations" from the Christian doctrine of justification. He himself says: "If the pastor has strong doubts whether the penitent is penitent and sincere, without being able to convict and reject him, the pastor must not try to help his conscience by adding all kinds of conditions or even warnings and threats to the formula of absolution."843) Tarnov justified his advocacy of conditional absolution by saying, "Even in common and public sermons, forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to no one but the truly faithful." 844) According to this, faith in the forgiveness of sins would have to be there before the preaching of the forgiveness of sins. Tarnov and all those who have addressed similarly have not realized that they are assuming an impossibility. Faith is a relative concept. It arises and exists only on the basis of its pre-existing object. Just as we can believe facts unknown
841) Deyling reports that it was "the almost general opinion" of the old Lutheran theologians that the formula of absolution should be properly categorical. Institutiones prud. pastoralis III, 4, 38, p. 447.
842) Lehre und Wehre 1876, p. 193 ff.<w:t xml:space="preserve">843) Pastorale, p. 164.
844) L. u. W. 1876, p. 195.
237 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 201]
to us only when they are reported or proclaimed to us, so also faith in the wonderful fact that God forgives us sin by grace, for Christ's sake, without works of the law, can arise only when it is proclaimed to us beforehand, not merely as a probability but as a fact, that God forgives us sin by grace, for Christ's sake, without any consideration of our subjective condition. In order for this faith to come into being, Christ has repentance preached in his name, as well as the forgiveness of sins, and therefore Scripture says that faith comes from the sermon, and therefore the Apology also says Scripturally: Fides concipitur et confirmatur per absolutionem, per auditum evangelii, faith is received and strengthened by absolution, by hearing the Gospel.845) The address that forgiveness of sins can be proclaimed or promised only to those who are already believers is one of those addresses that perpetuate themselves from mouth to mouth and from generation to generation without one becoming aware of their futility. It belongs to the Reformed camp, where one knows of an immediate communication of grace and bases the means of grace on faith. It is unseemly in the Lutheran Church, which teaches that faith is based in every case on the means of grace, that is, on the forgiveness of sins promised in the means of grace. Where the address within the so-called Lutheran Church is serious, it is certainly based on the idea that the Gospel is an announcement of conditions by the performance of which man still partially acquires the forgiveness of sins. — Our own way of absolution has been asserted against the categorical form of absolution. But if, before absolution, we ask those to be absolved whether they sincerely repent of their sins, believe in Jesus Christ, and have the good, earnest intention to amend their sinful lives henceforth, we do not mean to base the forgiveness of sins on repentance, faith, and the amendment of life. This would contradict the confessors' own confession, because they desire mercy through God's “boundless mercy and through the holy, innocent, bitter suffering and death of Jesus Christ”. With those words we only want to express that we do not want to help the sure sinners to strengthen in their
845) The Apology, p. 173, 42 [Trigl. 263, XII, 42 🔗].
238 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 201-202]
carnal security, but to absolve poor sinners to the consolation of their broken hearts. Any other interpretation of those words would contradict the Gospel of grace and would not comfort the consciences, but would only drive them into the sea of doubt.
Three kinds of people meet in the assertion that the promise of the gospel or the forgiveness of sins is conditioned by a good quality in man: the Romanists, the Calvinists and the Synergists. They differ only in the naming of the conditions. The Romanists base their absolution on the contritio cordis, confessio oris and satisfactio operis. They let the effect of the sacraments depend specifically on the fact that the man removes the obstacle to the effectiveness of the sacraments (obicem non ponit). The Calvinists let the promise of the gospel be conditioned by immediate enlightenment or rebirth, the Synergists by right personal conduct: self-determination, cessation of willful reluctance, lesser guilt, etc. All three parties, therefore, also describe the Gospel not as the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake, which concerns all men, but as an announcement of conditions which man must perform before the promise of the Gospel concerns him. Rome in the Tridentinum pronounces a curse on anyone who takes the gospel "as if the gospel were even a mere and unconditional promise of eternal life, without the condition of keeping the commandments of God."846) Calvinists and Synergists are equally firm in emphasizing the conditional nature of the gospel through human performance. Calvinist Charles Hodge says of the gospel, "Being a proclamation of the terms on which God is willing to save sinners, and an exhibition of the duty of fallen men in relation to that plan, it of necessity binds all those who are in the condition which the plan contemplates. It is in this respect analogous to the moral law." The same: "This general call of the Gospel" is "a general amnesty on certain conditions."847) Theodor Zahn, a recent synergist, writes thus848) of the forgiveness of sins through the
846) Sessio IV, can. 20: quasi evangelium sit nuda et absoluta promissio vitae aeternae sine conditione observationis mandatorum.
847) Systematic Theol., II, 642 sq.
848) In the Commentary on John 20:23.
239 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 202-203]
Gospel: "The gospel … proclaims to men a general amnesty of God and offers them the remission of their guilt of sin on the part of God, but does this from the outset and always only under the condition of the μετάνοια and that is, repentant faith of the hearers. But since repentant faith, like sinning, which as guilt burdens man, is a personal conduct against God ..., the remission of sins offered by the preachers of the Gospel, in spite of the universality of God's and Jesus' intention of salvation, also applies from the outset not to all, but … always only to some men, namely, to those who are willing to fulfill the condition set." Other synergists give the name facultas se applicandi ad gratiam, self-decision, personal self-setting, necessary point of connection in man, receptivity to the gospel, etc., to the condition set. In short, Romanists, Calvinists, and Synergists agree in allowing the promise of the gospel to be conditioned by human performance, that is, in turning the gospel into works doctrine. The Calvinists, to be sure, maintain very firmly that they teach an immediately and irresistibly wrought regeneration precisely for the purpose of thus excluding from the outset all human cooperation in the attainment of salvation. We have also seen that with this decisive assertion they make an impression on newer historians of dogma.849) But just as decidedly, we must repeat that there is a self-deception here. Since the immediate spiritual effect is not a reality but a human imagination, the immediate spiritual effect actually and in every concrete case comes down to a production out of one's own ego, that is, to work-driving and work-teaching, as in the case of the Romanists and Synergists.
Therefore, it is not an accurate representation of the real state of affairs when the difference between Reformed and Lutherans is determined to the effect that the former teach only an announcement, the latter a forgiveness of sins through the gospel or absolution. In fact, the Reformed also teach no announcement of the forgiveness of sins, but only a proclamation of conditions by the fulfillment of which man turns to himself for the forgiveness of sins. A factual right to the expression "announcement of the forgiveness of sins"
849) p. 200.
240 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 203-204]
only the Lutherans have, who teach and hold that forgiveness of sins is available to all men without exception through Christ's vicarious satisfaction, and that therefore the gospel offers and promises forgiveness of sins to all men without exception, regardless of their subjective condition. The dogmatist, whether he stands in the Lutheran or Reformed camp, owes it to his hearers, respectively his readers, to clear up all misleading terminologies as far as possible.