Augustine, Luther, and the Formation of the Teaching on the Two Kingdoms

It will be remembered that I believe there needs to be a clear distinction made between a spatial understanding and temporal (by temporal, I don't mean worldly or transient but "of or relating to time") understanding of the two kingdoms. I think there is a general confusion between these two within the Lutheran understanding that leads to undesirable consequences. The confusion in the Lutheran church stems unfortunately from the work of Luther in this area. While Luther certainly is to be praised for the reemergence of this teaching which had been essentially dead and confounded since Augustine, he himself can address this issue with conflicting positions.

Indeed, a confusion can be seen beginning with Augustine, from whom Luther's thought is indebted. The problem with Augustine's construction is to be found in his categorization of who is "in" the kingdom of God and who is in the kingdom of the world. The Church Invisible is the kingdom of God, those who are subjects of Christ, and not subjects of the Devil, of whom the rest of the world is enslaved, thus being the kingdom of the world. In Augustine, therefore, we see a purely temporal understanding of the two kingdoms; it lacks Luther's clear explication of the Christian's role in "secular" society. Augustine, it can be said, was concerned with the who and not with the what; he is concerned with whether we are ruled by a love for the world or by a love for God, he is not concerned, so much, with the what, a la "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's" (Matt. 22:21). For this, that is, the what, we are indebted to Luther. Therefore, under my construction, the temporal understanding of the two kingdoms is concerned with who one is ruled by; The spatial understanding of the two kingdoms tells us what we are to render unto God and what we are to render unto Caesar based on "where" we are. One is temporally defined under lordship--we were at one time were ruled by sin, death, and the devil, at another by God--, the other is spatially defined by what our role is in creation--service to neighbor, obedience to superiors, stewardship of creation, etc.

Augustine focuses on the temporal and not the spatial. But even Augustine's understanding of the temporal is not quite correct. Augustine separated the kingdoms by whole individuals--this individual is ruled by worldly love, this individual by love of God. This, though, is not a the Scriptural depiction. Paul paints a much more complex situation seated in his understanding of the spirit and the flesh (Rom. 7). A correct understanding of the spiritual kingdom has to admit an already/not yet situation; in faith we are connected with the completion of our hope (in spe)--it is eschatologically determined--, while our state as it is now (in re) admits degrees, it is a continuing battle between flesh and spirit. Augustine has the ethical basis of the two kingdoms, the iustitia, but does not admit degrees, thus assurance of being in the kingdom of God rests on whether one feels they are righteous or not; the Lutheran understanding rests on the assurance of the Word of God, on the righteousness of Christ, the iustitia Christi. A proper understanding of the temporal aspect of the kingdom of God rests on the Word of God, in faith (justification), which is our entrance into and assurance of our status in the kingdom, and in what faith apprehends (the Holy Spirit and sanctification), because God rules through his Word (Cf. John 18:36-37). For this focus on the Word of God being the basis of the kingdom of God, we are also indebted to Luther.

Augustine's purely temporal understanding of the two kingdoms was highly dialectical, separating Christians from the rest of secular society. While Augustine could praise secular society to an extent for the limited good it could accomplish, overall, he aided in fostering a view that brought into question the Christian's role in the wider society. In the early formation of Luther's position on the two kingdoms, we see the influence Augustine's thought had on him. This is what William Lazareth says about Luther's early position:

"For the first half of the 1520s, [Luther's] early dualistic views on God's twofold rule (Regimente) of unbelievers with the law and believers with the gospel were coextensively incorporated within this cosmic cleavage. As in Augustine, the unfortunate societal result in the early Luther's theological ethic was a bifurcated humanity: (1) in the temporal kingdom, there was the law's realm of Satan, the fallen world, sin, death, and the temporal sword of Caesar; (2) in the spiritual kingdom, there was the gospel's realm of God in Christ, the redeemed church, faith, new life, and the sword of the Spirit... In so sharply severing creation from redemption, it virtually identified Caesar's realm (negatively) with Satan." (Christians in Society: Luther, the Bible, and Social Ethics (Minneapolis, Minn: Fortress Press, 2001), 139.)

What Luther's early position neglected was that Christians were not only ruled by the gospel. but also by the law, due to the flesh. Without acknowledging this, Luther unintentionally set Christians apart from the rest of society; the Christian had no need for the institutions of society nor no place within those institutions because they were ruled by the gospel. It was the societal problems going around Luther that gave him a more nuanced and mature approach to the two kingdoms. This is what Lazareth has to say:

"By the mid-1520s, however, Luther began to benefit from deepened scriptural study of both theological and social ethics. God's dialectical two governments increasingly interpreted the world's dualistic two kingdoms in such biblically based studies as Temporal Authority (1523), Sermons on Exodus (1524-27), Whether Soldiers, Too, Can be Saved (1526), climaxing in his Sermons (1530-32) and Commentary on Matthew 5-7 (1532).

"This exegetical work was prompted not least by the socially isolated, former monk/s unprecedented public challenges (often now experienced first hand): rulers' piety and profligacy, knights' uprising, free-church iconoclasm, limited youth education, competitive trade and usury, emptying of monastic cloisters, peasants' rebellions, sectarian theocratic romanticism, and threatened wars against the Turks-- in short, the disintegration of medieval feudalism within an institutionally integrated Western Christendom." (Lazareth, 139)

It was these challenges, not to mention Rome's abuse of the two swords, that forced Luther to make it explicitly clear what it meant to be servant, father, priest, prince. Luther placed this, often confusedly, into his understanding of the two kingdoms. So Luther's early work that focused on God's temporal twofold rule (Regimente) through law and gospel, was then connected with a spatial distinction of the two kingdoms (Reiche). At its best, Luther could make it clear that, insofar as one were spirit, one was ruled by the gospel, and insofar as one were flesh, one was ruled by the law; and further he could make it clear that, just because one was a Christian, this did not mean that he was separated from the world by a distinction of a secular ethic and a sacred ethic, rather Luther made it clear that God desired for Christians to serve neighbor through the secular institutions and also to exercise God's judgement through them. Here is a good example of how Luther could hold these two understandings-- one temporal, one spatial-- in a fruitful correlation:

"Here we must divide all the children of Adam and all mankind into two classes, the first belong to the kingdom (Reich) of God, the second to the kingdom of the world. Those who belong to the kingdom of God are all the true believers who are in Christ and under Christ...and the gospel of the kingdom...as Psalm 2:6 and all the Scripture says...All who are not Christians belong to the kingdom of he world and are under the law. There are few true believers, and still fewer who live a Christian life, who do not resist evil and indeed themselves do no evil. For this reason God has provided for them in a different environment beyond the Christian estate and the kingdom of God. He has subjected them to the sword so that, even if they would like to, they are unable to practice their wickedness.

"For this reason God has ordained two governments [rules] (Regimente): the spiritual, by which the Holy Spirit produces Christians and righteous people under Christ; and the temporal [worldly] which restrains the unchristian and wicked so that--no thanks to them--they are obliged to keep still and to maintain outward peace.

"One must carefully distinguish between these two governments (Regimente). Both must be permitted to remain; the one to produce righteousness the other to bring about external peace and to prevent evil deeds." LW 45:88-92 passim

While it is widely debated how and to what extent Luther distinguished God's twofold rule or government (Regimente) with the two kingdoms (Reiche), it seems clear that while he always saw them as related, he never equated them conceptually. Personally, I believe the more they are confused, the more trouble we get into. At Luther's worst, he can make it seem as if there were no rule of God through the gospel at all that takes shape in the wider society. In fact, he can talk, saying that in the one realm "nothing is known of Christ," but rather one is in subjection to the law and Caesar, and that in the other realm "nothing is known of law, conscience, or sword." Gods rule (Regimente) through the gospel that produces righteousness in the sphere of the world is left out, remaining only Caesar's, and by extension, God's rule through the law. This is where the spatial and the temporal get mixed up: Where we are determines how we are ruled, that is, because we are in the world, we are ruled by the law and Caesar. Thus the kingdom of God is relegated to the corner of my inwardness. Oswald Bayer depicts and criticizes one depiction by Erik Peterson of how this Christian inwardness is played out in Lutheranism:

"The new human is no grotesque caricature who spends his life in a darkened room, reciting with closed eyes, "I am justified by faith alone, I am justified by faith alone." By contrast, the passive righteousness of faith with its new relation to God and the self creates a new relation to all creatures, to the world, including a new perception of time and space." (Living by Faith: Justification and Sanctification, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003), 27.)

Unfortunately, this grotesque caricature is not without its basis as a reflection of Lutheran teaching, especially on the two kingdoms. We get this sort of impression from the following quote from Luther:

"As regards his own person, according to his life as a Christian, he is in subjection to no one but Christ, without any obligation either to the emperor or to any other man. But at least outwardly, according to his body and property, he is related by subjection and obligation to the emperor, inasmuch as he occupies some office or station in life or has a house and home, a wife and children; for all these are things that pertain to the emperor. Here he must necessarily do what he is told and what this outward life requires. If he has a house or a wife and children or servants and refuses to support them or, if need be, to protect them, he does wrong. It will not do for him to declare that he is a Christian and therefore has to forsake or relinquish everything. But he must be told: "Now you are under the emperor's control. Here your name is not "Christian," but "father," or "lord," or "prince." According to your own person you are a Christian, but in relation to your servant you are a different person." LW 21:109

While the main point is certainly true, the implication that, as to our "outward life" we are subject to the law, and that our Christianity is relegated to our "inner life," is an error. A proper understanding of participating in the kingdom of God does not ignore the world or relegate the kingdom to our inwardness, rather, it tells us who we are "of." While we are certainly subject to the emperor, we are subject to him through the providence of God, that is, through the God ordained structures of life in this world. We are not "of" the emperor or the world, but "of" God, though we may be "in the world" (Cf. John 17:15-18). Being "of" something, is to be subject to something; Christ tells us, though we may be in the world, we are not of the world, but of God. This at the same time neither denies the world and our place in it, nor does it demand a quietistic inwardness of our being Christian. This doesn't even necessarily change the shape of our life, rather it tells us who we are subject to.

Often times the Sermon on the Mount is set in antithesis to the reality of a sinful and fallen world to explain the need for the teaching of the distinction of the two kingdoms. Indeed, it is certainly true that we cannot suffer injustice, as commended in the Sermon on the Mount, at the expense of our neighbor. Luther tells us that to suffer injustice from our children, according to the Sermon on the Mount, and to not punish them is the equivalent of hatred of them. That means that to truly love them we must punish them. The explanation of this disjunction is not, therefore, a disjunction of evangelical love and civil law, but of different forms of the same love. Just as God has his proper work (opus proprium) of grace and love, so too does he have his alien work (opus alienum) of law and judgement, but this does not mean that God stops being love or stops being loving, but rather, his love takes on another form; "For whom the Lord loves, He disciplines" (Heb. 12:6). The law is given to prepare for the gospel: "So that the Law has become a trainer of us until Christ, that we might be justified by faith" (Gal. 3:24). So too, just as God, a Christian has his own alien work: "In a fallen and sinful world, Christian love will often have to do some strange and even dirty work (opus alienum) in order to protect the good and punish the wicked against the public assaults of Satan." (Lazareth, 166) This, then, does not mean that there is a disjointed ethic, along the lines of the two kingdoms, the one private--in accordance to the Sermon on the Mount-- the other public--often doing some "dirty work"; rather, it is the same ethic of love taking different forms, all stemming from love of God and love of neighbor. As William Lazareth writes: "Since both the gospel of love and the law of justice are complementary expressions of the same sovereign will of God, they are not to be perverted--as in some later forms of Lutheranism-- into just another ethical double standard that virtually divorces private and public morality." (Lazareth, 165)

From this we would see that participating in the kingdom of God does not exclude the activities of our "outward life," as Luther put it. Unfortunately, Luther at some times seems to affirm this, and at others to deny this, as in the previous quote. The consistent witness of the Book of Concord though, from both Luther and Melanchthon, affirms this "outward life" within the kingdom of God:

Luther:

"Thy kingdom come.
What does this mean?--Answer.
The kingdom of God comes indeed without our prayer, of itself; but we pray in this petition that it may come unto us also.
How is this done?--Answer.
When our heavenly Father gives us His Holy Spirit, so that by His grace we believe His holy Word and lead a godly life here in time and yonder in eternity." (Small Catechism, Lord's Prayer, Par. 6-8)

"But what is the kingdom of God? Answer: Nothing else than what we learned in the Creed, that God sent His Son Jesus Christ, our Lord, into the world to redeem and deliver us from the power of the devil, and to bring us to Himself, and to govern us as a King of righteousness, life, and salvation against sin, death, and an evil conscience, for which end He has also bestowed His Holy Ghost, who is to bring these things home to us by His holy Word, and to illumine and strengthen us in the faith by His power.

"Therefore we pray here in the first place that this may become effective with us, and that His name be so praised through the holy Word of God and a Christian life that both we who have accepted it may abide and daily grow therein, and that it may gain approbation and adherence among other people and proceed with power throughout the world, that many may find entrance into the Kingdom of Grace, be made partakers of redemption, being led thereto by the Holy Ghost, in order that thus we may all together remain forever in the one kingdom now begun.

"For the coming of God's Kingdom to us occurs in two ways; first, here in time through the Word and faith; and secondly, in eternity forever through revelation. Now we pray for both these things, that it may come to those who are not yet in it, and, by daily increase, to us who have received the same, and hereafter in eternal life. All this is nothing else than saying: Dear Father, we pray, give us first Thy Word, that the Gospel be preached properly throughout the world; and secondly, that it be received in faith, and work and live in us, so that through the Word and the power of the Holy Ghost Thy kingdom may prevail among us, and the kingdom of the devil be put down, that he may have no right or power over us, until at last it shall be utterly destroyed, and sin, death, and hell shall be exterminated, that we may live forever in perfect righteousness and blessedness." (Large Catechism, Lord's Prayer, Par. 51-54)

Melanchthon:

"This entire topic concerning the destruction between the kingdom of Christ and a political kingdom has been explained to advantage [to the remarkably great consolation of many consciences] in the literature of our writers, [namely] that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual [inasmuch as Christ governs by the Word and by preaching], to wit, beginning in the heart the knowledge of God, the fear of God and faith, eternal righteousness, and eternal life." (Apology Art. 16, Par. 54) (To read more on Melanchthon's treatment of the terms "spiritual" and "eternal righteousness," see this post)

"Virginity is recommended, but to those who have the gift, as has been said above. It is, however, a most pernicious error to hold that evangelical perfection lies in human traditions. For thus the monks even of the Mohammedans would be able to boast that they have evangelical perfection. Neither does it he in the observance of other things which are called adiaphora, but because the kingdom of God is righteousness and life in hearts, Rom. 14:17, perfection is growth in the fear of God, and in confidence in the mercy promised in Christ, and in devotion to one's calling; just as Paul also describes perfection 2 Cor. 3:18: We are changed from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. He does not say: We are continually receiving another hood, or other sandals, or other girdles. It is deplorable that in the Church such pharisaic, yea, Mohammedan expressions should be read and heard as, that the perfection of the Gospel, of the kingdom of Christ, which is eternal life, should be placed in these foolish observances of vestments and of similar trifles." (Apology Art. 27, Par. 27)

"For good works are to be done on account of God's command, likewise for the exercise of faith [as Paul says, Eph. 2:10: We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works], and on account of confession and giving of thanks. For these reasons good works ought necessarily to be done, which, although they are done in the flesh not as yet entirely renewed, that retards the movements of the Holy Ghost, and imparts some of its uncleanness, yet, on account of Christ, are holy, divine works, sacrifices, and acts pertaining to the government of Christ, who thus displays His kingdom before this world. For in these He sanctifies hearts and represses the devil, and, in order to retain the Gospel among men, openly opposes to the kingdom of the devil the confession of saints, and, in our weakness, declares His power... To disparage such works, the confession of doctrine, affliction, works of love, mortifications of the flesh, would be indeed to disparage the outward government of Christ's kingdom among men." (Apology Art. IV, "Love and the Fulfilling of the Law," Par. 68-72)

We see in these examples from the Book of Concord that the activity of God through the gospel is the activity of the kingdom of God that reintroduces us to our lives and our vocations. While the Confessors are certainly intimately aware of the confusion of the operation of the Church through the Word and the structures of society that uphold the law and outward peace, they do not put forth the opinion that our external lives are therefore an autonomous sphere within which the ministry of the Word stops its activity in the lives of believers and is replaced by the compulsion of the law. Rather they make it clear that the work of God through the Word, the kingdom of God, actively draws us back into our external lives and provides sanctifying power, and governs "us as a King of righteousness, life, and salvation against sin, death, and an evil conscience." In fact Melancthon can talk in this way, almost making the gospel sound like law: "These opinions greatly obscure the Gospel and the spiritual kingdom...For the Gospel...bids us obey [the State and family] as a divine ordinance, not only on account of punishment, but also on account of conscience." (Apology Art. 16, Par. 57)

It should be noted that, as far as the temporal understanding of the two kingdoms (Regimente) there is inherent with this an inseperable connection of the law with the kingdom of the world and the gospel with the kingdom of God; God rules the kingdom of the world through his law, and the kingdom of God through his gospel. Confusion comes in when we are determined spatially in the world and thus temporally under the rule of the law; a confusion of where we are and who or what we are ruled by. Because of this, the kingdom of God has no tangible role in the daily lives of believers, we participate in it only through faith in the Word, or as Ebeling puts it, "it remains a word-event," and then we enter our lives under the kingdom of the world, under the law. This is especially put forth by Gustaf Wingren who saw the first, or civil use of the law the primary function of the law; he will write: "To stress the doctrine of the first use of the Law means not only to affirm that the world belongs to God, but to reject any other religious interpretation of the world." (Creation and Law, trans. Ross Mackenzie (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1961), 160.) In my next post on this topic we, in light of what we have seen so far, will look at Wingren's work on creation, law, and vocation.

Melanchthon on "Spiritual Matters"

It will be remembered that Adolf Köberle believed Lutherans were especially drawn to either extreme of moralism or mysticism. I believe that we, especially in the LC-MS, have been drawing closer and closer to the side of moralism. Of this Köberle writes:

"There is another [error] that makes so little testimony of the Holy Ghost, Who quickeneth us, that we might think Christ had never risen and Pentecost had never happened. Here the new life appears as a purely transcendental thing, as a mere object of hope and as something quite beyond the possibility of attainment in our present historical situation." The Quest for Holiness, trans. John C. Mattes (Minneapolis, Minn: Augsburg Publishing House, 1938), viii

I think this is no more evident than in the recent resurgence of Luther's teaching of the two kinds of righteousness-- civil and imputed. While historically there are many things about this teaching that were important for correcting error, the claim of there being only civil and imputed righteousness is theologically incorrect. This teaching did make clear 1) The importance and validity of our daily callings (against man made acts of righteousness e.g., monasticism), and 2) the importance of leaving our horizontal righteousness out of the equation of our justification before God. It gave the ordinary man comfort in knowing that their calling as father, worker, etc., was important in God's eyes, and not inferior to other so-called "higher callings." It also let people know that their status as children of God depended on the promises of God, not on what they did.

While imputed righteousness continues to stand unpolluted in the Lutheran Church, the thought that civil righteousness, if properly understood, constitutes the only other righteousness in the life of the believer is an error.

For those who might not be as conversant in Lutheran terminology, this is how the Lutheran Confessions define civil righteousness:

"We maintain that God requires the righteousness of reason [civil righteousness] and that because of God's command honorable works prescribed in the Decalogue are necessary according to [Gal. 3:24]: "The law was our disciplinarian"; and [1 Tim. 1:9]: "The law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient." God wants those who live according to the flesh to be restrained by such civil discipline, and to preserve it he has given laws, learning, teaching, governments, and penalties." (Kolb/Wengert Apology Art. IV, Par. 22)

Of the two kinds of righteousness, the proponents argue, "Righteousness has to do with meeting God’s “design specifications” for being a human creature and fulfilling the purpose for which God created us. It has to do with being fully human, that is, as God intended us to be when He created us." (Charles Arand and Joel Biermann, "Why the Two Kinds of Righteousness?" Concordia Journal 33, no. 2 (2007), 118.) It is said that imputed righteousness defines our humanity as to our vertical relationship before God, and that civil righteousness defines our humanity as to our horizontal relationship before the world. These two kinds of righteousness, then, are what make us "fully human." If civil righteousness, as defined in the Apology above, is what defines my being human in the world, then this is a very sad theology.

It is exactly these broad theological claims that I believe are reckless and dangerous in this new approach to Lutheran theology. The attempt to adopt this as a theological framework for a person's whole existence is distressing.

Not only does it promote an incorrect understanding of the law, human existence, the activity of God and the activity of man, and any real understanding of sanctification, it is also a mass re-working of the Lutheran theological tradition. Those who are promoting this approach to Lutheran theology have turned to the Confessions and the early Lutheran theological tradition to bolster the two kinds of righteousness as "a Wittenberg way of thinking."

I have recently been working at examining the historical claims of the two kinds of righteousness and have been able to find little support for the claim that the Confessions and early Lutheran church adopted the teaching of the two kinds of righteousness as a vital part of their teaching (if at all). The proponents themselves admit that it does not take on an explicit presence in the Confessions and early Lutheran Church, and so, say that it functioned more as a presupposition. Robert Kolb writes:

"This distinction of two kinds of righteousness functioned as a presupposition for all that Luther said about the human being and the human relationship with God. As a presupposition rather than a dogmatic topic in itself, it did not become a standard part of the list of teachings in Lutheran dogmatics because the form for presenting Biblical teaching that Philip Melanchthon bequeathed his students did not have a place for the presentation of presuppositions. Using the best linguistic theories of their time, those of the Biblical humanists, Melanchthon adapted rhetorical forms from that movement, chief among them the organization of material to be taught in categories or topics, called loci communes (commonplaces) in the academic Latin of his day. In many details the Wittenberg theologians left behind the model of Peter Lombard’s Sententiae, which had provided the configuration for Western public rendering of the Biblical message since the eleventh century (though Lombard’s outline of topics did shape
Melanchthon’s organization of his own topics to some extent). However, Melanchthon’s second and third editions of the Loci did follow Lombard’s model in simply beginning with the topic, “On God.” The communication theory of the time did not recognize any need for laying down the conceptual framework of its way of thinking–although in at least one preface to the work, Melanchthon did sketch the framework of distinguishing Law and Gospel.

"Nonetheless, within the Wittenberg practice of theology there is a place for modern interpreters to make certain that its presuppositional framework is made clear. The Wittenberg team sometimes called the whole of Biblical teaching a corpus doctrinae, a “body of doctrine,” and the individual topics were members, or articuli, of that body. Even though the Wittenberg theologians did not have a way to describe it, it is true that presuppositions run like a nervous system or a circulatory system through the entire body, shaping a number of the specific topics. Therefore, we can recognize the critical role of the distinction of two kinds of righteousness— the two dimensions of humanity—as a critical anthropological presupposition for the exposition and proclamation of a number of topics of Biblical teaching even if this is not made explicitly clear in the tradition." ("God and His Human Creatures in Luther's Sermons on Genesis: The Reformer's Early Use of His Distinction of Two Kinds of Righteousness" Concordia Journal 33, no. 2 (2007), 172-173.)

Historically speaking, the current presence of the two kinds of righteousness in Lutheran theology is more a product of the Luther Renaissance's emphasis on Luther's dialectical theology-- law/gospel, two kingdoms, two kinds of righteousness-- than it is of any sustained Lutheran acceptance of Luther's two kinds of righteousness. The fact is, the Lutheran Confessions nor early Lutheran Orthodoxy promoted this teaching, and it has never been a part of our dogmatic tradition. Francis Pieper does not address the claim of there being two kinds of righteousness, and emphasises that there needs to be a distinction between unregenerate civil righteousness and Christian righteousness (something that civil righteousness does not admit).

The proponents of this teaching claim that the Confessions clearly support and make the distinction between the two kinds of righteousness. There are numerous terms that the Confessors use in connection with "righteousness," the proponents of this teaching have taken all of them and placed them into the two camps; Charles Arand writes:

"Melanchthon variously describes this as the righteousness of reason (iustitia rationis), the righteousness of the law (iustitia legis), civil righteousness (iustitia civilis), one’s own righteousness (iustitia propria), carnal righteousness (iustitia carnis), righteousness of works (iustitia operum) and philosophical righteousness. The second is a Christian righteousness that we receive by faith’s apprehension of the promise of Christ. Melanchthon variously expresses this as spiritual righteousness (iustitia spiritualis), inner righteousness, eternal righteousness (iustitia aeterna), the righteousness of faith (iustitia fidei), the righteousness of the gospel (iustitia evangelii); Christian righteousness (iustitia christiana); righteousness of God (iustitia Dei), and the righteousness of the heart (iustitia cordis)." ("Two Kinds of Righteousness as a Framework for Law and Gospel in the Apology" Lutheran Quarterly 15, no. 4 (2001), 420.)

While the terms in the first grouping are essentially synonymous, there are various terms in the second group that are not. In this post I want to address the meaning that spiritual righteousness has within the Augsburg Confession and the Apology of the Augsburg Confession. While I have briefly touched on this in an earlier post, this will be a more comprehensive look at, specifically, the way the term "spiritual" is used and understood by Melanchthon.

A not unimportant point to start is to look again at a quote from Martin Chemnitz' Loci Theologici:

"We speak of spiritual powers or activities because in Rom. 7:14 the Law is described as "spiritual." That is, it is not content with certain outward, civil activities which the unregenerate flesh can perform. Rather, the Law demands such impulses and activities as cannot be accomplished without the working of the Holy Spirit. These the flesh cannot perform, for the flesh hinders the Holy Spirit in his work, not only by evil desires (Rom. 7:8), but also by the wisdom of the flesh (Rom. 8:7). Frequently when we speak of spiritual impulses, we think of the knowledge, fear, faith, and love of God. For it is characteristic of these affections that they cannot be produced by the flesh. However, in the case of other virtues, such as temperance, chastity, bravery, freedom, etc., the distinction is not so clear; even human reason has such virtues. But we must distinguish on the basis of causes and goals. For example, the chastity of Joseph had a different cause from that of Scipio." (In The Doctrine of Man in Classical Lutheran Theology, ed. Herman A. Preus and Edmund Smits (Minneapolis, Minn: Augsburg Publishing House, 1962), 95.)

The reason this is significant is because 1) Chemnitz' Loci Theologici is based on and taken from Melanchthon's Loci Communes and thus important for understanding Melanchthon's mindset(notice the inclusive language; Chemnitz is talking of the Lutheran theological tradition), and 2) what Chemnitz says is clearly borne out over and over again in the AC and Ap.

We see this language of Chemnitz--"Frequently when we speak of spiritual impulses, we think of the knowledge, fear, faith, and love of God."--repeated over and over again in the AC and Ap:

"Therefore, although we concede to free will the liberty and power to perform the outward works of the Law, yet we do not ascribe to free will these spiritual matters, namely, truly to fear God, truly to believe God, truly to be confident and hold that God regards us, hears us, forgives us, etc." (Tappert, Apology Art. XVIII, Par. 73)

"The kingdom of Christ is spiritual [inasmuch as Christ governs by the Word and by preaching], to wit, beginning in the heart the knowledge of God, the fear of God and faith, eternal righteousness, and eternal life; meanwhile it permits us outwardly to use legitimate political ordinances of every nation in which we live." (Tappert, Apology Art. XVI, Par. 54)

"If we follow this, monasticism will be no more a state of perfection than the life of a farmer or mechanic. For these are also, states in which to acquire perfection. For all men, in every vocation, ought to seek perfection, that is, to grow in the fear of God, in faith, in love towards one's neighbor, and similar spiritual virtues." (Tappert, Apology Art. XXVII, Par. 37)

"We are speaking of true, i.e., of spiritual unity [we say that those are one harmonious Church who believe in one Christ; who have one Gospel, one Spirit, one faith, the same Sacraments; and we are speaking, therefore, of spiritual unity], without which faith in the heart, or righteousness of heart before God, cannot exist. For this we say that similarity of human rites, whether universal or particular, is not necessary, because the righteousness of faith is not a righteousness bound to certain traditions [outward ceremonies of human ordinances] as the righteousness of the Law was bound to the Mosaic ceremonies, because this righteousness of the heart is a matter that quickens the heart. To this quickening, human traditions, whether they be universal or particular, contribute nothing; neither are they effects of the Holy Ghost, as are chastity, patience, the fear of God, love to one's neighbor, and the works, of love." (Tappert, Apology Art. VII and VIII, Par. 31)

"And such are the sacrifices of the New Testament, as Peter teaches, 1 Pet. 2, 5: An holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices. Spiritual sacrifices, however, are contrasted not only with those of cattle, but even with human works offered ex opere operato, because spiritual refers to the movements of the Holy Ghost in us. Paul teaches the same thing Rom. 12, 1: Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable, which is your reasonable service. Reasonable service signifies, however, a service in which God is known, and apprehended by the mind, as happens in the movements of fear and trust towards God." (Tappert, Apology Art. XXIV, Par. 26)

From these quotes alone we see that Melanchthon, in using the term "spiritual," is clearly trying to distinguish between the mere outward act, whether in accordance with the law or even in the forms of worship, and the heart in which these things are done. Also of note is that Melanchthon does not just mean a vertical fear/love/trust/faith in God but also a horizontal love of neighbor, chastity, patience, etc. Also in these quotes we see brought into question such terms as eternal righteousness and righteousness of the heart, namely, Melanchthon makes it clear that these righteousness' are a righteousness that is worked in the heart of the believer, therefore not a righteousness that is declared and imputed to us from outside. If this were otherwise it would completely obscure the objective nature of the divine verdict of not guilty, making it a subjective quality in the heart of man.

Another interesting look into the way Melanchthon made a distinction between the external doing of the law and the internal motivation, without which we truly don't understand the law, is his understanding of 2 Cor. 3. We will first show how it is understood in the Formula of Concord, which Chemnitz co-authored and which is, no doubt, informed by Melanchthon's interpretation:

"For since the mere preaching of the Law, without Christ, either makes presumptuous men, who imagine that they can fulfil the Law by outward works, or forces them utterly to despair, Christ takes the Law into His hands, and explains it spiritually, Matt. 5, 21ff ; Rom. 7, 14 and 1, 18, and thus reveals His wrath from heaven upon all sinners, and shows how great it is; whereby they are directed to the Law, and from it first learn to know their sins aright—a knowledge which Moses never could extort from them. For as the apostle testifies, 2 Cor. 3, 14f, even though Moses is read, yet the veil which he put over his face is never lifted, so that they cannot understand the Law spiritually, and how great things it requires of us, and how severely it curses and condemns us because we cannot observe or fulfil it. Nevertheless, when it shalt turn to the Lord, the veil shalt be taken away, 2 Cor. 3, 16." (Tappert, Solid Declaration Art. V, Par. 10)

In the Apology, Melanchthon similarly writes:

"But Christ was given for this purpose, namely, that for His sake there might be bestowed on us the remission of sins, and the Holy Ghost to bring forth in us new and eternal life, and eternal righteousness [to manifest Christ in our hearts, as it is written John 16, 15: He shall take of the things of Mine, and show them unto you. Likewise, He works also other gifts, love, thanksgiving charity, patience, etc.]. Wherefore the Law cannot be truly kept unless the Holy Ghost be received through faith. Accordingly, Paul says that the Law is established by faith, and not made void; because the Law can only then be thus kept when the Holy Ghost is given. And Paul teaches 2 Cor. 3, 15 sq., the veil that covered the face of Moses cannot be removed except by faith in Christ, by which the Holy Ghost is received. For he speaks thus: But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. Paul understands by the veil the human opinion concerning the entire Law, the Decalog and the ceremonies, namely, that hypocrites think that external and civil works satisfy the Law of God, and that sacrifices and observances justify before God ex opere operato. But then this veil is removed from us, i.e., we are freed from this error when God shows to our hearts our uncleanness and the heinousness of sin. Then, for the first time, we see that we are far from fulfilling the Law. Then we learn to know how flesh, in security and indifference, does not fear God, and is not fully certain that we are regarded by God, but imagines that men are born and die by chance. Then we experience that we do not believe that God forgives and hears us. But when, on hearing the Gospel and the remission of sins, we are consoled by faith, we receive the Holy Ghost so that now we are able to think aright concerning God, and to fear and believe God, etc. From these facts it is apparent that the Law cannot be kept without Christ and the Holy Ghost." (Tappert, Art. IV, Par. 11-14)

There are notable similarities between these two quotes and between them and the previous quotes. 1) Though Melanchthon does not use the term spiritual, both of these quotes are intent on distinguishing between the mere external/civil act and the heart in which the act is done, and 2) they both show the full depth of the law that accuses us not only because we do not fulfill the external act, but also because we do not do the external act in faith and love. Likewise, though Melanchthon does not use the term "spiritual," he does repeat much of the language that we saw in the previous quotes-- "love, thanksgiving charity, patience, etc.," "[the flesh] does not fear God, and is not fully certain that we are regarded by God," "we experience that we do not believe that God forgives and hears us," and "so that now we are able to think aright concerning God, and to fear and believe God, etc."; this is all terminology straight out of the previous quotes we read above concerning "spiritual matters" (see especially, quoted above, Apology Art. XVIII, Par. 73). Also we hear repeated the term "eternal righteousness" which again is shown as a quality worked in the heart (thus not imputed righteousness) and is also connected with "love, thanksgiving charity, patience, etc."

The most important aspect of Melanchthon's and the Formula of Concord's interpretation of 2 Cor. 3 concerns "the full depth of the law." That is, only when we see the law as spiritual do we realize that the law commands not only the civil/external doing of the law but also the heart and motivation in which these acts are done. This is one of the biggest problems with seeing the regenerate's horizontal righteousness as being ideally "civil righteousness" (which even the unregenerate can fulfill). If we promote that in our horizontal life we are expected to fulfill only the external doing of the law we are lying to our congregations. We are expected not only to fulfill the external act but we are also expected to do this with love/fear/trust in God and love for neighbor. By promoting the two kinds of righteousness, those being civil and imputed, we emasculate the law, making it merely a domesticated godliness of: "avoid gross expressions of sins, mind your vocations, do your best." It is a watered down moralism, but moralism nonetheless.

Melanchthon tellingly, in Love and the Fulfilling of the Law, writes that what God expects of us is not only the external doing but also that which is internal, that is, what is spiritual:

"We, therefore, profess that it is necessary that the Law be begun in us, and that it be observed continually more and more. And at the same time we comprehend both spiritual movements and external good works [the good heart within and works without]. Therefore the adversaries falsely charge against us that our theologians do not teach good works while they not only require these, but also show how they can be done [that the heart must enter into these works, lest they be mere, lifeless, cold works of hypocrites]. The result convicts hypocrites, who by their own powers endeavor to fulfil the Law, that they cannot accomplish what they attempt. [For are they free from hatred, envy, strife, anger, wrath, avarice, adultery, etc.? Why, these vices were nowhere greater than in the cloisters and sacred institutes.] For human nature is far too weak to be able by its own powers to resist the devil, who holds as captives all who have not been freed through faith. There is need of the power of Christ against the devil, namely, that, inasmuch as we know that for Christ's sake we are heard, and have the promise, we may pray for the governance and defense of the Holy Ghost, that we may neither be deceived and err, nor be impelled to undertake anything contrary to God's will. [Otherwise we should, every hour, fall into error and abominable vices.] Just as Ps. 68, 18 teaches: Thou hast led captivity captive; Thou hast received gifts for man. For Christ has overcome the devil, and has given to us the promise and the Holy Ghost, in order that, by divine aid, we ourselves also may overcome. And 1 John 3, 8: For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. Again, we teach not only how the Law can be observed, but also how God is pleased if anything be done, namely, not because we render satisfaction to the Law, but because we are in Christ, as we shall say after a little. It is, therefore, manifest that we require good works. Yea, we add also this, that it is impossible for love to God, even though it be small, to be sundered from faith, because through Christ we come to the Father, and the remission of sins having been received, we now are truly certain that we have a God, i.e., that God cares for us; we call upon Him, we give Him thanks, we fear Him, we love Him as 1 John 4, 19 teaches: We love Him, because He first loved us, namely, because He gave His Son for us, and forgave us our sins. Thus he indicates that faith precedes and love follows. Likewise the faith of which we speak exists in repentance, i.e., it is conceived in the terrors of conscience, which feels the wrath of God against our sins, and seeks the remission of sins, and to be freed from sin. And in such terrors and other afflictions this faith ought to grow and be strengthened. Wherefore it cannot exist in those who live according to the flesh who are delighted by their own lusts and obey them. Accordingly, Paul says, Rom. 8, 1: There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. So, too 8, 12. 13: We are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye, through the Spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. Wherefore, the faith which receives remission of sins in a heart terrified and fleeing from sin does not remain in those who obey their desires, neither does it coexist with mortal sin." (Tappert, Apology Art IV, Par. 15-23)

This quote is undeniably one of the most important statements on the Lutheran understanding of sanctification. Melanchthon, against the claims of Rome, tells us that, not only do the Churches of the Augsburg Confession teach and promote good works, but also they teach what good works actually are--both internal motivation and external action-- and unlike Rome inform their congregations how these works are fulfilled, namely that we cannot do them, but that through the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit, we can. Melanchthon is expressly arguing against Rome who only talked about civil righteousness, the external doing of the action without the aid of God. Against this Melanchthon writes:

"Therefore the adversaries falsely charge against us that our theologians do not teach good works while they not only require these, but also show how they can be done [that the heart must enter into these works, lest they be mere, lifeless, cold works of hypocrites]. The result convicts hypocrites, who by their own powers endeavor to fulfil the Law, that they cannot accomplish what they attempt...For human nature is far too weak to be able by its own powers to resist the devil, who holds as captives all who have not been freed through faith. There is need of the power of Christ against the devil, namely, that, inasmuch as we know that for Christ's sake we are heard, and have the promise, we may pray for the governance and defense of the Holy Ghost, that we may neither be deceived and err, nor be impelled to undertake anything contrary to God's will."

Melanchthon is arguing against exactly what many Lutherans are now trying to promote. Listen to how the two kinds of righteousness are defined: Imputed: "Thus, before God (coram Deo) we are entirely passive, and so our righteousness is passive, not active." ("Why Two Kinds of Righteousness?" 119) Civil: "And so in the eyes of the world (coram mundo) our righteousness is ever active, never passive." (120) Melanchthon calls those "who by their own powers endeavor to fulfil the Law," "hypocrites." Thus the activity and agency of God are completely expelled from our horizontal lives which become "ever active, never passive." We have thus turned back to Rome. While we might not say, as Rome would have, that these civil works avail before God, we show by this blatant rejection of the agency of God in our daily lives that we no longer have any real understanding of sanctification. Sanctification becomes, as in the words of Adolf Köberle, "a purely transcendental thing... a mere object of hope and... something quite beyond the possibility of attainment in our present historical situation."

Therefore, from these examples of how Melanchthon understood "spiritual matters" (Apology Art. XVIII, Par. 73; Apology Art. XVI, Par. 54; Apology Art. XXVII, Par. 37; Apology Art. VII and VIII, Par. 31; Apology Art. XXIV, Par. 26; Apology Art IV, Par. 15-23), we can now begin to understand the terminology of "spiritual righteousness" We read the two occations of this terminology:

"Of Free Will they teach that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2:14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received through the Word. These things are said in as many words by Augustine in his Hypognosticon, Book III: We grant that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is thereby capable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to God, but only in works of this life, whether good or evil. "Good" I call those works which spring from the good in nature, such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have a friend, to clothe oneself, to build a house, to marry a wife, to raise cattle, to learn divers useful arts, or whatsoever good pertains to this life. For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of God; yea, of Him and through Him they are and have their being. "Evil" I call such works as willing to worship an idol, to commit murder, etc. They condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching "the substance of the act." For, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc." (Tappert, Augsburg Confession Art. XVIII, Par. 1-8)

Of note is the contrast between spiritual righteousness and civil righteousness; the terminology "righteousness of God" (expressed here as something that is "worked") which here is not synonymous with its usual meaning as imputed righteousness; that it is a righteousness that is "is wrought in the heart," thus not being imputed righteousness; it cannot be worked by human nature alone, but rather, the Holy Spirit is needed; the external "doing" is contrasted with the "inward motions" which include (both vertical and horizontal) "the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc." (note the similar language in what was quoted above, namely, Apology Art. XVIII, Par. 73; Apology Art. VII and VIII, Par. 31).

The second example is much like the first:

"Therefore, although we concede to free will the liberty and power to perform the outward works of the Law, yet we do not ascribe to free will these spiritual matters, namely, truly to fear God, truly to believe God, truly to be confident and hold that God regards us, hears us, forgives us, etc. These are the true works of the First Table, which the heart cannot render without the Holy Ghost, as Paul says, 1 Cor. 2, 14: The natural man, i.e., man using only natural strength, receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God. (That is, a person who is not enlightened by the Spirit of God does not, by his natural reason, receive any thing of God's will and divine matters.] And this can be decided if men consider what their hearts believe concerning God's will, whether they are truly confident that they are regarded and heard by God. Even for saints to retain this faith [and, as Peter says (1 Pet. 1, 8), to risk and commit himself entirely to God, whom he does not see, to love Christ, and esteem Him highly, whom he does not see] is difficult, so far is it from existing in the godless. But it is conceived, as we have said above, when terrified hearts hear the Gospel and receive consolation [when we are born anew of the Holy Ghost].

"Therefore such a distribution is of advantage in which civil righteousness is ascribed to the free will and spiritual righteousness to the governing of the Holy Ghost in the regenerate. For thus the outward discipline is retained, because all men ought to know equally, both that God requires this civil righteousness [God will not tolerate indecent wild, reckless conduct], and that, in a measure, we can afford it. And yet a distinction is shown between human and spiritual righteousness, between philosophical doctrine and the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, and it can be understood for what there is need of the Holy Ghost. Nor has this distribution been invented by us, but Scripture most clearly teaches it. Augustine also treats of it, and recently it has been well treated of by William of Paris, but it has been wickedly suppressed by those who have dreamt that men can obey God's Law without the Holy Ghost, but that the Holy Ghost is given in order that, in addition, it may be considered meritorious." (Tappert, Apology Art. XVIII, Par. 73-76)

Again, of note is the contrast between the external act and the spiritual motivation; the repetition of much of the same language we have heard throughout: "truly to fear God, truly to believe God, truly to be confident and hold that God regards us, hears us, forgives us, etc.," "whether they are truly confident that they are regarded and heard by God," "it has been wickedly suppressed by those who have dreamt that men can obey God's Law without the Holy Ghost"; Melanchthon makes it clear that spiritual righteousness has to do with "the governing of the Holy Ghost in the regenerate," thus not an imputation from without. Likewise Melanchthon severely relegates the role of civil righteousness to preventing the gross expression of "indecent wild, reckless conduct" thus correlating it to the 1st, or civil use of the law which should never become a way of life.

Far from the sterile and undynamic presentation of the two kinds of righteousness, this look into what Melanchthon saw as spiritual tells us how interconnected the vertical and horizontal are; the continuous refrain of love/fear/trust/knowledge/prayer/hope in God and confidence that God hears and forgives us, the continuous refrain of the need for the power of Christ and of the Holy Spirit all tell us how interconnected the vertical is with the horizontal. None of this Confessional teaching will be retained if we see our horizontal lives as being "ever active, never passive."

The Third Use of the Law

This is a section out of my senior thesis on the broader topic of sanctification (in the context of law and gospel).

I think it is a fresh look at the text of Article VI. As I note in the document, the tone that the modern debate has taken is based on how it began in the 60's and 70's. That is, it was started with the focus on the authority of Scripture and the continued relevence of the law. I don't think that we have gotten much past this over the last 4 or 5 decades. What I try and do is get at the spirit Article VI is written in.

It seems that people engaging in the debate, who uphold the third use, either focus on 1) "Like a stubborn recalcitrant donkey," or 2) the prevalent aspects of the new man, the fruit of the Spirit, taking delight in the law, the renewing of the mind, and the leading and teaching of the Holy Spirit. That is, they either focus on the law or the gospel, (very) indirectly trying to answer whether the third use is law or gospel.

The answer to this largely depends whether we consider those passages that describe the teaching and instruction in the law (not the Holy Spirit's teaching/instruction, mind you) as being discriptive of the third use, or not (namely par. 9, 21, and 24). The highly negative discription in these sections, including the concepts of threats and punishments, leads me to believe that they are not describing the third use in these sections. I think the proof of this (yes, I think it is pretty pursuasive) lies in the conclusion of Article VI where we are told this type of instruction in the law is not only to be used with Christians but also with non-Christians. This, in spite of the fact that the very definition of the third use tells us that it is a function of the law exclusive to Christians.

This also supports a common complaint against talk of the third use, that is, where we are frequently reminded that we do not "use" the third use, but the Holy Spirit (c.f. par. 3). Therefore, it is not a function of the external preaching and teaching (that par. 9, 21, and 24 are about), but the internal preaching, teaching, and guiding of the Holy Spirit.

Also of note is the language of the definition of the third use in the Solid Declaration: "[The law] is also used when those who have been born anew through God's Spirit, converted to the Lord, and had the veil of Moses removed from them live and walk in the law." Now compare this to how Article VI describes the inner man (not the flesh, mind you), namely they say that he is "not under the law but in the law; they live and walk in the law of the Lord and yet do nothing because of the compulsion of the law." (par. 18) This is obviously not a coincidence. Therefore, when we are talking about the third use, we are not talking about the flesh that is under the law, but the inner man who is not under the law.

The purpose of writing Article VI was to show why the law should continue to be preached and taught in the Churches. This includes all three uses, which I mention in my paper. Where the third use comes in, is that they are saying that because the Holy Spirit teaches and guides the inner, renewed man, the Christian therefore needs to know the law, thus he needs the external preaching and teaching of the law, which can include threats and punishments (the 1st and 2nd uses). The actual function (uti) itself, though, is reflective of the gracious work of God as the Holy Spirit renews our hearts and minds so that we delight in and gladly engage in the the will of God.

Obviously this is a very different interpretation then most have given, and many might not agree with it. I probably have read Article VI a few dozen times, and have read dozens of articles on the matter, including Murray's book, and I can't shake these arguments I have given. Maybe you can shake them; I'd love to hear peoples' thoughts.

Sorry that the introduction is so long, but I think these thoughts will help you read and understand the paper.

Third Use of the Law - Upload a Document to Scribd

The Will in Conversion

From all the previous it may be asked, "If, on the one hand, the entirely corrupted nature of man is in rebellion to God, and thus the will is completely incapable of choosing the good, and on the other, we are to maintain that the will is never forced to do that which it does not will, how is man converted?" And, "Doesn't it stand, because the unregenerate man only fights against God, that God converts man by force, that is, against his will?"

These are some of the questions that were arising in the Lutheran Church before (and after) the publication of the Formula of Concord.

This is what led Melanchthon to abandon a monergistic understanding of conversion for a synergistic one. He was trying to answer the question: "why are some saved and some not saved." He was not able to reconcile a monergistic understanding of conversion without saying at the same time that God predestines some to be saved and some to damnation. As he saw it, if there is one force, the Holy Spirit working through the Word, fighting against another force, unregenerate man's rebellion against and rejection of that Word, how does it come to pass that one is saved and one is not. This led him to adopt a synergistic argument that says there are three causes of conversion. These are 1) the Word, 2) the Holy Spirit, and 3) the human will. He believed that in the struggle between God and unregenerate, unbelieving man, there must be some factor, however small, that tips the scale one way or another. This, he believed, was human will. There must be something in man, however small, that contributes to his either being saved or condemned.

This teaching spread in the Lutheran Church, especially among the Philippists. This is the occasion for why Article II of the Formula of Concord was written. In a footnote, in the Kolb Wengert edition, it is noted: "Luther, writing against Erasmus in On the Bondage of the Will of 1525, defined the topic at hand as a "bondage" of the ability of the human will to choose. Melanchthon's students, following, for example, the Augsburg Confession, defined the problem instead of the potential of the will's freedom." This is important to note.

Broadly speaking, Article II is addressed against two errors of opposite extremes: enthusiasm, and synergism.

Against the synergists, which I have already given an outline, Article II gives a strong rebuttal. In the opening, after they outline the errors that had been taking place, they make the strong and clear statement:

"That in spiritual and divine matters, the mind, heart, and will of the unreborn human being can in absolutely no way, on the basis of its own natural powers, understand, believe, accept, consider, will, begin, accomplish, do, effect, or cooperate. Instead, it is completely dead to the good--completely corrupted. This means that in this human nature, after the fall and before rebirth, there is not a spark of spiritual power left or present with which human beings can prepare themselves or to prepare themselves for the grace of God or accept grace as it is offered...Nor do they have the ability, on the basis of their own powers, to help, act, effect, or cooperate--completely, halfway, or in the slightest, most insignificant way--in their own conversion." (SD, Art II, Par. 7)

Article II's arguments against the enthusiasts are more to the point of the questions that we raised at the beginning of this post, namely, if the will is only opposed to conversion, aren't we saved against our will? With the implication that conversion denies free will.

The Formulators frame the questions in this way:

"Now, finally, on the basis of this thorough explanation of the entire teaching on the free will, it will be possible to resolve the questions that have arisen and been disputed in the churches of the Augsburg Confession for quite a few years now: whether people before, in, or after conversion resist the Holy Spirit, and whether they do absolutely nothing but simply endure what God effects in them. Again, whether they behave and act like a block of wood in conversion. Or again, whether the Holy Spirit is given to those who resist him. Likewise, whether conversion takes place by compulsion, in a manner in which God compels people against their will by force to be converted, etc." (SD, Art. II, Par. 73)

I will address these questions one by one.

1) "Whether people before, in, or after conversion resist the Holy Spirit"
The simple and not explained answer: yes, yes, yes; there is always a part that resists the Holy Spirit. This is not quite what they mean though, maybe a better question is: "Is there a part of man, before, in, or after conversion, that does not resist the Holy Spirit?" Answer: Before) no, In) complicated , After) yes. Before, we completely resist the Holy Spirit. In, well...Let's put it this way: There is never a time when we are converted that we completely resist the Holy Spirit (it is a matter of defining what we mean by in, and also determining the "point" of conversion). After, quote: "There is never a time when we are converted that we completely resist the Holy Spirit."

2) "Whether they do absolutely nothing but simply endure what God effects in them."
Answer: Yes, we simply endure (qualified with the answer to the next question).

3) "Whether they behave and act like a block of wood in conversion."
Yes, to the previous question, but this does not mean that God simply snaps his finger and we are converted. The formulators say, no, not like a block of wood because: 1) "a stone or block of wood does not resist the person who moves it." (Par. 59), 2) "neither does [a block of wood] understand or feel what is being done to it." (Par. 59), 3) because man is a rational creature, unlike a block of wood, God's modus agendi is through means, that is, through Word and Sacrament (see Pars. 19; 60-62), 4) The Holy Spirit in conversion is "working through the Word in the mind, will, and heart of the human being tanquam in subjecto patiente [as in a subject acted upon] (that is, because the human being does and effects nothing but only endures what is done). This happens not like a picture being etched in stone or a seal being pressed in wax; these things do not know or feel or will anything." (Par. 89) (But...we are like a block of wood in that we can accomplish and do nothing in our conversion).

4) "Whether the Holy Spirit is given to those who resist him."
Answer: "People resist God the Lord with their will UNTIL they are converted." (Par. 59) Though he is never present AFTER conversion, where he is rejected (see Par. 83).

5) "Whether conversion takes place by compulsion, in a manner in which God compels people against their will by force to be converted."
Answer: "Conversion is such a change in the human mind, will, and heart effected by the activity of the Holy Spirit that the human being, through this activity of the Holy Spirit, can accept the grace offered." (Par. 83) Being that I am not able to be saved while at the same time rejecting salvation with my will, I can not be saved against my will. It is not as if I am primarily saved against my will, and then, after that point, I need to preserve that salvation by desiring to be saved.

Conclusion:

Article II makes it clear that we are not saved against our will, rather, conversion itself is a conversion of "mind, will, and heart." (Par. 83.) This is not through coactio (compulsion) but through a captivation, as Gerhard Forde might say, through the Holy Spirit's administration of Word and Sacrament. And this is completely the work of God, alone; the Formulators write: "For just as the resuscitation in the physical resurrection of the body is to be ascribed to God alone, so the conversion of our corrupted will, which is nothing other than an awakening of this will from spiritual death, is wholly and alone God's doing." (Par. 87)

The Word, Communication, and Sanctification

This discussion will be focused on, and based off of the Formula of Concord's Solid Declaration, Article II: on Free Will. Article II is a fascinating work that is essential, not only for our understanding of justification, but also sanctification, and indeed, our whole existence. Having done a lot of research on the Lutheran understanding of sanctification, I can say that a good grasp of Article II is absolutely vital. It should be read over and over.

That being said, gaining a strong grasp of this Article is difficult. One may come to see many parts of it as being contradictory, or as being in conflict. My aim is to point out where these discrepancies may arise and show how they are, in fact, not contradictory but actually reflective of how we live our lives in respect to, in communion with, and from God. Indeed, Article II gives us an amazing picture of our whole lives in connection with God. This picture is based on the fact that God speaks, that is, God relates to us, he communicates himself to us through his Word, he creates and sustains us through his creative Word, and we live or die on that fact that we either receive, accept, and rely on this Word or whether we reject it.

First off, it should be noted that Article II is concerned with two questions: 1) the capability of the will (of fallen man) before conversion, and 2) the capability of the will after conversion. While I will be focusing on how they answer the second question it should be noted that the key point connecting both of these questions is that: the ability to grasp on to the Word of God always comes through the work of the Holy Spirit as he creates, sustains, and enlivens faith through Word and Sacrament. Or as Luther puts it: "I believe that by my own understanding or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ my Lord or come to him, but instead the Holy Spirit has called me through the gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, made me holy and kept me in the true faith, just as he calls, gathers, enlightens, and makes holy the whole Christian church."

We see this large scope that encompasses our whole lives as we read:

"Holy Scripture ascribes conversion, faith in Christ, rebirth, renewal, and everything that belongs to the actual beginning and completion of these things, not to the human powers of the natural free will-- neither totally, halfway, somewhat, nor in the slightest and smallest bit-- but rather ascribes all this in solidum (that is, completely and totally) to divine activity and to the Holy Spirit alone, as the Apology says [XVIII, 7, 8]." (Par. 25)

They go on, citing Scripture to show the full extent of the Holy Spirit's work, which can all be summed up nicely by the final verse they cite: "'What do you have that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?' (1 Cor. 4[:7])" (Par. 26)

All of this boils down to faith, whether we grasp on to these realities or whether we reject them claiming we can, in one way or another, have "life in ourselves." As an issue of faith it then becomes an issue of the Word, whether we accept God's claims or reject them. This, then, is both the center of the question, and the breadth of the question, a question that can be asked from conception throughout our lives eternal: "What do you have that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?"

We see the centrality and breadth that the Word becomes in Article II:

"Therefore, on the basis of God's Word we now want to give a further account of how the human being is converted to God; how and through which means (namely, through the oral Word and the holy sacraments) the Holy Spirit desires to be active in us and to give and effect true repentance, faith, and the new spiritual power and capability to do the good in our hearts; and how we should respond to such means and use them." (Par. 48)

"...God wants to call human beings to eternal salvation, to draw them to himself, to convert them, to give them new birth, and to sanctify them through these means, and in no other way than through his holy Word (which people hear proclaimed or read) and through the sacraments (which they use according to his Word)" (Par. 50)

Lutherans have an especially great understanding of the fact that God speaks. We understand the unique way in which God has decided to work. By his Word alone God creates all things, sustains all things, and gives all things (the Word made flesh, faith, the Holy Spirit, sanctification). Concerning the verse in 1 Corinthians: "'What do you have that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?", Lutherans understand how that gift gets to us, that is, the means of the gift, that is, the means of grace, that is, Word and Sacrament. It is on the basis of his Word whether we have life or death, that is, how we answer the devil's question: "Is it true true that God has said, You shall not eat from any tree of the garden?" (Gen. 3:1). Do we cling to this Word or do we despise it? It is a question asked at the beginning of time and it is a question that will be asked at the end of time: "Who do you say that I am?" (Mat. 6:15).

That is the question, what is the answer? The answer is faith in the Word itself, and this is wrought by God alone. In reply to Peter's proclamation of faith, Jesus says: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven." (Mat. 16:17). We see therefore that it is God's revelation from heaven through which the Holy Spirit produces (and sustains and enlivens) faith, which in turn clings to that revelation itself.

It will be remembered that I said Article II was concerned with the questions of 1) What the capability of our will is before conversion, and 2) What the capability of our will is after conversion. And, I likewise said that I would focus on the second question. The answer to the first question is simple enough for anyone who has any familiarity with Confessional Lutheran teaching: Fallen man has a "free will" (though it is bound to sin) as to horizontal, earthly concerns, but has no free will as to spiritual concerns to which it is hostile. It is the second question, and its answer, though, that may not be as clear. While the Formulators may have been able to answer it a little more clearly, when studied carefully, one realizes that they are dealing with the issues deeply and impressively. It is concerning the relation and understanding of, what I have come to call, the indicative and imperative.

Indicative:

"Holy Scripture ascribes conversion, faith in Christ, rebirth, renewal, and everything that belongs to the actual beginning and completion of these things, not to the human powers of the natural free will-- neither totally, halfway, somewhat, nor in the slightest and smallest bit-- but rather ascribes all this in solidum (that is, completely and totally) to divine activity and to the Holy Spirit alone, as the Apology says [XVIII, 7, 8]." (Par. 25)

"From this it is clear to see that the Apology ascribes to the human will no capacity; either to initiate the good or to cooperate with God in and of itself" (Par. 32)

"These words say nothing about our will, nor do they say that it effects something, even in the newborn human being, of itself, but they ascribe that to the gift of the Holy Spirit, which cleanses human beings and daily makes them more upright and holier. Our own powers are completely excluded from this process." (Par. 35)

"Although those born anew come even in this life to the point that they desire good and delight in it and even do good deeds and grow in practicing them, this is not (as was mentioned above) a product of our own will or power; but the Holy Spirit." (Par. 39)

On the other hand we see, what would seem to be contradictory statements:

Imperative:

"It follows from this, as has been said, that as soon as the Holy Spirit has begun his work of rebirth and renewal in us through the Word and the holy sacraments, it is certain that on the basis of his power we can and should be cooperating with him." (Par. 65)

"After this conversion of the human being the reborn will is not idle in the daily practice of repentance but cooperates in all the good works of the Holy Spirit that he accomplishes through us." (Par. 88)

On the one hand we hear that sanctification is completely the work of the Holy Spirit, "not a product of our own will or power." This is what I call the indicative depiction of sanctification, where sanctification is indicative of the work of the Holy Spirit alone.

On the other hand we are told that the reborn should be cooperating with the Holy Spirit, and that our "will is not idle." This, then, is what I call the imperative depiction of sanctification, where sanctification is called for and desired of us.

This seeming contradiction is not only to be found in the Book of Concord, but also right in Scripture. Throughout Scripture we see both the depiction of sanctification as the unique work of God, and then as a call on the reborn. We may come to ask ourselves, well which one is it? The answer is: both.

The answer to this conundrum reveals not only the correct understanding of sanctification, but actually the very structure in which we are created in relation to God. Sanctification is, at the same time, the fruit of God's Word, and our response to God's Word. Faith is, at the same time, the fruit of God's Word, and our response to God's Word. Peter's response to Jesus' question, "who do you say that I am?", we learn, is the fruit of the Father's revelation, and it is also a response to that Word, that is, Peter makes clear how he lives in relation to that Word; he says "Yes Lord, I believe what you have said." It is a communicatory activity that reflects how we live in communion with God.

We find in Article II that our ability to respond is, at the same time, the fruit of the Spirit's work and also, still, truly our response. This capability is given us through a new "arbitrium liberatum [a freed will or freed choice]." (Par. 67) Article II tells us that it is this freed will that gives us the ability to respond to God's Word, we read:

"For this reason [the reborn] not only hear the Word but are also able to assent to it and accept it." (Par. 67)

We hear from Article II a quote from Luther's Large Catechism that we are incorporated into the family of God on the basis that we hear and assent to God's Word:

"I was brought into it by the Holy Spirit and incorporated into it through the fact that I have heard and still hear God's Word, which is the beginning point for entering it...[Through the Church's attentiveness to God's Word which draws it together, God] creates and increases holiness, causing it daily to grow and become strong in the faith and in the fruits which the Spirit produces." (Pars. 36-37)

It is interesting to note that Luther saw the tree in the Garden of Eden as the way in which Adam and Eve were to worship God. This helps us in understanding the structure of the relationship that God desires to draw us into. After their creation Adam and Eve stood face to face with the fruit (no pun intended) of God's Word, their very existence and everything around them stood on the fact that God speaks. They also stood in relation to God's Word about the tree. This is God's part of the communication, he says: "Look around you, do you see what I am saying?" And he asks them "Do you want to place your whole lives in my Word or are you going to despise my Word, relying on "your own" will and abilities?" The answer to that question determines whether Adam and Eve were to worship God or reject him.

This same question is likewise asked of us: How are we going to live in relation to God's Word? The question is based on God's Word, our ability to respond is based on God's Word, and our response is based on God's Word.