What the Church Can Learn from Young Atheists

In order to speak the Gospel effectively to young atheists the church first needs to understand them, which means listening to them. Some, at least, of their criticisms of the current church are valid. For example...

"These students heard plenty of messages encouraging "social justice," community involvement, and "being good," but they seldom saw the relationship between that message, Jesus Christ, and the Bible. Listen to Stephanie, a student at Northwestern: "The connection between Jesus and a person's life was not clear." This is an incisive critique. She seems to have intuitively understood that the church does not exist simply to address social ills, but to proclaim the teachings of its founder, Jesus Christ, and their relevance to the world. Since Stephanie did not see that connection, she saw little incentive to stay. We would hear this again."

As a Lutheran I would rather say we must "proclaim Jesus Christ and his teachings", lest we turn Jesus into just another founder of a religion rather the the Redeemer of humankind, but the import of Stephanie's criticism is clear. As a former young atheist (before it was fashionable), the responses in this article seemed very familiar. Read the whole thing here. 

There are many good Christian responses to the so-called new atheism out there; one I recommend to put into the hands of aspiring young atheists is 'Atheist Delusions' by David Bentley Hart, available in Australia through Koorong for $24.00. I don't agree with every facet of Hart's presentation of Christianity, but his critique of the new atheism is withering. How I wish Hart's book had been around when I was fifteen!

Thanks to colleague pastor Peter Kriewaldt for drawing my attention to the article.

Towards a Post-Christian England?

In a timely interview Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, a Church of England bishop of Pakistani background, explains why some young people in Britain are increasingly drawn to Islam and are ignorant or even contemptuous of Christianity and the Christian heritage of England. To understand the full import of what Bishop Nazir-Ali is saying below, one must understand that many British schools are actually Church of England schools run with state funding in which the teaching of religion is a school subject. In these schools and the state schools, the bishop suggests, Christianity is no longer presented as a viable option for today's youth, mainly due to the political incorrectness of such a view in a multi-faith society. The 2011 UK census recorded a continuing precipitous decline Christianity in the UK, particularly in adherence to the established Church of England, which could see Anglicanism become a minority faith in the land of its origin within a generation. Bishop Nazir-Ali's diagnosis of what ails the Church of England is that essentially it has "lost its salt" and has no voice with which to speak to secular England. There is a warning here for all church bodies in Western societies: churches which soften their teachings in order to blend in with secular society in the misguided attempt remain "relevant" actually accelerate their irrelevance.    

"British schools are helping to boost Islamism with politically correct lessons that tell black pupils that slavery was entirely the fault of English and Americans, and omit the long and vicious history of Arab slave trading, according to an influential Church of England bishop.In an exclusive interview for our Telegram podcast, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali – a Pakistani-born scholar who resigned as Bishop of Rochester in 2009 in order to train Christians facing persecution – says "the Churches have generally capitulated to secular culture and therefore cannot bring a distinctive voice to public debate".They have neglected human relations, especially the family, in favour of "welfarism" that teaches that the state should provide all the goods that citizens need. All this adds up to the slow death of people's sense of themselves as spiritual beings – and this affects "even people who go to church".Bishop Nazir-Ali, a theological conservative who opposes the ordination of actively gay clergy, is now president of Oxtrad, which "prepares Christians for ministry in situations where the Church is under pressure and in danger of persecution". He claims that, in addition to ignoring the current persecution of Christians in the Islamic world, secular Britain brushes aside historical evidence of Muslim aggression."If you ignore what really happened to give a lopsided view of history in the interests of political correctness, you can't blame [young] people if they move to something else that has a less critical view of itself," he says. Christianity appears so apologetic that students naturally gravitate towards self-confident Islam. Meanwhile, "the Churches' engagement with the secular world becomes capitulation to it".As an example of political correctness in schools, the bishop discusses the way black pupils are taught about slavery.He says: "If you teach black people from African or the Caribbean that slavery was perpetrated on them [only] by England and the whites in the United States, they are then given a narrative that Islam is the great liberator from slavery – without mentioning that the Arab slave traders were on the east coast of Africa and West Africa before the British and the Americans."You are never told about how in the attempt to end the slave trade, the evangelicals from the Churches were opposed by Arab slave traders. I have walked along the path that Livingstone took, and as churches were built along that path the Arab slave traders were burning them down."Religious education in British schools offers "a smorgasbord approach in which you set out all the exotic things that people can taste but you don't give them a vantage point from which to assess what they are experiencing," says Bishop Nazir-Ali.""It would have been quite possible to take the Christian faith as a point of departure for studying other faiths in a constructive and open way, but this is not being done, so you can't blame young people for growing up without any kind of orientation."

Text from Damien Thompson's blog. The interview can be listened to here.

Luther on the Holy Trinity

“He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears” 

John 16:13. 

"Here Christ makes the Holy Spirit a Preacher. He does so to prevent one from gaping toward heaven in search of Him, as the fluttering spirits and enthusiasts do, and from divorcing Him from the oral Word or the ministry. One should know and learn that He will be in and with the Word, that it will guide us into all truth, in order that we may believe it, use it as a weapon, be preserved by it against all the lies and deception of the devil, and prevail in all trials and temptations. For there is, after all, no other way and no other means of perceiving the Holy Spirit’s consolation and power, as I have often demonstrated from Holy Writ and have often experienced myself. For I, too, am a half-baked theologian. This I say lest I exalt myself over the great minds who have long ago ascended into the clouds beyond all Scripture and have nestled under the wings of the Holy Spirit. But experience has taught me all too often that whenever the devil catches me outside Scripture and sees that my thoughts are rambling and that I, too, am fluttering toward heaven, he brings me to the point of not knowing where God is or where I am. The Holy Spirit wants this truth which He is to impress into our hearts to be so firmly fixed that reason and all one’s own thoughts and feelings are relegated to the background. He wants us to adhere solely to the Word and to regard it as the only truth. And through this Word alone He governs the Christian Church to the end.

...Earlier we heard (John 14:26; 15:26) that the Holy Spirit is sent not only by the Father but that He is also sent by, and proceeds from, the Son. Therefore this Listener must be called the Listener of both the Father and the Son, not of the Father alone or of the Son alone. Christ has stated plainly: “The Comforter, whom I shall send to you from the Father.” The expression “to send” has the very same connotation that the expression “to proceed from” has. For he who proceeds from someone is sent. Conversely, he who is sent proceeds from him who sends him. Consequently, the Holy Spirit has His divine essence not only from the Father but also from the Son, as the following words will illustrate further.

Thus these words confirm and teach exactly what we confess in our Creed, namely, that in one divine essence there are three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is illustrated by means of a metaphor, or a picture of natural things, in order that we in our weakness may be able to know what is meant and to talk about it. But we cannot search it out or understand it. We must believe, and cling to, these words which we hear from Christ Himself, just as Christendom and especially the holy fathers and bishops did. They had disputations about this article, and they fought for and preserved it against the heretics and lying spirits who made bold to meditate on and to affect wisdom concerning these sublime, inscrutable matters beyond and apart from Scripture."

From 'Luther’s Works'  (American Edition), Vol. 24: Sermons on the Gospel of St. John: Chapters 14-16. Ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999).

Pic: The picture is a version of the well known icon of the Holy Trinity by Andrew Rublev (+ c. 1430). I do not subscribe to the theology of icons as set forth by the Orthodox, but this icon seems to me to be worthy of consideration for use as a pedagogical tool that illustrates the teaching of Holy Scripture. Note the pre-eminence of the Father in the setting of the figures and also the mutual acknowledgement of each Person of the other through the inclination of the head.   

Come, Holy Spirit Heavenly Dove

Come, Holy Spirit Heavenly Dove,

Come to Thy people from above,

Fill them with graces and restore

Thy people as they were before.

For Comforter is Thy sweet name,

A gift which from the highest came,

A precious ointment from above,

A living fount, a fire of love.

Komm, Gott Schoepfer, Heiliger Geist

Translated into German from a 9th C. Latin hymn by Martin Luther in 1529 and set to a plainchant melody; rendered into English by Richard Massie, 1854. 

I say that we must be wise and take care that we do not boast of the Holy Spirit too confidently and joyously, that we may not become too secure and imagine that we are perfect in all respects. For a pious Christian still is flesh and blood like other people, but he fights against sin and evil lust and feels what he would rather not feel--Rom 7, 15 ff. The unbelievers are indifferent and make no such fight.

 It makes no difference that we feel evil lusts if we only battle against them. Therefore, the Christian must not judge according to his feelings, believing because of them that he is lost, but he must labor all his life with the remaining sin of which he is conscious and must permit the Holy Spirit to work, groaning without ceasing, to be rid of sin. Such groaning never ceases in believers, but is more profound that can be uttered, as St. Paul declares to the Romans (8, 26). But there is a precious listener, the Holy Spirit himself, who deeply feels our longing and also comforts our consciences.

The two must always be mingled, in our feelings--the Holy Spirit and our sin and imperfection. Our case must be like that of a sick man who is in the hands of the physician; presently he will be better. Therefore let no one think: Such a one possesses the Holy Spirit, consequently he must be altogether strong, without infirmities, and do only precious works. No, not yet. The Gospel is not a proclamation for everybody. It is a proclamation exceedingly gracious, but a coarse, hard heart may hear it without receiving any good; rather are such made more audacious and careless, imagining they need not war against the flesh, because they do not feel their sin and misery. The Holy Spirit is given to none except to those who are in sorrow and fear; in them it produces good fruit. This gift is so precious and worthy that God does not cast it before dogs. Though the unrepentant discover it themselves, hearing it preached, they devour it and know not what they devour. The hearts which receive it with profit are such as feel their evil lust but are unable to escape from it. There must be struggling if the Holy Spirit is to abide in the heart, and let no one dare think it will be otherwise.

A Sermon by Martin Luther; taken from his Church Postil, 1523
(Taken from volume III:273--287 of The Sermons of Martin Luther, published by Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, MI))

Misreading Luther with Bishop Tom Wright

Like Jesus, Bishop Tom Wright (aka N. T. Wright) is everywhere. The shelves of my local Evangelical and Catholic bookshops both groan under the weight of his oevre, to which he seems to add a new paperback volume every couple of months. He appears to have taken up the mantle of William Barclay as everyone's favourite Bible commentator. Bishop Wright is a  scholar as well as a populariser, so I'm sure there is much we can learn from him, not least how to write theology engagingly for the intelligent lay person.  I think the "democratising" of theology is a good thing... provided we're talking good theology, of course! And this is why I question whether Bishop Tom's widespread popularity is an entirely helpful development. For example  - leaving aside Wright's espousal of the "New Perspective on Paul" for the moment, as it requires more than a blog post to do it justice - every time I read something Bishop Wright has written or said about Luther I come away scratching my head and thinking 'Has he even read Luther?!' For example, here's Bishop Wright on the milieu he grew up in:

"I grew up as a somewhat typical middle-Anglican with a strong dash of evangelicalism, or put the other way around, I grew up in a Lutheran evangelicalism which left me with a strong antithesis between law and grace. I found this all profoundly unsatisfying until I met Calvin and Calvinism. I began to think, “Whew…the law is a good thing. It is holy and just and good. It is right and it has been fulfilled, not abrogated, in Christ.” All of that is right. So, if you are faced with a choice between Luther and Calvin, you simply have to choose Calvin." [From an interview published in Reformation and Revival Journal, volume 11, numbers 1 and 2 (Winter and Spring 2003), available on-line] [Italics mine] 

Thanks for that insight, Bishop Tom. Now here's Luther himself on the law:

"In chapter 7, St. Paul says, "The law is spiritual." What does that mean? If the law were physical, then it could be satisfied by works, but since it is spiritual, no one can satisfy it unless everything he does springs from the depths of the heart. But no one can give such a heart except the Spirit of God, who makes the person be like the law, so that he actually conceives a heartfelt longing for the law and henceforward does everything, not through fear or coercion, but from a free heart. Such a law is spiritual since it can only be loved and fulfilled by such a heart and such a spirit. If the Spirit is not in the heart, then there remain sin, aversion and enmity against the law, which in itself is good, just and holy." [Italics mine]

Imagine that, Luther actually agrees with Bishop Wright that the law is "good, just and holy", right down to using the same descriptors!

Clearly, Wright has misread Luther as antinomian, and pegged him as the source of what perplexed him growing up in evangelical Anglicanism, which eventually sent him running to Calvin as his guiding light (although more than a few Calvinists are upset at the direction Bishop Wright's theology has taken since, but that is a subject for another post). If only Bishop Wright had actually read a text as basic as Luther's Preface to the Epistle to the Romans, from which the above quote is taken - not to mention the Small Catechism - he would have known that what he was hearing from evangelical Anglican pulpits as a young man was not Lutheranism at all, but a variety of antinomianism, which Luther rejects in numerous places, most forthrightly in Against the Antinomians (1539; LW 47:107ff), in which Luther declares it "most surprising ...that anyone can claim that I reject the law or the Ten Commandments, since there is available, in more than one edition, my exposition of the Ten Commandments, which furthermore are daily preached and practiced in our churches."  

A lecturer at my alma mater, Luther Seminary in Adelaide, once wisely said, "If you want to understand someone's theology, become familiar with their biography." Alas, it seems that Tom Wright's youthful misadventures with "Lutheranism" were formative for his theology, which might not matter one iota but for the fact that Wright is probably the single most influential "evangelical" theologian and Biblical commentator writing today, whose works are peppered with this sort of egregious misrepresentation of Luther. Bishop Wright should really know better. 

Yes, like Jesus, Bishop Tom Wright is everywhere...unlike Jesus, he is not infallible. Caveat lector!    

Why Did Christ Ascend Into Heaven?

"Now we must consider the ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the first place, it is easily said and understood that the Lord ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God. But they are dead words to the understanding if they are not grasped with the heart. We must, therefore, conceive of his ascension and Lordship as something active, energetic and continuous, and must not imagine that he sits above while we hold the reins of government down here. Nay, he ascended up thither for the reason that there he can best do his work and exercise dominion. Had he remained upon earth in visible form, before the people, he could not have wrought so effectually, for all the people could not have been with him and heard him. Therefore, he inaugurated an expedient which made it possible for him to be in touch with all and reign in all, to preach to all and be heard by all, and to be with all. Therefore, beware lest you imagine within yourself that he has gone, and now is, far away from us. The very opposite is true: While he was on earth, he was far away from us; now he is very near. "

From a sermon by Dr. Martin Luther on the last chapter of St. Mark, 1523.
German text: Erlangen Edition, 12:169.

When Steeples Are Falling

Built on the Rock the church doth stand,
Even when steeples are falling;
Crumbled have spires in every land,
Bells still are chiming and calling;
Calling the young and old to rest,
But above all the soul distressed,
Longing for rest everlasting.
Nikolai Grundtvig, trans. from the Danish by Carl Doeving.

"We are not the ones who can preserve the Church, nor were our forefathers able to do so. Nor will our successors have this power. No, it was, is, and will be He who says, ‘I am with you always to the close of the age.’ As it says in Hebrews 13:8, ‘Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever,’ and in Revelation 1:8, ‘He who is and who was and who is to come.” This is His name and no one else’s.

A thousand years ago you and I were nothing, and yet the Church was preserved at that time without us. He who is called ‘who was’and ‘yesterday’ had to accomplish this.

Even during our lifetime we are not the Church’s guardians. It is not preserved by us, for we are unable to drive off the devil. If it were up to us, the Church would perish before our very eyes, and we together with it (as we experience daily). For it is another Man who preserves both the Church and us. He does this so plainly that we could touch and feel it if we did not want to believe it. We must leave this to Him who is called ‘who is’ and ‘today’.

Likewise we will contribute nothing toward the preservation of the Church after our own death. He who is called ‘who is to come’and ‘forever’ will accomplish it.”

Martin Luther, 'Against the Antinomians', 1539 (LW 47:118)

HT to Pr Vernon Kleinig for this quote.

Rehabilitating Søren

"The fundamental error of modern times lies in the fact that the yawning abyss of the qualitative difference between God and man has been removed."
Søren  Kierkegaard, Journals, 1847.

This past Sunday marked the 200th anniversary of Søren Kierkegaard's birth. I am by no means an expert on Kierkegaard, although I have read him on and off for 20+ years, both for instruction and pleasure, but I do believe that the time has come for confessional Lutherans to rehabilitate him and bring him back into the fold now that the mid-20th century existentialist fad, which proved so destructive to the Faith, has well and truly gone cold. It would be a great shame to throw Kierkegaard out with the bath water, for there are many things he can teach us.

Fundamentally, Kierkegaard was a sort of Luther redivivus in his protest against the Hegelian synthesis, which was the Scholasticism of his day. Contra Hegel, Kierkegaard protested that everything is not subject to synthesis - it is truer to reality as we know it this side of eternity to allow some things to remain in unreconciled tension. At a time when neo-Thomistic theology and ethics are getting a sympathetic reading even among confessional Lutherans, that is a protest of which we need to be mindful. The impetus to synthesis (!) is no doubt innate to the human mind, reflecting a sort of longing for the unitive knowledge of the pre-Fall world, but it is precisely the noetic effects of original sin that need to be taken account in evaluating all such endeavours.

If Kierkegaard at times seems to go to extremes in countering both Hegel and the cultural Christianity of his time, it should be remembered that he was a lone voice protesting this system, a context which sometimes necessitated a bold polemic - another continuity with Luther.  On this point I would say that some of Kierkegaard's 20th century followers, like Barth, either misread him or took his thought a step further than he would have approved of. The 'yawning abyss' Kierkegaard speaks of in the above quote was for him well and truly overcome in the paradox of the person and work of Christ. Kierkegaard was, after all, Lutheran, not Reformed, and so he could resist the impetus to rationalise paradox and/or build a theological system (or write a multi-volume church dogmatics) on the result.

Also echoing Luther in many places is Kierkegaard's definition of religiosity as personal commitment (100 years before Bonhoeffer) or subjectivity (I do not believe Kierkegaard was advocating post-modern subjectivity, btw, but demonstrating that would require a longer post than I have time for at present). This aspect of Kierkegaard's religious thought can serve as a productive counterweight to the entirely proper objective emphasis of Lutheran doctrine. And, just as the life of Luther exemplifies Lutheran doctrine and shows us that it has deep experiential roots, so to does the life of Kierkegaard serve to illustrate his teachings. "Doctrine is Life" is not for nothing a saying among Lutherans.

Another reason why pastors should not neglect to read Kierkegaard is that he is just as much a religious psychologist as a philosopher (or anti-philosopher?). For example, his concept of angst continues to speak to us in our late modern context and his notion of the three stages of life's way - aesthetic, ethical and religious -  can be useful diagnostic tools in applied pastoral theology.

Just a few notes on the margins of the web to commemorate Kierkegaard's 200th anniversary.

Pic: A shelf of Kierkegaard in the library of St Olaf's College, Minnesota, which houses the largest Kierkegaard collection outside of Denmark.

Evangelical Lutheran Bishops?

We are soon to have bishops in the Lutheran Church of Australia. It is a simple change in nomenclature for our general and district presidents rather than a change in theology or constitutional power and authority, but it has provoked a lot of discussion among pastors and those in the pews, for Lutherans have not had a happy experience with bishops, whether of the regular or emergency kind (when the regular bishops did not support the Reformation, Luther advocated that the civil ruler fill the functions of the office as an emergency measure. In many areas of Germany, the emergency became permanent as the civil magistrates proved reluctant to relinquish control of the church, which effectively became the religious organ of the state, leading eventually to such disputes as the "Prussian Union" measures of 1817, in which a king forced a union between Lutherans and the Reformed, which led to the 1838 confessional Lutheran emigration to Australia and the US).

 

I am of the view that the way this topic was presented to the church for consideration at the recent general pastors' conference and synod caused us to miss an opportunity to discuss an urgent matter -the need to reform our present constitutional arrangements for oversight in the church. To begin with, I think we made a great mistake when we took our presidents out of their congregations and put them in an office (I mean literally in an office, behind a desk rather than before the altar!). A bishop - especially an Evangelical Lutheran bishop -  must first of all be a pastor in a local congregation, as indeed he always was in the early church.

 

The second mistake I think we have made in this area is that we have seen the church grow and spread geographically since the constitution of the LCA was drawn up in 1965/6. Our districts are larger than those of the constituting church bodies who formed the LCA in terms of congregations and schools and the numbers of pastors who serve in them and their administrative needs are more complex, yet we have not adjusted our system of oversight accordingly, continuing to rely on the state based system of the constituting church bodies (was this a passing nod, perhaps, to the state based church system of Lutheran Germany?).  Thus, whereas an Anglican bishop in Australia might have 40 congregations under his charge, an Australian Lutheran bishop will have well upwards of 100 congregations and they might be spread over a geographic area larger than most western European countries. Because of this, most LCA congregations will only see their bishop when a new pastor is installed, and even then that is not guaranteed. Compare this to the Anglican and Roman Catholic systems where the bishop visits each parish at least once a year. Plainly, our present system is not conducive to effective oversight of the church and frankly that fact is being reflected in the life of congregations.

 

A third area that, in my view, needs reform is the zone conference (our equivalent of a deanery). These work well enough as a support system for pastors, but as a tool for effective oversight and representation in the official discussions of the wider church the zones are under utilised. Too much is done and decided only "at the district level" or "at the national level", which in effect means in a capital city hundreds or even thousands of kilometres away from most congregations. 

 

Perhaps, though, a church can only effectively discuss one important topic at a time. In any case, I've set down below a sort of thesis in order to clarify my own thoughts and encourage discussion on how we begin to conceive the office of bishop evangelically in the Lutheran Church. It is preceded by a quote from the Augsburg Confession, the primary confession of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, which I used as my starting point:    

 

"...according to the Gospel or, as they say, by divine right, there belongs to the bishops as bishops, that is, to those to whom has been committed the ministry of the Word and the Sacraments, no jurisdiction except to forgive sins, to judge doctrine, to reject doctrines contrary to the Gospel, and to exclude from the communion of the Church wicked men, whose wickedness is known, and this without human force, simply by the Word. Herein the congregations of necessity and by divine right must obey them, according to Luke 10:16: He that heareth you heareth Me. But when they teach or ordain anything against the Gospel, then the congregations have a commandment of God prohibiting obedience, Matt. 7:15: Beware of false prophets; Gal. 1:8: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed; 2 Cor. 13:8: We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. Also: The power which the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction. So, also, the Canonical Laws command (II. Q. VII. Cap., Sacerdotes, and Cap. Oves). And Augustine (Contra Petiliani Epistolam): Neither must we submit to Catholic bishops if they chance to err, or hold anything contrary to the Canonical Scriptures of God. "

 

AC XXVIII, Ecclesiastical Power

--+--

Oversight of doctrine is a function of the office of the ministry, which exists for the sake of the Gospel (CA V). In Lutheran eyes, the difference between a bishop and a pastor has to do with the scope of his exercise of oversight, whether it be over a parish or over several parishes in a city or geographical district. There is no inherent difference in their office, though. The office of bishop (episcopos, superintendent) arose by human development out of the office of the ministry, and exists for the sake of the Gospel. It is not the other way around, as in Catholic and Orthodox doctrine, in which the priesthood, both historically and "ontologically", arises out of the office of the bishop. The Lutheran cannot but regard that position as historically and theologically untenable. The historic and "ontological" source of the office of the ministry is the holy apostolate. The special apostolate came to an end with the death of the last apostle, but the functions of the apostolate necessary for the ongoing life of the church - preaching the Gospel, forgiving sins and judging doctrine, continue in the office of the ministry. The only "apostolic succession" is succession in the apostles' teaching, set down for us in the New Testament. The "apostolic succession" of the Catholics and Orthodox (and even more so the Anglicans) is at best an adiaphoron and at worst a fiction in the service of a false doctrine of authority in the church which has historically worked against the Gospel. When bishops work for the Gospel, though, they have a place in the Evangelical Lutheran Church, but by human and not divine right.

  

Was Luther's Translation of Romans 3:28 An Innovation?

I hope my regular readers will pardon the delay in completing the series on Roman Catholic theological anthropology previously announced. It's been a busy month! In the past two weeks I drove 4000 kms to Adelaide and back to attend a conference with my family using the occasion to have a holiday. Even with the resources available on the 'net I find it impossible to "do" much theology while away from my library, meagre though it is. I may not get to complete my proposed series until I am on leave in June. In the meantime, let's consider a criticism of Luther often made by uninformed Roman Catholic apologists - that Luther's translation of  Romans 3:28 - "So halten wir nun dafür, dass der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben" (Lit.: "We therefore conclude that a man is justified without the works of the law, only through faith") was an innovation and an unjustified (pun!) one at that.

Happily, I can save myself some time and work on this question by simply quoting here from the unbiased research of a leading Roman Catholic New Testament scholar, Joseph A. Fitzmyer:
"At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).


To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223."

Joseph A. Fitzmyer: Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, 1993, 360-361.

Roman Catholicism on Free Will, Justification and Merit

Introduction
A reader requested more information on what I referred to in a previous post as fundamental and irreconcilable differences between the Lutheran and Roman Catholic doctrines of man under the power of original sin, a crucial aspect of the larger topic of theological anthropology. We are always keen to oblige our readers at the virtual old manse if possible. The following is the first installment (already overdue!) for that reader and others who may find this topic of interest (everyone?). This project may take a month or more to complete as I am working on two reviews for other people and have two conferences to attend in the meantime as well as everyday pastoral and family duties!

The use of headings might seem a bit pretentious for a blog post but it's just to clearly organise what follows for the sake of the reader. Perhaps one day I'll have the time to expand this blog project into a proper essay with more extensive references and footnotes; to that end any constructive criticism from readers that would improve the following is appreciated.

A Word to 'Newbies'
I'm aware of a few "newbies" to theology who read this blog - welcome! I'm an advocate of retaining traditional theological terms rather than "dumbing down" theological discourse, even in the blogging medium. Looking up unfamiliar terms in a good theological and/or Biblical dictionary is the first step learning in theology. When consulting such works, try to check the background of the author of the entry to determine his presuppositions - no-one (not even me) does theology without presuppositions! If you don't have access to these resources (or even better to the reference section of a theological library), Wikipedia usually provides a decent summary with leads to explore. You should also be able to direct questions to your pastor/minister/priest, who might be able to recommend/lend you something to read. And don't forget to dig into your Bible - don't worry, we'll come to the important Bible passages (known in Latin as the sedes doctrinae or 'seats of the doctrine'; in other words, where "it is written...") in our conclusion (see below on method). Enjoy! 

 A Word on Method
I thought I’d begin by surveying the Roman doctrine on free will, justification and merit, citing the decrees of the Council of Trent (a council of Catholic bishops and theologians which met intermittently from 1545-1563 to determine the Roman response to the Reformation; a volume thereof is pictured) and the current 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' (first pub. in French in 1992; English trans. 1994, official Latin version 1997). It is crucial to go to official Roman Catholic statements of doctrine to determine what their teaching teaching is rather than rely on secondary theological literature whether Catholic or Lutheran or other. There is also, it should be noted, a fundamental continuity between these two sources of authoritative teaching although they are c. 500 years apart. On these aspects of doctrine, at least, there has been little or no 'development' by Rome since Trent.    

I could have begun with the Trent's decree on Original Sin, but by working backwards, as it were, we proceed in a forensic (!) manner from effect to cause. Although unusual, I think this has definite advantages as a pedagogical method for my purposes. In time we will examine Trent's decree on Original Sin and the Lutheran doctrine that provoked it. We will conclude (D.v.) with a study of conversion drawing upon the Biblical data which will focus on what classical Lutheran theology refers to as the 'transitive and intransitive aspects' of conversion, a way of considering the interplay of divine and human action in conversion and justification drawn from the Bible itself that preserves the divine monergism in those acts while accounting for the powerful religious experiences of the human subject of those acts. It is the relationship of divine and human acts in conversion and justification that the Tridentine fathers both misunderstood Luther and misread the Bible.        

Historical Theological Background Sketch

A good argument can be made that Trent marks the beginning of Roman Catholicism as a distinct confessional movement within the Western church. Prior to Trent, various views existed within the Western church on these subjects and vied for supremacy. A process of synthesising these views began with the work of Thomas Aquinas and reached its terminus with Trent, which set forth the Roman response to the Reformation and provided the doctrinal structure of Roman Catholicism. Ever since, Trent has set the parameters for Roman Catholic theological anthropology and soteriology.

One should not imagine that the bishops gathered at Trent were anywhere near unanimity on the important doctrinal questions under consideration here. In many ways Trent represents the Roman attempt to finally bring to a close the long running tension within the Western church between Augustinians, who took a low view of the spiritual abilities of man under the domineering power of original sin, and those who took a more positive view of such abilities and ascribed a measure of positive free will (i.e. “positive” because it included not just the power to resist grace but also the power to positively co-operate with grace). The latter are generally termed semi-Pelagians (there is debate about this terminology which we will not go into here; suffice it to say for now that there are definite continuities between those early fathers of east and west who were perplexed by and doubtful of Augustine's rebuttal of Pelagius and the late medieval synergists whom Luther and his successors came up against).

The decrees of Trent bear all the marks of the compromise which was effected between these two groups so that Rome could present a united front against the Reformation. What resulted at Trent was a sort of via media (middle way) between Augustinianism and semi-Pelagianism, achieved at the expense of failing to sound a clear, evangelical note. Thus, what is granted to the Augustinians with the one statement is weakened by a following statement which assuages the concerns of the semi-Pelagians. Rather than concord under the teaching of Holy Scripture, we have human compromise, which, I contend, has fatally weakened the ability of Rome to proclaim the Biblical Gospel.  

Here is a survey of the official Roman Catholic doctrine on free will, justification and merit with my underlining of crucial and/or problematic statements (readers are encouraged to read these in the context of the original documents which are freely available on-line):  

 

Quotes From The Council of Trent

Trent VI, 1

On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man.

The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.

Trent VI, 5

On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds.

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God.

Canon XXXII on Justification

If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

Quotes From 'The Catechism of the Catholic Church'

144 To obey (from the Latin obaudire, to "hear or listen to") in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, because its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself. Abraham is the model of such obedience offered us by Sacred Scripture. the Virgin Mary is its most perfect embodiment.

150 Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed. As personal adherence to God and assent to his truth, Christian faith differs from our faith in any human person. It is right and just to entrust oneself wholly to God and to believe absolutely what he says. It would be futile and false to place such faith in a creature

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1739 Freedom and sin. Man's freedom is limited and fallible. In fact, man failed. He freely sinned. By refusing God's plan of love, he deceived himself and became a slave to sin. This first alienation engendered a multitude of others. From its outset, human history attests the wretchedness and oppression born of the human heart in consequence of the abuse of freedom.

1742 Freedom and grace.  The grace of Christ is not in the slightest way a rival of our freedom when this freedom accords with the sense of the true and the good that God has put in the human heart. On the contrary, as Christian experience attests especially in prayer, the more docile we are to the promptings of grace, the more we grow in inner freedom and confidence during trials, such as those we face in the pressures and constraints of the outer world. By the working of grace the Holy Spirit educates us in spiritual freedom in order to make us free collaborators in his work in the Church and in the world:  “Almighty and merciful God, in your goodness take away from us all that is harmful, so that, made ready both in mind and body, we may freely accomplish your wil. (Roman Missal, 32nd Sunday, Opening Prayer).

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."

1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.” (Council of Trent (1547): DS 1528.)

1990 Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals.

1991 Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or "justice") here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.

1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:

“When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight.” (Council of Trent (1547): DS 1525.)

2002 God's free initiative demands man's free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love.

III. Merit

2006 The term "merit" refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it.

2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

Summary comment

There is a certain superficial consistency in the Roman doctrine. If one begins with the premise that the human will retains a certain amount of freedom in spiritual things even after the Fall, then it is logical to believe that human free will must be called to actively play its part in conversion, which then results in justification. After that initial justification, it is logical in this system that the will can merit further grace and thus "increase justification". But there are frustrating contradictions in the reasoning set out above that reflect the already mentioned tensions between schools within the Tridentine Fathers.  How, for example, can the cause of justification be attributed solely to God when it is acknowledged that man also plays his part as a spiritually competent actor who can "freely assent" to grace? How can a slave to sin free (convert) himself? By definition he cannot; he must be redeemed by another. And since when can grace be merited? Grace is by any reasonable definition unmerited and unearned. Rome may claim to be infallible, but that does not exempt it from the law of non-contradiction!

  

Raised to Life for our Justification

"Christ was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification" Romans 4:25 NIV

"Paul is indeed the man who extols Christ in a masterly manner, telling us exactly why and for what purpose he suffered and how we should conform ourselves to his sufferings, namely, that he died for our sins. This is a correct interpretation of the sufferings of Christ, by which we may profit. And as it is not sufficient to know and believe that Christ has died, so it will not suffice to know and believe that he rose with a transfigured body and is now in a state of joy and blessedness, no longer subject to mortality, for all this would profit me nothing or very little. But when I come to understand the fact that all the works God does in Christ are done for me, nay, they are bestowed upon and given to me, the effect of his resurrection being that I also will arise and live with him; that will cause me to rejoice. This must be brought home to our hearts, and we must not merely hear it with the ears of our body nor merely confess it with our mouth...
Martin Luther, Church Postil, c. 1525.

Yes, folks, it's all about justification!

Pic courtesy VersifyLife.com

The Descent into Hell - Holy Saturday

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits — to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. 1 Peter 3:18-20a NIV

Traditionally, Holy Saturday has been associated with Christ's descent into hell (descensus Christi ad Inferos). While we wouldn't push the temporal link too strongly, since Scripture only says that Christ visited the imprisoned spirits "after being made alive", yet Holy Saturday seems a good time to ponder this article of faith which has often been argued against by contemporary theologians.

"Before Christ arose and ascended into heaven, and while yet lying in the grave, He also descended into hell in order to deliver also us from it, who were to be held in it as prisoners ... However I shall not discuss this article in a profound and subtle manner, as to how it was done or what it means to 'descend into hell', but adhere to the simplest meaning conveyed by these words, as we must represent it to children and uneducated people...since we cannot but conceive thoughts and images of what is presented to us in words, and unable to think of or understand anything without such images, it is appropriate and right that we view it literally, just as it is painted, that He descends with the banner, shattering and destroying the gates of hell...we ought ... simply to fix and fasten our hearts and thoughts on the words of the Creed,which says: I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,dead, buried, and descended into hell,' that is, in the entire person,God and man, with body and soul, undivided,'born of the Virgin, suffered died, and buried'; in like manner I must not divide it here either, but believe and say that the same Christ, God and man in one person, descended into hell..."
From Martin Luther's Torgau sermon on Christ's Descent Into Hell

"...we believe simply that the entire person, God and human being, descended to Hell after his burial, conquered the devil, destroyed the power of Hell, and took from the devil all his power."
Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Art. IX


Pic: From an altar reredos at All Souls College Chapel in Oxford, England

Note that the reredos depicts Adam and Eve alongside what appear to be other OT figures, reflecting the common but erroneous folk belief that Christ preached to OT believers in hell. This is not consistent with the Biblical sedes doctrinae (seat of the doctrine), 1 Peter 3:18f, which specifically mentions Christ proclaiming his victory to those who were disobedient "in the days of Noah". 
In the history of interpretation of this passage, Augustine took the view that Christ preached through Noah to the unbelievers who later became "the spirits in prison" while Aquinas interpreted the passage allegorically, asserting that it was intended to teach simply the victory of Christ over the devil.
Other medieval interpreters thought hell was the mythological underworld, divided into various compartments for the just and unjust, the former becoming known as "the limbo of the fathers", which was liberated by Christ.
The Roman Catholic apologist Robert Bellarmine thought the spirits in prison were the souls in purgatory - an outstanding example of eisegesis or the reading into the text of information which is not there.
Lutheran interpreters through the centuries have consistently followed Luther's lead in the Torgau sermon (which also proves he did not believe in "soul sleep") and interpreted the text literally (see Bo Reicke, The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism, 1946), regarding Christ's preaching as a proclamation not of forgiveness but of his victory over sin, death and the devil, a victory which meant that the condemned state of the souls in prison was confirmed.
One must be alert in our time to interpretations which favour an apocatastasis or restoration of the souls in hell - a "second chance" to hear the Gospel and repent after death which finally results in an empty hell, save for the devil and the evil angels. This view is present not only among liberal Protestants but in the Roman Catholic and Easter Orthodox churches (see here). We dare not go against the clear word of God, which tells us that people "are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment" (Hebrews 9:27).

Luther on the Passion of Christ

"We do not preach about the passion [from the Latin verb, pati, meaning 'to suffer' - MH] in order for people to become ingrates; but rather that they recognize our heavenly Father’s great love for mankind and his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we again gain the Father’s and the Son’s favor. For he who believes with his whole heart that Christ suffered for him will not be a thankless rogue, but will with his whole being be grateful to Christ. If someone came to my rescue in an emergency, when death threatened by fire or water, I would have to be a wretch not to feel grateful toward him. We hold that person dear who gives or loans us ten guilden. What should our response be when God’s Son is given for our sakes and endures sin, death, and hell? Should we not respond, My Lord Jesus Christ suffered for me; therefore, in return, I will love him, gladly preach, hear, and believe his Word, be obedient to, and follow him. If we do not do this, we are a thousand times more malicious than the people of the world. They know nothing of this grace, but we know, and yet we are ungrateful, thoughtless, and forgetful of the fact that we, through Christ, are redeemed from sin and death. He says to us, Neither sin nor death shall harm you for I have obtained eternal salvation for you through my death. It is terrible for anyone to despise such a love!"
Martin Luther, House Postil, Good Friday, 1533

Luther on the Lord's Supper

"Whoever wishes to be a Christian should not be like the fanatical spirits who question how it is possible for bread to be Christ’s Body and wine to be Christ’s Blood. They have their own ideas of God and want to comprehend him with their reason; therefore, if something does not rhyme with reason, God also is unable to do it. But just why is it that man has puzzled about this for so long? The more man struggles over it, the less he is able to comprehend our Lord God with human reason. For our Lord God is not a God who allows himself to be measured and comprehended by human reason, nor are h is works and words to be subject to the canons of human reason. St. Paul says (Ephesians 3:20): “[God] is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think.” Why is it then that we torment ourselves by presuming to resolve and establish that God’s Word and work must conform to our reason? If God says it must be so, then because it is God’s Word and he is all-powerful and truthful, he is able, also, to effect what he says.
Therefore, we should hold steadfastly to these clear words of our Lord, The bread he proffers is his Body, and the cup or wine is his Blood, or the New Testament in his Blood. In childlike faith we should partake, without doubting, and believe it to be so. We should give thanks to Christ for such grace, rejoice over it, and strengthen our hearts by it, considering why Christ has done what he did, not disputing whether he is able to do it. Impertinent are the hearts which question why Christ did it this way and doubt that he is able to do it.
We should leave God’s Word and work undisputed and ask only who has spoken the Word and who has done the work, whether God or man has spoken it, whether it is God’s or man’s work. If it is God’s Word and work, close your eyes, do not dispute and inquire as to how it comes about, but believe that God is all-omnipotent and truthful in his words and work.
People who are conscious of their sins and sincerely desire to be rid of them should be urged to receive the Sacrament and not regard it as a judgmental occasion to be feared, but as welcome and comforting food for distressed souls. Undoubtedly it occurred under the papacy that people came to fear this Sacrament. But Christians should be instructed to approach it with joy, confident and comforted, saying, I am a poor sinner, I need help and comfort, I wish to attend the Lord’s Supper, and take nourishment from the Body and Blood of my dear Lord Jesus Christ. For he instituted this Sacrament so that all hungry and thirsty souls might be nourished and refreshed. He will not reproach me, much less hold me back, if I but come in his name to receive his help and comfort."

From Luther's House Postil for Maundy Thursday.
Pic: The Mystical Supper; icon by Simon Ushakov, 1685 (Public Domain).