The Hope of Eternal Life

516sEiy9CVL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_

The Hope of Eternal Life—Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue XI. Edited by Lowell G. Almen and Richard J. Sklba. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Lutheran University Press, 2011. 211 pages. Click here.

The eleventh round of Lutheran—Roman Catholic (L-RC) dialogue in the United States began in December 2005 and concluded in October 2010. The final report as entitled above was released on November 15, 2010, and was originally made available for download in Portable Document Format (PDF). Edited by Lowell G. Almen, Lutheran co-chair of the dialogue and retired secretary of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), and Auxiliary Bishop Richard J. Sklba of Milwaukee, Roman Catholic co-chair of the dialogue, this novella of Lutheran ecumenical remythologization provides almost interesting reading. A table of contents, a preface, four chapters, four appendices, and two background papers comprise this volume. Appendix Three, by Stephen Hultgren, is included for no discernable reason, and Appendix Four might also be categorized as background information. The latter, “The Intermediate State: Patristic and Medieval Doctrinal Development and Recent Receptions” by Jared Wicks (133–175), is arguably the only useful part of this book. The two background papers proper were presumably incorporated based on author gender (female). Although formally listed as participants on the Lutheran side, Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) theologians Samuel H. Nafzger and Dean O. Wenthe do not appear to have played an active role, other than providing personal, confessional authenticity to the designation “Lutheran” used in the dialogue.

The dialogue’s Preface cites the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds as providing precedent for a study of the hope of eternal life. Notably, however, “The foundation for the discussions and findings of Round XI was established by the ‘Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification,’” as “officially received by the Catholic Church and member churches of the Lutheran World Federation on October 31, 1999.” Despite listing numerous, insurmountable ecclesial and social obstacles, the dialogue participants seek the restoration of “full, sacramental communion” between Lutherans and Catholics (7; see also 118, 125–126). To that end, “Round XI offers fresh insights” into the “continuity in the communion of saints, prayers for or about the dead, the meaning of death, purgation, an interim state between death and the final general judgment, and the promise of the resurrection” (8). This review essay examines this dialogue’s claimed foundational use of the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ),” the dialogue’s content and methodology, and finally the biblical and confessional reliability of its conclusions.

Chapter One, “Our Common Hope of Eternal Life,” opens with subsection heading “A. Positive Developments in the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue in Light of the ‘Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification’” (pp. 11–13, §§1–8, hereafter page number(s), § number(s)). The text claims that in Augsburg, Germany, an “ecumenically historic moment transpired” when JDDJ was signed by representatives of the Vatican and Lutheran World Federation (LWF) (11, §1)—except that the “Official Common Statement” (OCS) with Annex was signed instead. “Their signatures attested to the official reception in our churches of the fruit of years of ecumenical dialogue on the topic of justification,...” (11, §2)—except that no LWF member church has approved the OCS with Annex. “The findings, statements of consensus, and even expressions of certain divergent convictions related to ‘The Hope of Eternal Life’ are built upon” JDDJ ¶15 (11, §3)—although Lutheran objections in part to JDDJ ¶15 and its exclusion of salvation by “faith alone” necessitated the drafting of the OCS with Annex to rescue JDDJ from ecumenical purgatory. “The method of the ‘Joint Declaration’ is reflected in this report” (11, §4), which essentially means that Lutherans abandon biblical and Lutheran confessional positions to merit religious congruence with the Council of Trent. Even though “[w]e wrestled with descriptions of the contemporary character of indulgences in Catholic practice, especially in the light of the ‘Joint Declaration’” (13, §7), nonetheless “[t]he ‘Joint Declaration’ affirms that the ‘Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church will continue to strive together to deepen this common understanding of justification and to make it bear fruit in the life and teaching of the churches’ (JDDJ, ¶43)” (13, §8).

That is the foundation for Round XI of US L-RC dialogue. Unfortunately, the JDDJ edifice is worse. Conveniently having misplaced scripture, “... Lutheranism has no widely received doctrinal texts beyond the Book of Concord (with the possible exception of the JDDJ), ...” (19, §23). On topic, in Chapter II under the heading “3. Common Teaching in the ‘Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification,” this dialogue stresses that in JDDJ the “respective Catholic and Lutheran paragraphs on good works link merit and reward to God’s promise” to be realized “in heaven” as “eternal life,” respectively (53, §108). Propagandistically, the “affirmation that Catholic teaching on justification as presented in the JDDJ does not fall under Lutheran condemnation places Catholic practices of [meritorious] prayers for the dead in a new context,” (107, §251)—which might have ecumenical veracity and meaning if the Lutheran confessions contained condemnations of the Roman Church’s doctrine and if such prayers were not unilaterally considered meritorious. Finally, this “document has pursued a similar method, although not written in the style of the JDDJ. Our discussions of purgatory and prayer for the dead in Chapter III must not be read in isolation from Chapter II, in which we develop our common convictions. Those common convictions form the necessary interpretative context for what we say about traditionally divisive topics” (118, §281). In other words, JDDJ and its application, rather than scripture and the Lutheran confessions, provide the “interpretative context” for the ELCA’s aspired relations with the Roman Church. Opponents of the “Joint Declaration” forewarned that JDDJ might be used in this way, and this dialogue justifies their concerns.

All vacuous JDDJ pageantry aside, the ELCA has a problem. Although “[b]oth Lutherans and Catholics affirm that the justified who die in faith will be granted eschatological perfection” (whatever that means) and although “[t]he justified in this life are one in Christ with those who have died in Christ” (12, §6), unfortunately ELCA Lutherans are neither perfect enough nor dead enough either to merit or to be granted “full, sacramental communion” with the papal church. How can one earn such favor?

To understand this dialogue’s role in the ELCA’s pursuit of reintegration into the Roman fold, two issues are at stake. First, JDDJ is wholly undermined by Canon 30 of the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification, and subsequently by catchall Canon 33, in that Canon 30 condemns (anathematizes, curses) those who do not accept purgatory. Thus, contrary to JDDJ’s stated goal and claimed achievement, the sixteenth-century condemnations of Lutherans by the Vatican in this decree still apply, and the ecumenists’ foil to slay the justification dragon barring a Protestant return to Rome is itself foiled. Second, it would be nigh on impossible for the Vatican to celebrate Luther’s Ninety-five Theses against indulgences with the Lutheran World Federation in 2017 if the Vatican had nothing to celebrate. Therefore, ways must be found for latter day Lutherans to recant what Luther would not. These goals account for the retrograde state of the content and the methodology of The Hope of Eternal Life.

In order to minimize objections to this eventual goal, Luther himself, as well as scripture and the Lutheran confessions, must be neutralized, and agreement on “intermediate states” of the dead for whom prayers can be offered, especially in purgatory, must be re-established. Thus, in addition to Lutheranism having “no widely received doctrinal texts beyond the Book of Concord,” except JDDJ, and although the Book of Concord describes Luther as the “most distinguished teacher of the churches which confess the Augsburg Confession” (“der fürnehmbste Lehrer,” see Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche [BSLK], 984, 41), this dialogue surmises,

What is the status of the self between death and resurrection? This question was not a focus of controversy during the sixteenth century, although a few Lutheran theologians (most notable, Luther) were willing to entertain possibilities excluded by Catholic teaching. More recently, the question of intermediate states has been debated within each of our traditions. How these questions are answered affects the discussion of other topics, e.g., purgatory (21, §28).

With Luther safely relegated to a minority position of inconsequential, esoteric views, the ELCA’s ecumenical Pelagianism can continue encumbered. To remove other obstacles on the Lutheran side, the dialogue asserts, “The Lutheran Reformation had no distinctive teaching about death or intermediate states. The Lutheran Confessions simply assume that the souls of the dead exist and are in a blessed communion with Christ” (25–26, §43). Therefore, to fill this void and to feign some sort of parity with Vatican doctrine, “reference will be made to material from particular Lutheran churches, even though they have not received universal Lutheran acceptance” (19, §22). This tactic favors especially those texts and liturgical materials which have been strategically brought into Lutheran “practice” since Vatican II with an ecumenical lex orandi, lex credendi, intention of making a future reintegration into the papal fold as unobtrusive as possible.

In order to propose the notion that purgatory is not “church-dividing,” The Hope of Eternal Life gradually guides its Protestant reader to a dead end. Selected “Common Affirmations” exemplify this as follows: “Our churches affirm that death cannot destroy the communion with God of those redeemed and justified” (35, §59). “Our churches thus teach an ongoing personal existence beyond death, to which our divine Creator relates in saving love” (35, §60). The “interrelation between the general judgment of all humanity on the Last Day and the particular judgment of individuals upon their death…has never been a church-dividing matter between our churches, but does affect issues that have been disputed, e.g., purgatory” (43, §84, italics original). “Hans Martensen, bishop of Sjaelland in the Church of Denmark, thought judgment might be postponed at death for some who might benefit by further time for repentance” (45–46, §91). “Wolfhart Pannenberg, while critical of the concept of purgatory as a distinct, temporally-extended intermediate state, affirms purgation as an aspect of judgment...He develops this view in a discussion of the ideas of Joseph Ratzinger and concludes: ‘There is thus no more reason for the Reformation opposition’” (87, §203). “In light of the analysis given above, this dialogue believes that the topic of purgation, in and of itself, need not divide our communions” (91, §212, bold original). After such preparation for purgatory and despite the qualification that “Lutheran Confessions are uniformly critical of the doctrine of purgatory” (78, §179, the summit has been reached,

270. As with masses for the dead, indulgences appear in a different light when understood within the context of the solidarity of all the justified with Christ and each other. Lutherans in this dialogue have come to see that the intent behind the contemporary practice of indulgences is an expression of an appeal to the mercy of Christ. Whether indulgences do or can adequately embody that intent remains a genuine question for Lutherans. Lutherans also ask whether indulgences are so open to abuse and misunderstanding that their evangelical intent is obscured. Nevertheless, since the practice of indulgences has not been seen as required for communion with the Catholic Church, Lutherans need not adopt these practices for the sake of such communion. Ecumenical rapprochement requires, however, that Lutherans not condemn Catholic teaching about the practice of indulgences as inherently contrary to the Gospel (113–114).

As with all its ecumenical endeavours, this conclusion reiterates the ELCA’s abandonment of Article VII of the Augsburg Confession, which clearly states the sufficiency of the gospel “purely” preached (and taught) as the only foundation for true church unity.

Given the foregoing, it should not be entirely surprising that this dialogue’s use of the Bible and the Lutheran confessions is less than reliable, as an introductory paragraph exemplifies,

This dialogue’s discussion of biblical texts seeks to illumine the scriptural foundations and background of our churches’ respective teachings on the hope of eternal life without completely settling these hermeneutical questions. Judgments whether particular biblical texts adequately ground particular beliefs about heaven, hell, purgatory, etc., often involve judgments on these larger questions. Sometimes our churches have drawn different conclusions from the same biblical texts, e.g., 1 Cor. 3 and Matthew 12:32 (which will be discussed below in a section on purgatory) (20, §26).

Notably, the “dialogue’s discussion” seeks “to illumine the scriptural foundations and background of our churches’ respective teachings” rather than the other way around, i.e., the word being a lamp unto the dialogue participants’ feet. Furthermore, not only uncritically but also unquestioningly, this dialogue repeatedly cites writings from the Apocrypha, particularly 2 Maccabees, as scripture. In other words, this dialogue’s stated methodology precludes the Old and New Testaments from being solely foundational either for the dialogue or for the churches’ respective teachings, particularly regarding purgatory (70–71, §161). In contrast, such scripture did provide the foundation for the Reformers’ confessional critique and rejection of purgatory, which this dialogue readily and repeatedly notes (79, §§181, 182; 82, §191).

Likewise, this dialogue’s use of or reference to material from the Lutheran confessions, taken frequently out of context, is misleading at best. Within the context of this dialogue and its goals, however, such misleading is deliberate, deceptive by design. For example, after describing and quoting Luther’s rejection of purgatory in the Smalcald Articles (SA II, II) as an apparition of the devil (Teufelsgespenst) and idolatry, which one would like (mocht) to discard (or abandon) “even if it were neither error nor idolatry” (Kolb-Wengert, 303), “man es mocht wohl lassen, wenn es schon kein Irrtum noch Abgotterei wäre” (BSLK, 420), this dialogue continues,

The existence of purgatory is not dogmatically denied. Rather, 1) the existence of purgatory is not taught by Scripture and thus cannot be binding doctrine, and 2) belief in purgatory is now hopelessly bound up with unacceptable practices. A belief that could be discussed in principle is concretely objectionable because of its associations (79, §181).

Clearly, Luther’s use of the subjunctive form “would like” (mocht) rather than mag (may), the latter used in both Tappert (295) and Kolb-Wengert (303), indicates what one “would like” to do even if purgatory “were” (ware, again subjunctive) not error or idolatry. This double subjunctive “translated” into the indicative means that purgatory is error and idolatry and thus is not open for discussion, regardless of associations. Whereas the Kolb-Wengert translation of Luther’s subjunctive into an English subjunctive is mechanically correct, it is not meaningfully correct. The Kolb-Wengert translation thus invites this dialogue’s drafters to exploit this mechanical translation as a means to allow Luther to give tacit permission to discuss purgatory stripped of all evils. Meaningfully, however, Tappert has it much more correct: “All this may consequently be discarded, apart entirely from the fact that [purgatory] is error and idolatry.” Confessionally, for both the BSLK and Tappert, the door to discussing purgatory is shut and locked.

Another questionable application of the Lutheran confessions pertains to “meritorious” works and this dialogue’s attempts to harmonize Lutheran and papal positions. With reference to Apology IV on justification (Kolb-Wengert, 171), homogenized for the Council of Trent, this dialogue asserts, “The Apology states that good works, which can only be performed by those who are in Christ, ‘are truly meritorious, but not for the forgiveness of sins or justification. For they are not pleasing to [God] except in those who are justified on account of faith’” (51, §105). This dialogue further states, “In its Decree on Justification, the Council of Trent similarly taught that good works that are meritorious before God are possible only for those in Christ, for the justified.” Thus, the “ecumenical question is the significance of the difference between the Apology’s statement that eternal life is a reward in the sense of a recompense and the Council of Trent’s statement that eternal life is a merited reward” (52–53, §107).

Later, while noting the LCMS’s rejection of such prayer, the dialogue states, “The presence of prayers for the dead in the funeral liturgies” of ELCA hymnals since 1978 “supports a partially shared practice of prayer for the dead [with the Roman Church] and sheds new light on remaining differences on purgatory” (108, §255). Thus, despite differences, ELCA Lutherans and Catholics “agree that such prayer is a good work of the justified. They agree that good works will be rewarded by God in this world and the next, and in that sense can be called meritorious. They agree that prayer constitutes an aspect of penance. They agree that prayer is efficacious; it can truly aid the person prayed for, although that aid does not operate automatically and is always under the will of God” (108, §256). This explains, as per §270 quoted above, why “indulgences appear in a different light when understood within the context of the solidarity of all the justified with Christ and each other,” and thus why Lutherans must “not condemn Catholic teaching about the practice of indulgences as inherently contrary to the Gospel.”

This second example from the Lutheran confessions represents more than exploitable ambiguities in translation. The similar phrasing regarding rewards and “meritorious” works between the Council of Trent and the Apology is possible chiefly because the Kolb-Wengert Book of Concord uses a different Apology. Whereas the quarto edition of Ap IV, 194, standard since 1580, only in a couple lines—almost in passing—describes “good works” as meritoria (BSLK) and “meritorious” (Tappert), the Kolb-Wengert rendition uses the octavo edition instead. The octavo edition omits Ap IV, 194 and elaborately discusses rewards and “meritorious” works in several new paragraphs placed after Ap IV, 257. This elaboration provides ample fodder (39, §72; 50–52, §§103, 105) for the dialogue drafters to conjure confessional congruence, which the BSLK and Tappert, arguably, would not.

According to Kolb-Wengert, “In using this approach, we follow the most recent modern German translation of the Book of Concord” (109) with note 3 referring to the Evangelische Bekenntnisse: Bekenntnisschriften der Reformation und neuere theologische Erklärungen (Evangelical Confessions: Confessional Writings of the Reformation and Newer Theological Declarations). Notably, this collection of Lutheran and Reformed confessional writings was collated by and published for use in the Evangelische Kirche der Union (Evangelical Church of the Union, EKU) and thereafter in the Union Evangelischer Kirchen (Union of Evangelical Churches, UEK) in the Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (EKD). In other words, the Apology in Kolb-Wengert is patterned on a translation for use in union churches in Germany. Synergistically, while Kolb-Wengert “unionism” provides a meritorious tool for ELCA ecumenism, the ELCA’s ecumenism again reveals the confessional unreliability of the Kolb-Wengert Book of Concord over against the BSLK benchmark edition used by confessional Lutherans since 1580 (see also Mark D. Menacher, Priesthood, Pastors, Bishops—Public Ministry for the Reformation & Today by Timothy J. Wengert, published in LOGIA: A Journal of Lutheran Theology 19 (Reformation 2010), 48–51).

In short summary, from a biblical and Lutheran confessional standpoint, The Hope of Eternal Life—Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue XI was dead on arrival and does not have a prayer for purgation or for anything else either in this life or in the life to come.

Mark D. Menacher

La Mesa, California

You, My People, Shall be Holy

You, My People, Shall be Holy: A Festschrift in Honour of John W. Kleinig. Edited by John R. Stephenson and Thomas M. Winger. St. Catharines, Ontario: Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, 2013. Hard cover, 336 pages. Click here.

The influence of Dr. John W. Kleinig (b. 1942) has extended far beyond the boundaries of his native Australia, as this well-deserved festschrift amply attests, including essays by colleagues not only from “down under” but by grateful co-workers in the United States, Canada, Finland and Germany. Even as Dr. Kleinig’s work has been multifaceted, engaging Old Testament exegesis, doctrinal theology, liturgical studies and pastoral care, so the essays in this handsomely executed volume testify to the depth and breadth of the honoree’s academic and churchly interest.

You, My People, Shall be Holy

Years of teaching the book of Leviticus came to culmination in the publication of Dr. Kleinig’s commentary by Concordia Publishing House in 2003. In that work, he demonstrated the liturgical/sacramental dimensions of the Old Testament in general and Leviticus in particular. It is fitting, therefore, that this volume includes Chad Bird’s “The Tabernacle as a New Creation” and William Weinrich’s “Leviticus as a Christian Book: Patristic Instances.” Bird demonstrates how the Garden of Eden functioned as a prototype of the tabernacle, giving it both temporal and teleological significance in salvation history. Weinrich examines the use of Leviticus by patristic writers on Christological confession and ecclesial practice.

Several of the essays engage questions of church and office. Norman Nagel addresses ordination and authority in “Bestowing Hands and Potestas ordinis.” John Stephenson assesses the Reformer’s thoughts on the episcopal office in “Towards an Exegetical and Systematic Appraisal of Luther’s Scattered Thoughts on Episcopacy.” Thomas Winger takes a fresh look at the way in which the royal priesthood has often and wrongly been pitted against the office of the holy ministry, suggesting a more sure-footed and faithful path in confessing both as gifts from the Lord. Dr. Kleinig has faithfully and with significant suffering contended against those in his own Lutheran Church of Australia who would introduce to the church the novelty of women’s ordination. A telling essay, recounting how it was that women’s ordination was brought into European Lutheran churches, is provided by Gottfried Martens. Juhana Pohjola of Finland examines Luther’s understanding of the office in “Reflections on the Office of the Holy Ministry on the Basis of Martin Luther’s Genesis Commentary.”

Two essays echo Dr. Kleinig’s aversion to all forms of antinomianism, taking up the third use of the law, one by Kurt Marquart, “The Third Use of The Law as Confessed in the Formula of Concord,” and the other by David Scaer, “The Third Use of the Law: Resolving the Tension.”

Both in his classroom calling at Adelaide and in seminars and conversations around the world, Dr. Kleinig has surely demonstrated that he is a pastoral theologian par excellence. Themes of pastoral theology are expressed in essays by Ronald Feuerhahn, “Luther on Preaching the Word of God;” Andrew Pfeiffer, “Luther and the Pastor at Prayer;” and Harold Senkbeil, “Lead Us Not into Temptation: Acedia, the Pastoral Pandemic.”

Like his sainted teacher, Hermann Sasse, Dr. Kleinig has championed the place of the Lord’s Supper not only in the church’s doctrine but also in practice and in piety. Two essays are devoted to the Sacrament of the Altar. Pastor Brent Kuhlmann treats readers to Luther’s confession of Jesus’ body and blood in “Da er sagt. Solchs thut! Dr. Luther’s Confession Regarding the Consecration in His 1528 Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper.” Dr. Kleinig’s brother, Pastor Vernon Kleinig, surveys how the benefits of the Sacrament were confessed in Lutheran Orthodoxy in “The Benefits of the Lord’s Supper in Seventeenth-Century Lutheranism.”

Like Luther, Dr. Kleinig knows that God comes to us deeply in the flesh, in the things of creation. Scott Murray’s essay on the “Resurrection of the Flesh” and Roger J. Humann’s “John 2:1-11—Water into Wine: A Sign of the Messianic Kingdom” both demonstrate the anti-gnostic theme so dominant in Dr. Kleinig’s theology and spirituality. A theologically astute layman in the Lutheran Church of Australia, and a medical doctor, Ian Hamer has provided a very helpful critique of the tendency toward autonomy in contrast to holiness in “From Autonomy to Holiness.”

A former student, Adam G. Cooper, contributed a chapter on “Hierarchy, Humility, and Holiness: Ecclesial Rank in Dionysius the Areopagite.” Gregory P. Lockwood, a longtime friend and colleague of Dr. Kleinig on the faculty in Adelaide reflects on how peace is understood biblically in “Holiness and Wholeness: towards a Truly Holistic Understanding of ‘Peace’ in the Scriptures.”

A final feature of this festschrift is the inclusion of two hymns. “As Dear Children of the Father,” by Canadian pastor Kurt E. Reinhardt, reflects the evangelical nature of prayer from a baptismal perspective. A commemorative hymn commissioned by DOXOLOGY: The Lutheran Center for Spiritual Care and Counsel was written by Stephen Starke and set to music composed by Phillip Magness, “You, My People, Shall be Holy,” demonstrates that the theology so eloquently taught and proclaimed by Dr. Kleinig is indeed doxological. Through the life and ministry of Dr. John W. Kleinig, the song of the church indeed goes on as God is invoked as our Father through His Son in the power of the Spirit. These hymns along with the essays in this Festschrift are a worthy tribute to a doctor of the church and confessor of Christ Jesus, whose patient and careful work in the Lord’s vineyard will continue to bear rich fruit in the years to come.

John T. Pless

Fort Wayne, In

Bibliography to Stephen Pietsch’s “Sure Comfort: Luther on Depression,” LOGIA, 23:1.

Black Dog Institute. Beyond Blue: the National Depression Initiative, www.beyondblue.org.au/.

Blazer, Dan G. The Age of Melancholy, Major Depression and its Social Origins. New York: Routledge, 2005.

Brecht, Martin. Martin Luther, His Road to Reformation 1483-1521. James L. Schaaf, translator. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1981.

Brecht, Martin., Martin Luther, Shaping and Defining the Reformation 1521–1532. James L. Schaaf, translator. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.

Clebsch, William A. and Charles R Jaekle. Pastoral Care in Historical Perspective. Northvale, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1983.

Foutz, Scott. “On the Life and Mystical Theology of Jean Gerson (1363-1429).” http://www.foutz.net/writings/foutz-gerson.html.

Gowland, Angus. “The Problem of Early Modern Melancholy.” Past & Present. No.191 (May 2006): 77–120.

Gritsch, Eric W. Martin, God’s Court Jester. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.

Haile, H.G. Luther, A Biography. London: Sheldon, 1980.

Headley, Tony. “Luther on Depression.” Light and Life (July-August) 1999.

Hollon, Steven D. and Sona Dimidjian. “Cognative and Behavioral Treatment of Depression.” The Handbook of Depression. Second edition. Ian H. Gotlib and Consyance L. Hammen, editors. London, Guildford Press, 2009: 586–603.

Hummel, Leonard M. “Heinz Kohut and Empathy: A Perspective from a Theology of the Cross.” Word & World. Volume XXI, No.1 (Winter 2001): 64–74.

Hunter, R. Lanny and Victor L. Hunter. What Your Doctor and Your Pastor Want You to Know about Depression. St Louis: Chalice Press, 2004.

Jackson, Stanley. Melancholia and Depression: From Hippocratic Times to Modern Times. Yale University Press, 1990.

Kleinig, John W. Grace Upon Grace, Spirituality for Today. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2008.

Luthers Werke im WWW Weimarer Ausgabe. http://luther.chadwyck.co.uk/.

Luther’s Works (American Edition). 55 vols. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehman, editors. St Louis: Concordia Publishing House; Philadelphia: Muhlenburg Press, 1960–1975.

Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Briefwechsel. 18 vols. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau, 1930–1985.

Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Tischreden. 6 vols. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau, 1930–1985.

Midelfort, H.C. Erik. A History of Madness in Sixteenth Century Germany. Stanford University Press: 2000.

Oberman, Heiko A. Luther, Man between God and the Devil. Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbart, translator. New York: Yale University Press, 1989.

———. “Teufelsdreck: Eschatology and Scatology in the ‘Old Luther.’” Sixteenth Century Journal. Vol. 20, No.3 (1988). http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/aejt_8/luther.htm.

Palmer, Parker J. “All The Way Down: Depression and the Spiritual Journey.” Weavings: A Journal of Christian Spiritual Life. Vol. 13, No. 5 (September-October 1998).

Pietsch, Stephen. “Depression and the Soul, A Cooks Tour.” Australian Lutheran College opening lecture, 2009. http://www.alc.edu.au/assets/education/about/academic-publications/opening-lecture/2010-depression-and-the-soul.pdf.

———. “Seelsorge—A Living Tradition in Pastoral Theology Practice.” Lutheran Theological Journal. Vol. 43, No.1 (May 2009): 49–62.

Posen, M., D.C. Clark, M. Harrow, J. Fawcett. “Guilt and conscience in major depressive disorders.” The American Journal of Psychiatry, 1983. Vol. 140: 839–844.

Radden, Jennifer. Moody Minds Distempered, Essays on Melancholy and Depression. Oxford University Press, 2009.

———. The Nature of Melancholy, From Aristotle to Kristeva. Oxford University Press, 2000.

Rowe, Dorothy. “Depression's punitive conscience: Robert Enke's tragic death stemmed from a need to self-punish familiar to anyone who's suffered depression.” The Guardian. November 12, 2009. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/12/robert-enke-depression-suicide.

Stolt, Birgit. Die Sprachmischung in Luthers Tischreden: Studien zum Problem der Zweisprachigkeit. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1964.

Stone, Howard W. Depression and Hope, New Insights for Pastoral Counseling. Minneapolis: Augsburg-Fortress, 1998.

Swinton, John. Spirituality and Mental Health Care, Discovering a “Forgotten” Dimension. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishing, 2006.

Thompson, Mark D., “Luther on Despair.” The Consolations of Theology. Brian S. Rosner, editor. Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 2008.

Todd, M. John. Luther, A Life. New York: Crossroad, 1982.

Trader, Alexis. Ancient Christian Wisdom and Aaron Beck’s Cognitive Therapy: A Meeting of Minds. New York: Peter Lang, 2011.

Wengert, Timothy, editor. The Pastoral Luther, Essays on Martin Luther’s Practical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 2009.

Wilson, Eric G. Against Happiness—In Praise of Melancholy. Farrar: Straus and Giroux, 2008.

Yahnke, Beverly K. “Prescriptions for the Soul: The Taxonomy of Despair.” Doxology Website: http://www.doxology.us/downloads/35_yahnke2.pdf.

Von Loewenich, Walther. Luther’s Theology of the Cross. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1976.

Lutheranism in Australia

Epiphany 2014, Volume XXIII, Number 1Table of Contents

(A feature article from the journal: The Long Road to Lutheran Unity in Australia by Erich Renner)

It will be necessary to bear in mind that the following survey will be somewhat selective. Many of the rifts among Lutherans in Australia were of minor significance, the details of which are fully treated and documented in the histories produced by authors in the past. The major divisions and sticking points on the path to unity in congregations, synods, and churches in Australian Lutheranism will receive more concentrated attention. If we look at Lutheran disunity in Australia there were serious issues which, though insignificant in themselves, could not be solved for many years, leaving painful scars on the life of these churches.

Before we explore the Australian Lutheran scene more fully, it may also be useful to remind ourselves that as long as the church of Christ has existed on this earth there have often been deep-seated problems leading to schisms and heresies. For example, the New Testament does not cover up the painful difficulties facing the Apostle Paul in his Corinthian church, where there were Pauline, Petrine, and Apollonic factions and even a Christ fellowship developing and threatening harmony. A study of church history reveals a continuing story of the dissensions that often developed to the detriment of the church at large. Sometimes these divisions were necessary and justified. From a Lutheran perspective the churches of the sixteenth-century Reformation were not spared their share of deformation and division.

...read or download the rest of this article here (free, PDF)

...purchase the full journal here

Predestination, Grace, and Free Will in the Thought of St. Prosper of Aquitaine and C.F.W. Walther: A Comparison and Evaluation

—By Jordan Cooper Throughout the history of the church, the doctrine of predestination has often been contentious. The name Augustine is usually associated with the doctrine of predestination in the Patristic period, and John Calvin during the sixteenth century Reformation. These theologians represent a strict form of predestinarianism. In contrast to this double predestinarian view, several theologians throughout the centuries have attempted to formulate a balanced view of predestination by affirming both that God's election of grace is unconditional and that God's grace is universal. This view, which can be labeled mild Augustinianism, was adopted as the orthodox position at the Second Council of Orange in 529. Various theologians throughout the church have represented this mild Augustinian position.

The Formula of Concord adopted the mild Augustinian position, whereas the Calvinistic Reformation adopted a strict form of predestinarianism. While Reformed writers have commonly utilized the writings of Augustine, most Lutherans have little knowledge of their mild Augustinian forebearers in the early church. Lutheranism must reclaim its catholic predestinarian tradition. This article will evaluate one such semi-Augustinian in the early church: Prosper of Aquitaine. After the death of Augustine, Prosper was the most outspoken and prolific defender of the preeminence of God’s grace. Following this is an evaluation of C.F.W. Walther, who, in my estimation, is the most articulate defender of the mild Augustinian position on grace in the post-Reformation Lutheran tradition. It will be demonstrated that the positions of both these writers are compatible with one another. The Lutheran Reformation is thoroughly Prosperian.

The Semi-Pelagian Debate

Though the Pelagian position lost influence after the Augustine/Pelagius debate was settled in favor of Augustine's contention for the necessity of divine grace,¹ the church's doctrine of grace, predestination, and free will was far from uniform. In reaction to Augustine's strict predestinarian views, several schools of thought arose contending for their own approaches to the relationship between free will and sovereign grace. Several theologians adopted tenets of the Augustinian position while attempting to maintain the Pelagian emphasis on free will and the universality of the saving divine will.

The most competent and influential proponent of the mediating position later known as Semi-Pelagianism, was the monk John Cassian.² Cassian admired Augustine, but feared his emphasis on grace at the expense of human free will would lead to sloth among the monastics. Cassian wrote his work Conlatio 13, in response to the Augustinian position on behalf of the ascetics of Gaul who opposed a strict understanding of absolute predestination.³ In this work, Cassian argues that grace is present and necessary for the salvation of anyone. This grace, however, is aided by human free will. God offers grace prior to, during, and consequent to, conversion. Salvation is a synergistic act. God offers grace initially that the human agent then has the ability to accept or reject. When the will assents to grace, this initiates the process of salvation, wherein both the human subject and divine activity cooperate. This cooperation continues until perfection is attained. Thus, according to Cassian, both God's grace and human free choice can be affirmed without damage to one another.⁴

In Cassian's approach, divine grace usually precedes conversion and thus has priority. Cassian is willing, however, to admit that grace does not always precede faith. Though humans are fallen creatures, the effect of depravity on man's will is not total. Enough goodness remains in humankind that human agency may initiate the process of salvation. This first step, taken solely by one's will, is then aided by grace. Cassian thus avoids the Pelagian claim that salvation is possible apart from grace, while rejecting Augustine's doctrine of irresistible grace.⁵ In Cassian's view, this synergistic approach to salvation avoided both extremes inherent in the fifth century predestinarian disputes.

Prosper of Aquitaine

The chief opponent of the Semi-Pelagian party was St. Prosper of Aquitaine. Not much is known of Prosper's origins. He was born sometime in the late fouth century in Gaul. He received a an education in Aquitaine and published his first book “On the Providence of God,” De providentia Dei in 416. Some time between 417 and 425, Prosper came into contact with the Pelagian controversy. During this period, in which he wrote nothing, Prosper became a student of Augustine, adopting the bishop of Hippo's teachings on grace and free will as the catholic position. Eventually, Prosper would become Augustine's most ardent and competent defender.

Prosper's doctrine of predestination can be divided into an early and later stage. In Prosper's early writings, he defends Augustinian double predestination. He teaches limited atonement, and limits grace to the elect. However, later in life, Prosper tempered his predestinarianism, arguing that grace is universal, yet that grace precedes faith. Thus Prosper later holds the important tension between divine monergism and the universality of the gospel.

Prosper's Early Writings

Prosper wrote various works in his early career defending Augustine's teaching on predestination and grace. These letters and treatises were primarily written against John Cassian and the theology of various Semi-Pelagian monastics from Gaul. In these writings, Prosper defends divine monergism against the Semi-Pelagian attacks on Augustinianism.

Prosper argues that Cassian's approach to free will allows for the possibility that human merit could precede grace in opposition to the New Testament insistence to the contrary. According to Prosper, no mediating view between the Augustinian and Pelagian position is possible.⁶ Ultimately, one either has to decide whether salvation is solely a divine work or a work of cooperation. Responding to the assertion that both man and grace can be the initiating cause of conversion, Prosper states, “The alliance between the two which your new system advocates does not reconcile them in any way; it unduly presents the Catholic position as wrong and the Pelagian one as correct.”⁷ For Cassian, some conversions are initiated by grace and others by human will; in Prosper's mind, this presents an incompatible system that ultimately leaves one with a Pelagian understanding of grace.

Like Augustine, Prosper argues for a robust doctrine of original sin: “But all have sinned in one: in punishment of Adam's sin the whole race was condemned. Therefore, all have lost what Adam lost. He lost faith in the first place; and if faith is the first gift we all lost, it is also the first gift we have to receive it again.”⁸ Humankind's solidarity with Adam necessitates the acquisition of Adamic sin. This includes unbelief. Thus, in Prosper's approach, the human will is bound. Faith is an impossibility apart from the grace of God. Thus, to admit, as does Cassian, that in some cases free will may take the first step toward conversion denies the reality of the fall.

The entire process of conversion and salvation is a divine work in Prosper's theology. This begins with an acknowledgment of the reality of one's sinful situation.

Until man receives from his Physician the very knowledge of his unhappy state, his soul delights in its misery, ever enamored of its errors and embracing falsehood for truth. The beginning of its cure lies in its conceiving dissatisfaction with itself and hatred of its inherited weakness. The next step is its desiring to get cured and knowing who it is that can cure it. Though all these acts are previous to its cure, yet it is He who will cure the soul that inspired them. Else, since they cannot arise in the soul without producing their effect, the soul would seem to have been cured by its own merit and not by grace.⁹

Prosper recognizes—as Luther later would—that an illness cannot be cured without an acknowledgment of that illness. In later Lutheran terminology, Law precedes Gospel. Yet even a recognition of one's sinful state is impossible apart from grace. The soul curved in on itself inherently loves its miserable state. Apart from divine intervention, this would never be realized. God's grace opens the eyes of a sinner to recognize the evil of sin. God both diagnoses the sickness and provides the cure. Because even recognition of sin is part of the cure for Prosper, the contention of the Gaul theologians that one could begin the process of conversion in any sense would rob God of his glory.

Prosper does not deny free will in a Manichean fashion. In Prosper's understanding, free will is damaged by the fall. Due to man's Adamic nature, rather than reaching out toward God, the will is captured by carnal desires. The will of man does not then need to be destroyed but repaired. Grace does not oppose human will but heals it.

This grace, sweeping aside the embers of worldly opinions and dead works, rekindles the dead log of his heart and sets it aflame with the desire of the truth; it does not bring man into subjection against his will but makes him desirous of that subjection; it does not draw him without his knowledge but shows him and leads the way. For his free will, which still exists, created as it was by God together with his human nature, does not of itself withdraw from the vain desires to which he turned when he neglected the law of God; it is the Creator that works this change. And so, the whole cure of fallen man is effected neither without his co-operation nor by anyone else than by his Physician.¹⁰

Like Augustine, Prosper provides a view of grace and freedom which both leaves the human will and person intact after the fall, while maintaining the Pauline concept that salvation is monergistic. God's grace does not work against will but changes the will to desire the good.¹¹ Man directs his love and affection inward, and God's grace causes that love to be sent beyond the self, up toward the Holy Trinity.

This saving grace does not simply begin the conversion process only to be replaced by the renewed will but is operative continually in the Christian's life. Prosper views Paul's experience of struggle as outline in Romans 7 as the experience of a converted person: “He means to say that, when we have received the gift of desiring what is good, we are not at once able to do it but must ask and desire and knock and be given to do it by Him who inspired the desire. For these words, For to will is present with me; but to accomplish that which is good, I find not, are the words of one who was called and given grace already.”¹² Throughout Christian existence, one is repeatedly confronted with the fact that sin is a continual reality. Though a desire to obey God's Law is inherent in the regenerated person, the ability to fulfill that desire is not always present. God does not immediately heal the Christian of all sin, because he desires his people to continually reach out for divine assistance. In Prosper's theology, grace is needed to aid the Christian's journey in life. It continues to heal the soul and offer forgiveness.

Prosper frames his theology of grace within the context of predestination.¹³ In a statement summarizing his position on the issue, Prosper states that “the predestination of the saints is nothing else but the foreknowledge and preparation of God's grace by which He saves them without fail.”¹⁴ Prosper follows Augustine's interpretation of foreknowledge, viewing the term as a reference to God's foreknowledge of his own future actions. This is in opposition to the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian approach, which argues that foreknowledge refers to foreseen future merits on behalf of elect individuals. The predestination of God is both unconditional and immutable. God predestines unto salvation unconditionally; merits are never the cause of predestination but its effect.¹⁵ The number of the elect are only those who are finally saved and will infallibly reach eternal salvation. Christ's death was only given for these select individuals.¹⁶

At this time in Prosper's career, double predestinarianism is affirmed, albeit in a moderated fashion. Prosper argues that it is “grace that distinguishes a believer from an unbeliever.”¹⁷ God's free decision of election involves choosing one person out of the mass of damnation over another. It is God who both “opens the hearts of the first and closes the hearts of the second.” Thus, God is active in both salvation and reprobation. Prosper holds a comprehensive view of God's sovereignty, claiming that “all things are ordained by God's decree.”¹⁸ This includes both salvation and reprobation, though both are accomplished in different manners. “Both God' mercy and His justice are operative in the very wills of men.”¹⁹ Even though Prosper adopts a strict predestinarian theology in line with Augustine, there are some important qualifications to be made. First, Prosper does not make a direct equation between salvation and reprobation. Predestination to life is always unconditional whereas predestination unto death is conditioned upon foreseen demerit.²⁰ Second, Prosper is not willing to base assurance of one's salvation purely on election or to cause his readers to discover their election within God's hidden decree. In a pastoral manner, Prosper exhorts, “[T]rust that you are not excluded from the number of the predestined who are His people, because it is He Himself who gives you the grace to make this prayer. God forbid that you should despair of your salvation, for you are commanded to place your hope in Him, not in yourselves.”²¹ Prosper's predestinarian views are strict, but he still approaches them with a pastoral spirit.

The Later Prosper: The Call of All Nations

Prosper's magnum opus is his later writing, The Call of All Nations. This work portrays a moderated Augustinianism, wherein it is argued that salvation is due solely to grace and also that God's saving will is universal. It is particularly noteworthy that the sixteenth century Reformers often referenced this work. Luther recommended it as one of his favorite Patristic works,²² and it is cited in the Augsburg Confession.²³ This work echoes the later position of the Formula of Concord regarding the preeminence and universality of grace. Prosper defines the purpose of this work with the following words:

A great and difficult problem has long been debated among the defenders of free will and the advocates of the grace of God. The point at issue is whether God wills all men to be saved; and since this cannot be denied, the question arises, why the will of the Almighty is not realized. When this is said to happen because of the will of men, grace seems to be ruled out; and if grace is a reward for merit, it is clearly not a gift but something due to men. But then the question again arises: why is this gift, without which no one can attain salvation, not conferred on all, by Him who wills all to be saved? Hence, there is no end to discussions in either camp so long as they make no distinction between what can be known and what remains hidden.²⁴

Thus Prosper attempts to answer the question: why are some saved and others not? In contradistinction to his early writings, Prosper takes it as a given that the cause is God’s saving will. Yet, since he is still self-consciously monergistic, Prosper faces a dilemma. How can grace alone save, and yet not all are saved even though God earnestly desires that they be?

Prosper begins his discussion with the same conviction that salvation occurs sola gratia, arguing that original sin causes the will to be fallen.²⁵ Good works never precede grace, but are a result of prevenient divine action. In the same manner, human reason is unable to approach God apart from grace: “We conclude that neither the learned nor the illiterate of whatever race or rank come to God led by human reason; but every man who is converted to God is first stirred by God's grace.”²⁶ He defends the concept that the work of grace is thoroughgoing. Grace gives one the realization of sin, an understanding of the gospel, the desire for the gospel, conversion, and perseverance in the faith. He writes that “a man's merit from the beginning of faith to final perseverance is a gift and work of God.”²⁷ Monergism describes the entire process of salvation in Prosper's approach.

In Prosper's theology, grace is not usually given through a spontaneous conversion experience—such as Augustine’s radical experience—but is primarily a sacramental reality. He confesses that “in baptism all sins are forgiven.”²⁸ This is consistent with the sacramental approach that he discusses in his earlier writings. “This is why now, until man is cured of that deadly poison by eating the flesh of the Son of God and drinking His blood, his memory is weak, his judgment erring, his step staggering; nor is he at all capable of choosing and desiring the good gifts which he cast off of his own free will.”²⁹ Election is not abstract, a mere ideal in the mind of God, but is realized through concrete events. Baptism converts, changing the will from a love of self to a love of God; the Eucharist continually brings grace to the recipients, giving forgiveness and the power to obey God's moral will.

In Book Two of his work, Prosper expounds upon the question of why some are saved and others are not. He writes,

First, we must confess that God wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Secondly, there can be no doubt that all who actually come to the knowledge of the truth and to salvation, do so not in virtue of their own merits but of the efficacious help of divine grace. Thirdly, we must admit that human understanding is unable to fathom the depths of God's judgments, and we ought not to inquire why He who wishes all men to be saved does not in fact save all.³⁰

Once again, Prosper confesses two clear Biblical truths. First, God's saving will is universal. God desires all to be saved indiscriminately. Second, all that are saved are converted by grace alone. Merit never precedes grace. But in some sense grace is irresistible; election is immutable. Because these two truths are seemingly incompatible, Prosper does not attempt to solve the dilemma but appeals to divine wisdom.

Prosper makes a clear and definite distinction between God's predestination and foreknowledge. Regarding the apostasy of Cain, for example, Prosper writes that God “worked to bring him back to his senses from that frenzy of impiety.”³¹ Though God gave grace to Cain, desiring his salvation, God also foreknew the outcome of the mercy shown. “God foreknew to what extremes his madness would drive him; yet, because of this infallible knowledge of God we may not conclude that his criminal will was urged on by any necessity to sin.”³² Not all that is foreknown by God is decreed, nor is it necessarily God's desire, but merely his allowance. Prosper urges that “this eternal and ever serene knowledge does not impose on us any necessity of sinning, and no iniquity can spring from the source of all justice.”³³ The good accomplished by man is predestined, and the evil done is only foreknown so that God is not in any way the cause of evil.

Prosper expounds upon the nature of universal grace. He describes several different manners in which God's grace is universal. First, God has shown general kindness to the world: “He has given the life-giving air, regulated the alternations of day and night, granted fertility to the fields, growth to the seeds, and fecundity for the propagation of mankind.”³⁴ This general kindness has been active since the foundation of the world and continues in all nations. Second, God's grace is universal in the sense that Christ's atonement is universal: “There can, therefore, be no reason to doubt that Jesus Christ our Lord died for the unbelievers and the sinners. If there had been any one who did not belong to these, then Christ would not have died for all. But He did die for all men without exception.”³⁵ Prosper rejects his earlier position that the cross's intent is particular in nature.³⁶ Third, God's grace is universal in that God's saving will is universal: “Whether, then, we look on these last centuries or on the first or on the ages between, we see that reason and religious sense alike make us believe that God wills and has always willed all men to be saved.”³⁷ In this context, Prosper makes a distinction between general grace and special grace. General grace is given to all, whereas special grace is given only to some. It may at first appear that Prosper is utilizing the later Calvinistic distinction between common grace and efficacious grace,³⁸ but his intent is different. He clearly qualifies this distinction by admitting that the only reason special grace is not given to all is due to human refusal to receive it. He writes that God, “wished to make it clear from both that He did not refuse to all mankind what He gave to some men, but that in some men grace prevailed and in others nature recoiled.”³⁹ Prosper's position is that salvation is due solely to God's grace, which is universal, and that damnation is solely due to the rejection of grace on the part of sinners.

The later Prosper has a balanced view of the nature of divine grace. He retains the sola gratia principle, confessing that salvation is achieved by grace alone. Election is unconditional, preceding any good in the human person. Yet this election is also singular, encompassing only those who are saved; there is no predestination unto death. Prosper affirms the universal nature of grace. God intends all to be saved, leaving the cause of damnation in the disobedient human will rather than God's decree. Ultimately, Prosper leaves the answer to the question of why some are saved and not others as a paradox. He writes, “It is clear, then, that in a countless variety of ways God wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. When they do come, then God's help is their guide; and when they do not, the fault of the refusal lies with their own obstinancy.”⁴⁰ The reconciliation of these two ideas is a divine mystery.

Predestination in the Lutheran Tradition

Since Luther wrote his book On the Bondage of the Will against the famed humanist Erasmus in 1525, the subject of predestination, grace, and free will has been prevalent among the Lutheran branch of the Reformation. Luther took a strong predestinarian stance, arguing for the bondage of the human will, unconditional election, and the necessity of persevering grace. After Luther's death, a controversy arose among the Lutheran reformers over the cause of human conversion.⁴¹ For the Gnesio-Lutheran school, the word of God and the Spirit are the sole causes of conversion, the human will being purely passive. The Philippist school, under the leadership of Johann Pfeffinger and Viktorin Strigel, argued that the human will is active in conversion alongside of the word of God and the Spirit. Nikolaus Gallus, Matthias Flacius, and other Gnesio Lutherans fought against this perspective with a robust monergism, following Luther's Augustinianism.

The Formula of Concord ultimately followed the Gnesio Lutheran school in defending divine monergism, while rejecting the particularism of the rising Calvinist theology. The Formula of Concord states that “the eternal election of God, however, or praedestinatio (that is, God's preordination to salvation), does not apply to both the godly and the evil, but instead only to the children of God, who are chosen and predestined unto eternal life “before the foundation of the world was laid” (SD XI, 5). Thus in response to the double predestinarian views of Calvin, the Lutheran reformers confess that predestination is single, only referring to those who are saved, not the reprobate. God foreknows, foresees, the punishment which is to be given to unbelievers but is not active regarding sin and evil. Further, God's election is not based upon foreseen faith or merits but is gracious and unconditional. “God's eternal election not only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect but is also a cause of our salvation and whatever pertains to it, on the basis of the gracious will and pleasure of God in Christ Jesus” (SD XI, 8). Thus the Lutheran Confessions—with Prosper—confess both the unconditional nature of election and the universality of the divine saving will.

After the writing of the Formula of Concord and the rise of scholastic theology, the monergistic, confessional approach to election was gradually lost. It became commonplace among the seventeenth century scholastic writers to speak of election intuitu fidei. In the intuitu fidei approach, God's predestination unto salvation is in view of faith, thus making faith the cause of election rather than the conviction of the Lutheran reformers that election is the cause of faith. This approach was challenged by various confessional Lutherans in America during the nineteenth century, who sought to restore a theology consistent with the confessional documents rather than a strict adherence to seventeenth century scholastic categories. Chief among those seeking to revive the confessional approach to election was C. F. W. Walther.

Walther presented a number of addresses at the Synodical Conference of North America between 1877 and 1880 that dealt specifically with the doctrine of election. One of Walther's colleagues, F. A. Schmidt, quickly attacked Walther's position. According to Schmidt, Walther's view of unconditional predestination was not consistent with Scripture or the Lutheran tradition. To deny the intuitu fidei approach is to fall into crypto-Calvinism. A series of publications came from Schmidt and his supporters against the Waltherian party. Walther responded with several treatises and sermons on the subject. The controversy was never ultimately resolved within American Lutheranism. The Wisconsin and Missouri synods adopted the Waltherian view of unconditional predestination, whereas many other Lutheran synods followed the intuitu fidei language of Schmidt.

Walther's View of Election and Grace

In Walther's view, monergism is a necessary confession of any consistent Lutheran. Sola fide only exists within the context of sola gratia; these two concepts can never be divorced from one another. Walther opposed the intuitu fidei party because “they declare predestination to be nothing more than the following: in the first place, the foreknowledge of God that certain persons will receive the gospel in true faith and perseverance in this saving faith unto the end, and secondly the decree that He will actually save the persons that persevere in faith.”⁴² This reverses the biblical and confessional order that predestination is the cause of faith. Walther is willing to admit that it is only foreknowledge that pertains to reprobation, rather than a divine decree, but defends adamantly that salvation occurs through divine decree and assistance. He writes,

According to our Confession, therefore, predestination is not only a decree of God according to which He is willing to save men, provided that they persevere in faith unto the end, but it is rather such an ordination of God which is such a CAUSE of salvation of the elect as to, “procure, work, aid, and promote” at the same time “whatever pertains to it,” namely, to their surely obtaining salvation, consequently also, to their being led to repentance, conversion, and faith, and to their persevering unto the end.⁴³

This decree effects the salvation of particular people—namely, those who will be finally saved—rather than a general plan of God that he desires the salvation of God through faith.

The intuitu fidei approach, in Walther's perspective, amounts to nothing short of Pelagianism. He warns, “But woe be unto you, if you take this glory from God and Christ, and attribute it to yourself, even in part! This is the most terrible idolatry which you can practice with yourself, and is the sure road to condemnation.”⁴⁴ It is a denial of the gospel of grace to confess that any part of conversion is due to the human will. The synergistic Lutherans allow for a small movement of the human free will toward faith, making God's grace a response to human action. This is an iteration of the Pelagian heresy and nearly identical to the theology of the legalistic medieval church Luther fought against. To argue that faith is the cause of election denies the central truth of Luther's Reformation.

Walther carefully distances himself from a Calvinistic approach to predestination. “Whoever, therefore, tries to make you believe that we teach that horrible Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, grossly transgresses the eighth commandment, in bearing false witness against his neighbor and slandering us . . . for with heart and soul we condemn Calvin's doctrine of predestination, so help us God!”⁴⁵ For Walther, the primary problem with the Calvinistic approach to predestination is its denial of gratia universalis. Grace is universal in its intent and application. Reformed theologians argue that the gospel call is universal. The gospel is truly offered to all men externally through the word.⁴⁶ However, according to God's secret will, the internal call is only intended for the elect. Walther refers to this Reformed doctrine of the “external call” as “pretend and unreal.”⁴⁷ Walther refutes this approach purporting that “through [the call] God reveals his will: namely, that in those whom he thus calls, he will operate through the Word, so that they may be enlightened, converted and saved.”⁴⁸ Alongside of the truth of predestination, which is particular, stands the truth that God's grace is universal. Both the gospel call and the inward call of the Spirit are given indiscriminately through word and sacrament.

This distinction between a monergistic Lutheran perspective and a Reformed view of predestination is further defined through Walther's distinction between foreknowledge and predestination. He urges that “the difference between foreknowledge (praescientia) and eternal election (praedestinatio) of God ought to be accurately observed.”⁴⁹ Foreknowledge is universal; God foresees every action and outcome of human beings before hey occur. But, “this is not to be understood as if it were God's gracious will that they should occur.”⁵⁰ Evil actions of humans are thus not predestined according to the divine will but are simply foreseen and allowed. This is distinct from the Calvinistic view that the objects of foreknowledge and predestination are identical. For the Reformed, all actions are determined by decree. In Walther's view, predestination is only used in reference to the good and righteous actions of men.

In Walther's view, predestination does not involve peering into the secret will of God. Walther does not attempt to discuss or dissect God's eternal decrees according to their nature and order, as do some Calvinistic writers,⁵¹ but views election as a practical doctrine. He urges his readers to “meditate on it in the manner in which the counsel, the purpose, and the ordination of God, in Christ Jesus, who is the right and true book of life are REVEALED unto us through His word.”⁵² Election is not to be sought in God's secret will but in what God has revealed through Christ. God promises he will “justify all those who in true repentance embrace Christ in genuine faith, genuinely receive them, and adopt them as His children and heirs of eternal life.”⁵³ Election is tied to this promise, so that assurance of one's salvation comes not through God's decree but through looking to the objective gospel promise through word and sacrament.

The importance of the word and sacraments cannot be overemphasized in Walther's doctrine of election. For Walther, election comes about through concrete means. He argues that the “merit of Christ and His benefits should be offered, administered, and distributed to us, through His Word and Sacraments.”⁵⁴ This is not the concept of spontaneous regeneration promoted by Calvinistic theologians. Though Walther does admit that God appoints the exact date, time, and circumstance of conversion,⁵⁵ only the external Word works conversions. “Now God does not call without means, but through the Word.”⁵⁶ Not only is the word efficacious unto conversion, but God “also seals it with the Sacraments, which He has attached as seals of the promise, and thus He confirms it to each believer in particular.”⁵⁷ The Waltherian doctrine of election is thoroughly sacramental.

Walther's view of election is also thoroughly Christocentric. There is no decree of election apart from the person and work of Christ.

[P]eople are taught that they must SEEK eternal election IN CHRIST and His holy GOSPEL, as in the book of life. For the Gospel excludes no penitent sinner, but calls and invites all poor, all troubled and afflicted sinners to repentance, to the acknowledgment of their sins, and to faith in Christ; it promises the Holy Spirit for their purification and renovation.⁵⁸

The election of grace does not occur apart from Christ, and is not separate from the doctrine of justification, but serves as a reinforcement for the Reformation principle that salvation comes by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. “It confirms most forcibly the article, that we are justified and saved by pure grace for the sake of Christ alone, without any of our own works and merit.”⁵⁹ Walther says, “This eternal election of God must be considered in Christ, and not apart from, or without Christ.”⁶⁰ To gain assurance of election, one need not look at the eternal decree but at the universal redemption achieved by Christ's cross and resurrection. This is done primarily through the means of word and sacrament, which serve as instruments of assurance.

Those who are damned were not destined unto death, but willingly chose to reject God's grace. “The reason that all who hear the Word of God, do not believe, and, therefore, meet with a deeper condemnation, is not found in God's willingness to bestow salvation.”⁶¹ Walther rejects any notion of double predestination, whether the decree of reprobation is passive or active. In Walther's view sinners are at “fault, because they so hear the Word, not to learn, but only to scorn, to blaspheme, and to profane it, and because they resisted the Holy Spirit, who desires to operate in them through the word.”⁶² Thus, Walther leaves the question of why some are saved and others not in a paradox. Those who are saved are so because of divine action and election. They were chosen unconditionally in Christ. Those who are damned were not predestined to that fate but are solely damned due to their own fault and rejection of grace. Though these two truths appear incompatible, Walther trusts in the wisdom of God. He gives the wise advice to “leave the counsels of God unsearched and do not wonder that God knows more than you, and that He does not permit us poor-sighted mortals, yea, not even angels and archangels to look into His secret counsels, until the day of the revelation of His glory.”⁶³ The question of divine sovereignty and human responsibility is solved by giving God all of the glory for salvation, and man all of the blame for damnation, while leaving the seeming contradiction between the two concepts as a divine mystery.

Conclusion: Comparing Prosper and Walther

Now that the views of both writers have been examined, some conclusions can be reached. There are many similarities between Prosper and Walther’s perspectives on predestination, grace, and free will.⁶⁴ First, both writers adopt the concept of the bondage of the will. Through the fall, Adam lost spiritual freedom. The will must be healed by the Spirit for conversion to take place. In this construction, faith is a gift of God rather than a human possibility. Conversion is a divine act, wherein a sinner's heart is changed to understand sin, receive forgiveness, and begin to love God. Disobedience is changed into obedience.

Secondly, both agree with the central aspects of the doctrine of predestination. Both Prosper and Walther argue that predestination is an act of God wherein he elects individuals unto eternal life. It refers only to those who are actually saved and is an act which promotes and effects conversion and perseverance. There is no double predestination. There is a distinction between predestination and foreknowledge; predestination is only used in reference to the good that occurs in the world, whereas foreknowledge encompasses all acts, both good and evil. God causes good, but never causes evil actions. Predestination is not based upon any foreseen faith, repentance, or merits on the part of individuals, but it is unconditional. Works never precede grace but are a result of prevenient grace given.

Third, both writers place election within a sacramental context. Conversion in Prosper and Walther is not spontaneous. It comes through the act of baptism and the proclamation of the word. This grace is continually given, and one's spiritual life is sustained by the Eucharist. The word and sacraments are always connected to the Spirit, not merely for the elect. This assures that the grace of God is universal in intent. The atonement is also universal in its intention.

Finally, both writers answer the question, “Why are some saved and others not?” in the same manner. There is no precise equation to answer this dilemma. While Arminians and Semipelagians have typically answered “man” and strict Augustinians and Calvinists have answered “God,” both Prosper and Walther cannot answer both parts of the question with the same answer. The reason why some are saved is solely due to God's grace and election. There is no merit or faith that makes the elect any more worthy of grace than the damned. On the other side of the equation, those who are damned are so only because of their decision. Grace is given to them, as to the elect, but they reject that grace, and thus bring damnation upon themselves. This seeming paradox has no answer and must be left to divine mystery.

Rev. Jordan Cooper is pastor of Hope Lutheran Church, Brighton, Iowa. He blogs at justandsinner.blogspot.com.

As an extension of LOGIA, BLOGIA understands itself to be a free conference in the blogosphere. As such, the views expressed on BLOGIA are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LOGIA’s editorial board or the Luther Academy.

Notes

1. Pelagianism was condemned at the Council of Carthage in 318 and again at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Though largely defeated, Pelagius’s disciple Julian of Eclanum—perhaps the most radical theologian of the Pelagian movement—taught his approach to free will and moral living throughout his life until his death in 455. After Julian's death, the Pelagian movement was virtually extinct. ↩
2. For further information on John Cassian see: Owen Chadwick, John Cassian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1950), and Stewart Columba, Cassian the Monk (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998). ↩
3. In this work, Cassian does not directly quote Augustine's writings. He is possibly reacting to Augustinians he had dialogued with rather than Augustine himself. Or possibly Cassian refused to mention Augustine by name because of the fame Augustine had gathered by this time. Cassian might have lost credibility had he attacked such an eminent figure directly. ↩
4. Hwang defines this position saying, “According to the cooperative model, the grace of God initiates and inspires the free will toward the good, but the free will can choose to follow or resist the actions of grace at each stage in the process of perfection. Thus, grace and free will are compatible as long as grace is understood as resistable.” Alexander Y Hwang, Intrepid Lover of Perfect Grace: The Life and Thought of Prosper of Aquitaine. (Washington D.C.: CUA Press, 2009), 149. ↩
5. The difference between Cassian and Augustine's views on grace is likely due to their distinct environments. Augustine experienced a life of sin and a radical conversion to the Christian faith; Cassian was raised in a monastic lifestyle, consistently focusing on his pursuit of Christian perfection. Augustine “experienced grace” in a way that Cassian did not. ↩
6. “You have invented some hybrid third system, disagreeing with both parties, and so you neither find approval with our enemies nor keep in one mind with us. Moreover, how do you not see that, when you assert that men themselves take the initiative of their good works and because of that are given grace, you fall into an error that was condemned and willy-nilly appear to say that 'the grace of God is given in answer to our merits'?” Against Cassian, Chapter 3. ↩
7. Against Cassian, Chapter 5. ↩
8. Answers to the Extracts of Genoese, Answer to Excerpt 3. ↩
9. Against Cassian, Chapter 4. ↩
10. Against Cassian, Chapter 13. ↩
11. Another way to speak of this concept is that grace heals nature. As Prosper writes, “Therefore all that pertains to a life of godliness we receive not from nature, which fell in Adam, but from grace, which heals nature.” Against Cassian, 13. ↩
12. Against Cassian, Chapter 4. ↩
13. In one of his more extreme statements, Prosper concludes that “whosoever opposes the preaching of this doctrine is an open supporter of the Pelagian heresy.” Answer to Extracts of Genoese, Answer to Extract 9. ↩
14. Answers to Extracts of Genoese, Answer to Extract 8. ↩
15. “The divine election is based on grace, not on merits.” Answer to the Extracts of Genoese, Answer to Excerpt 4. ↩
16. “It may also be said that He was crucified only for those who were to profit by His death.” Answers to the Gauls, Article 9. Prosper seems to be the first writer to approach such a concept. Even though Augustine particularizes certain universalistic texts, he never states a clear doctrine of limited atonement. A teaching of limited atonement is relatively rare in church history prior to the Calvinistic Reformation. ↩
17. Answer to the Extracts of Genoese, Answer to Excerpt 4. ↩
18. Letter to Rufinus, 18. ↩
19. Answer to the Extracts of Genoese, Answer to Excerpt 4. ↩
20. In other words, Prosper is infralapsarian rather than supralapsarian. ↩
21. Answer to the Extracts of Genoese, Answer to Excerpt 9. ↩
22. Luther encourages Spalatin to read this work along with the anti-Pelagian treatises of Augustine. Luther astutely recognizes its non-Ambrosian authorship: “You might also add Saint Ambrose's work on the calling of all heathen; although this book appears from its style, contents, and chronology to have been written by someone other than Ambrose, it is nevertheless a very learned book.” Theodore Tappert, Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1955), 113. ↩
23. Discussing the relationship between faith and works in justification, Melanchthon writes, “So that no one may quibble that we have contrived a new interpretation of Paul, this entire approach is supported by the testimonies of the Fathers. In many writings Augustine defends grace and the righteousness of faith against the merit of works. Ambrose teaches similar things in Concerning the Calling of the Gentiles and elsewhere. For in Concerning the Calling of the Gentiles he says, 'Redemption by the blood of Christ would become worthless and the preference for human works would not give way to the mercy of God if justification, which takes place by grace, were due to antecedent merits. For then it would be the worker's wage rather than the donor's gift.'” AC XX, 12–14 (Latin, Kolb-Wengert). ↩
24. The Call of All Nations, Book One chapter 1. ↩
25. “For, although it lies in man's power to reject what is good, yet unless it is given him, he is unable by himself to choose this good. The power to do the former was contracted by our nature with original sin; but nature has to receive the ability to do the latter from grace.” The Call of All Nations, Book One chapter 25. ↩
26. The Call of All Nations, Book One chapter 8. ↩
27. The Call of All Nations, Book One chapter 23. ↩
28. The Call of All Nations, Book One, chapter 13. ↩
29. Against Cassian, 9:3. ↩
30. The Call of All Nations, Book Two, chapter 1. ↩
31. The Call of All Nations, Book Two, chapter 13. ↩
32. The Call of All Nations, Book Two, chapter 13. ↩
33. The Call of All Nations, Book Two, chapter 34. ↩
34. The Call of All Nations, Book Two, chapter 10. ↩
35. The Call of All Nations, Book Two, chapter 16. ↩
36. Hwang argues that this change is due to the influence of Rome on Prosper's thought, though I am not fully convinced of his thesis. Alexander Hwang, Intrepid Lover of Perfect Grace: The Life and Thought of Prosper of Aquitaine (Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America, 2009). ↩
37. The Call of All Nations, Book Two, chapter 25. ↩
38. The distinction is that God's general kindness is shown to every person, but saving grace is limited in both intent and effect to the elect. ↩
39. The Call of All Nations, Book Two, chapter 25. ↩
40. The Call of All Nations, Book Two, chapter 28. ↩
41. For more on this controversy see Charles P. Arand et al., The Lutheran Confessions: History and Theology of the Book of Concord, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 201–16. ↩
42. C. F. W. Walther, The Controversy Concerning Predestination in: Predestination in Lutheran Perspective (White Horse Inn, 2006), 4–5. ↩
43. Controversy, 6. ↩
44. C. F. W. Walther, The Doctrine of Election Presented in Questions and Answers in: Predestination in Lutheran Perspective (White Horse Inn, 2006), 44. ↩
45. Controversy, 7. ↩
46. The exception to this is the hyper-Calvinist movement in nineteenth century, particularly Baptist theology, such as in the writings of John Gill. In hyper-Calvinism there is no universal call or offer. ↩
47. Questions & Answers, 21. ↩
48. Questions & Answers, 21. ↩
49. Questions & Answers, 14. ↩
50. Questions & Answers, 15. ↩
51. As they did in the infralapsarian/supralapsarian debates. ↩
52. Questions & Answers, 19. ↩
53. Questions & Answers, 19. ↩
54. Questions & Answers, 18. ↩
55. “God knows without any doubt, and has appointed the season and time of each one's call and conversion; and when He will again raise him up after he has fallen.” Questions & Answers, 28. ↩
56. Questions & Answers, 20. ↩
57. Questions & Answers, 23. ↩
58. Questions & Answers, 36. ↩
59. Questions & Answers, 24. ↩
60. Questions & Answers, 30. ↩
61. Questions & Answers, 32. ↩
62. Questions & Answers, 32. ↩
63. Controversy, 13. ↩
64. Recognizing of course that Prosper did not use this exact terminology. ↩

Advent 3: Norman Nagel

product_4_lg

Here's a sermon from Rev. Dr. Norman Nagel preached during the week of Advent 3, on December 16, 1998.

Advent 3

Text: Isaiah 35:1–11

If you'd like more sermons from Norman Nagel, you can purchase 62 of his sermons for $15.00. Click here.

Christ in Luther's Interpretation of the Old Testament

PROPTER CHRISTUM: Christ at the Center

A shift seems to be occurring within biblical interpretation. Some scholars have issued calls to reevaluate the historical-critical method of interpreting the Scriptures. Scholars have become fascinated with "pre-critical" interpretations of Scripture.

John A. Maxfield calls our attention to this shift, but he primarily encourages us to not lose sight of our Lutheran heritage. In this article, Maxfield presents a discussion of Luther's interpretation of the Scripture — particularly the Old Testament — and his thoroughly christological hermeneutic.

The entire essay can be found in the forthcoming festschrift in honor of Daniel Preus: Propter Christum: Christ at the Center. Visit LOGIA’s website to reserve your copy. It is available for pre-order and is scheduled to be released in November.

CHRIST AT THE CENTER IN LUTHER’S INTERPRETATION OF OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY AND NARRATIVES

—by John A. Maxfield

The last words of Bornkamm’s book convey both the problem for the modern reader of Luther’s Old Testament interpretation and its opportunity:

[Luther’s] work has Christianized the Old Testament thoroughly, as we have seen. We cannot use it with a clear conscience much longer if we cannot give clear and new reasons to justify such an interpretation. If we take this task just as seriously as we take the inviolable truthfulness of historical research, then we can let go of the “swaddling clothes” of Luther’s interpretation of the Old Testament and once again salvage the treasure in the manger.¹

The late Professor Bornkamm might be surprised by the “clear and new reasons” used today instead to knock historical-critical analysis of the Old Testament off its hegemonic pedestal. In the burgeoning subdiscipline of the history of biblical exegesis in the fields of both biblical studies and church history (as well as historical study more widely cast), it appears that the keenest fascination has been with what might be named the “swaddling clothes” of the so-called “pre-critical” interpretation of the Bible. For example, in a widely-cited article that has functioned as a manifesto for the discipline of the history of pre-modern biblical interpretation, David Steinmetz takes aim at the sufficiency of exegesis that focuses narrowly on the intended historical-literal sense of the human author and asserts boldly:

The medieval theory of levels of meaning in the biblical text, with all its undoubted defects, flourished because it is true, while the modern theory of a single meaning, with all its demonstrable virtues, is false. Until the historical-critical method becomes critical of its own theoretical foundations and develops a hermeneutical theory adequate to the nature of the text it is interpreting, it will remain restricted—as it deserves to be—to the guild and the academy, where the question of truth can endlessly be deferred.²

A whole genre of studies of biblical interpretation in the early church, the Middle Ages, and the Reformation continues to be the fruit of such appeals to dethrone the sole focus of biblical studies on “the inviolable truthfulness of historical research” as conceived in post-Enlightenment historical criticism. I am reminded here, ninety years later, of Karl Barth’s scathing critique of liberal Protestantism in his preface to the second edition of his Epistle to the Romans, where he did not challenge historical criticism as a tool of the interpreter but asserted boldly that historical analysis is merely the prolegomena to the true task of theological interpretation of Paul’s text, which is in fact the word of God, the sole means (that is, the Bible as a whole) by which God, who is unknowable, reveals himself to man.³

But how fares the biblical interpretation of Luther in this revival of interest in pre-critical exegesis? The current romance of many confessional Lutherans with the early church fathers, often quite ignorant or dismissive of the critical and selective appropriation of patristic traditions in the Lutheran Reformation and its Confessions (and this is especially true in regard to patristic exegesis), suggests that Luther’s approach to the Old Testament in particular is in danger of being lost to a resurgence of allegorizing and typological interpretations, also among Lutherans. The days are apparently long over when John Calvin’s method of typological interpretation of messianic psalms, applying them first and foremost to David and only secondarily to Christ, is rejected by orthodox Lutherans as “Judaizing.”⁴ Indeed, Calvin’s methods of typological exegesis are frequently celebrated broadly as the vanguard of responsible Christian and yet historically sound exegesis of the Old Testament while Luther’s understanding is rejected on the ideological grounds of it being “supercessionist” (as is also much of the New Testament), and thus responsible for his highly offensive views of the Jews in many of his later writings.⁵

In contrast to what seem to be the prevailing views today, I view Luther’s distinctive approach to interpreting the Old Testament as Christian Scripture as both historically sound and most fruitful for the church’s theology and preaching. In the remainder of this essay in honor of Daniel Preus, who continues to devote his talents and energies to the theology and life of the Lutheran church throughout the world in its modern context, I would like to describe some of the rather traditional as well as the new ways that Luther kept Christ and the gospel at the center of his interpretation of the Old Testament, focusing especially on his lectures on Genesis. . . .⁶

---

1. Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther and the Old Testament, trans. Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch, ed. Victor I. Gruhn (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969 [German orig. 1948]), 266. More recently, Siegfried Raeder also evaluates Luther’s Old Testament interpretation, describing for example Luther’s second psalms lectures (the Operationes in Psalmos, 1519–1521) as “‘evangelio-centric’ rather than christological,” that is, “more in regard to the Gospel of Christ than in regard to the person of Christ.” Luther thus stands in contrast to the psalms exegesis of the humanist Lefèvre d’Étaples, whose “strictly christological interpretation of the Psalter prevented Lefèvre from investigating the historical forms of faith, love and hope in the Old Testament.” Siegfried Raeder, “The Exegetical and Hermeneutical Work of Martin Luther,” in Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. 2, From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, ed. Magne Sæbø (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 377, 370. ↩
2. David Steinmetz, “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis,” Theology Today 37 (1980): 38. Likewise, Robert Louis Wilken takes up the mantle of Roman Catholic theologian Henri de Lubac and defends the use of allegory (among other meanings) in patristic and medieval spiritual interpretation: “If there is anything that is obvious, it is that the notion of a single sense does not carry us very far in the interpretation of great works of literature, or of the Bible.” “In Defense of Allegory,” Modern Theology 14, no. 2 (April 1998): 197. A significant portion of De Lubac’s magisterial study is now available in an English translation: Henri de Lubac, S. J., Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture, vol. 1, trans. Mark Sebanc (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans and Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998); vol. 2, trans. E. M. Macierowski (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans and Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000); vol. 3, trans. E. M. Macierowski (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans and Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2009). ↩
3. Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. from the sixth edition by Edwyn C. Hoskyns (London: Oxford University Press, 1933), 2–15. Note Barth’s response to historical criticism: “I have been accused of being an ‘enemy of historical criticism.’…I have nothing whatever to say against historical criticism.…My complaint is that recent commentators confine themselves to an interpretation of the text which seems to me to be no commentary at all, but merely the first step towards a commentary.…Jülicher and Lietzmann know far better than I do how insecure all this historical reconstruction is, and upon what doubtful assumptions it often rests. Even such an elementary attempt at interpretation is not an exact science. Exact scientific knowledge…is limited to the deciphering of the manuscripts and the making of a concordance. Historians do not wish, and rightly do not wish, to be confined within such narrow limits,” 6. ↩
4. On the charge by the Lutheran orthodox dogmatician Aegidius Hunnius in his book Calvinus Iudiazans . . . (1593), see esp. G. Sujin Pak, The Judaizing Calvin: Sixteenth-Century Debates over the Messianic Psalms (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). ↩
5. See, for example, Eric W. Gritsch, Martin Luther’s Anti-Semitism: Against His Better Judgment (Grand Rapid, MI; Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), esp. 33–46. Space does not allow an exploration of the significant problem of Luther’s Old Testament exegesis in relation to his so-called “anti-Jewish writings”; however, I would like to suggest that this problem (and it is a problem!) is most fruitfully analyzed not by rejecting Luther’s prophetic-christological and historical but gospel-centric interpretations of the Old Testament, as is often done, but by recognizing that Luther’s error in these later writings had to do with a failure to apply his own principle or overarching doctrine of the two kingdoms (or two realms of God’s governance in the world), and not with his critique of Judaism in relation to its legalism and in response to Jewish unbelief. The latter is, after all, also the critique of the New Testament. ↩
6. Some of what follows has appeared and is treated more extensively in terms of Luther’s vocation as Professor Reformer in John A. Maxfield, Luther’s Lectures on Genesis and the Formation of Evangelical Identity, Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies 80 (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2008). Previously published material used with permission of the publisher. ↩

Theses on Infant/Toddler Communion

—by John T. Pless

1. The question of admission to the Lord’s Supper is addressed from the instituting words of the Lord, which also disclose the purpose and beneficial use of the sacrament.

Jesus’ words tell us what the sacrament is, his body and blood given Christians to eat and to drink for the forgiveness of their sins. As Luther puts it: “We know, however, that it is the Lord’s Supper, and is called thus, not the Christians’ supper. For the Lord not only instituted it, but also prepares and administers it himself, and is himself cook, waiter, food and drink.”1 The sacrament is to be received in “remembrance” of the One who instituted it, that is, in faith trusting in his gracious words, “given and shed for you.” The sacrament itself is the preaching of the Gospel. It is misused when it turned into an enactment of inclusiveness or thought of as the impartation of a mystical energy through the act of eating and drinking. Arguments for the communion of infants and toddlers tend to drive a wedge between “take eat, take drink” and trust in “these words, given and shed for you.” It is not simply eating and drinking that constitute the salutary use of the sacrament but eating and drinking accompanied by trust in Christ’s words, that is, the explicit promise of his Supper.

2. The apostolic teaching that a man examine himself (I Corinthians 11:28) cannot reasonably be interpreted as to exclude the noetic dimension of which infants/toddlers are not capable.

Paul speaks of self-examination in verse 28 in conjunction with “discerning” (diakrino) the body in verse 29. Both BAGD and Kittel demonstrate that this term means to separate, arrange, make a distinction, differentiate, evaluate, judge.2 This text cannot be dismissed by limiting its application to the original context of the Corinthian congregation as Wolfhart Pannenberg does when he asserts, “The self-examination that I Corinthians 11:28 demands does not relate primarily to the individual moral state but to the breaches of fellowship that ought not exist between members of the body of Christ.”3 While the apostle is certainly addressing and correcting these breaches of fellowship enacted in the way the rich assert their priority over the poor, he does so on the basis that this is no ordinary meal but a communion in the body and blood of the Lord. Communicants are not to eat and drink without the discernment of this reality.4

3. Baptism is an absolute prerequisite for admission to the Lord’s Supper, but it does not follow that all the baptized are categorically to be admitted to the altar.

The slogan “Communion is the birthright of the baptized,” sometimes used to assert that all the baptized are entitled to eat and drink in the Lord’s Supper, is not only problematic in making admission to the Lord’s Supper a “right” rather than a gift, but it also misses the point that for numerous reasons baptized Christians are excluded from the Lord’s Table. Those under church discipline are barred from the altar as are those do not share in the confession of a particular altar. Infants and toddlers who have not yet been taught the faith and examined on the basis of this teaching are not admitted to the Supper. As Werner Elert notes, “Even though a man must first be baptized before he may partake of the Holy Communion, this does not mean that all the baptized may without distinction partake of the Eucharist together.”5 The baptized are to be taught according to the Lord’s bidding (see Matt. 28:19–20). This teaching leads to the sacrament not vice versa.

4. Arguments for infant/toddler communion bypass the truth that in Baptism, we receive “victory over death and the devil, forgiveness of sin, God’s grace, the entire Christ, and the Holy Spirit with his gifts” (LC IV:41–42, Kolb/Wengert, 461) as though the promise of Baptism remained unfulfilled without the Lord’s Supper. By waiting until children have been instructed, examined, and absolved before admitting them to the Lord’s Supper, they are not being deprived of Christ.

In the New Testament and the Lutheran Confessions, Baptism is not an event in a series of “rites of initiation” that is left incomplete without participation in the sacrament. Instead Baptism bestows the “entire Christ” and encompasses the whole life of the believer. Not only is it foundational, but it is also enduring in the life of Christian. The teaching that our Lord attaches to Baptism (see Matt. 28:16–20) surely leads the baptized to eat and drink his body and blood as the Lord bestows his gifts in more than one way, but infants and young children are not deprived of Christ before this teaching has been accomplished. Here note Craig Koester: “The Lord’s Supper was instituted for ‘for the forgiveness of sins’ to be received with a discerning faith. Adults and children who recognize their sin and seek forgiveness should be encouraged to partake of the meal. Since infants are not capable of recognizing sin or desiring forgiveness, they should not participate in the Supper. The grace given in Baptism is sufficient for them at this early stage of their lives. It is when they reach the point where they recognize the need for forgiveness for their sins that they should be instructed and encouraged to take, eat, and drink of Christ’s body and blood at the Lord’s table.”6

Maxwell E. Johnson, himself an advocate of infant communion, notes that through a coupling of John 3:5 (unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom) and John 6:53 (Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man) into a single logion in the traditio fidei, both Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are made necessary for membership in the Christian community.7 Unlike Cyprian (and Augustine for that matter), the Lutheran Confessions do not operate with what might be called a “unitive” understanding of the sacraments. Baptism is the rebirth into the body of Christ as in it sins are forgiven and the Holy Spirit bestowed. The Lord’s Supper is not an additive to Baptism but serves instead to strengthen the Christian in the forgiveness of sins according to the word and promise of Christ to which faith clings.

5. Faith does not make the sacrament, but it is only by faith that the benefits of the sacrament are received. Faith is precisely trust in these words, “given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins” (SC). In the Small Catechism, eating and drinking are joined together with trust in the spoken word, “given and shed for you.” The Lord’s Supper is given precisely to strengthen the faith of those who through the accusation of the Law recognize their sin and whose terrorized consciences acknowledge their need and desire the forgiveness of their sins. “For people are admitted only if they have first had an opportunity to be examined (explorati) and heard. The people are also reminded about the dignity and use of the sacrament—how it offers great consolation to anxious consciences—so that they may learn to believe in God and expect all that is good from God” (AC XXIV:6–7, Latin, K/W, 68).8

Eating and drinking the Lord’s body and blood worthily requires instruction. Admitting the uninstructed and therefore unexamined, whether they are adults or infants was out of the question for Luther. Already in 1522, Luther provides descriptive template for the structure of the Catechism: "Thus the commandments teach man to recognize his sickness, enabling him to perceive what he must do or refrain from doing, consent to or refuse, and so he will recognize himself a sinful and wicked person. The Creed will teach and show him where to find the medicine—grace—which will help him to become devout and keep the commandments. The Creed points him to God and his mercy, given and made plain to him in Christ. Finally, the Lord's Prayer teaches all this, namely, through the fulfillment of God's commandments everything will be given him. In these three are the essentials of the entire Bible.”9 Instruction in and confession of these essentials of the Christian faith are a prerequisite for admission to the Lord’s Supper. Four years after writing the Catechisms in 1533 in his “An Open Letter to Those in Frankfurt on the Main” Luther writes, “It is quite true that wherever the preacher administers only bread and wine for the sacrament, he is not very concerned about to whom he gives it, what they know or believe, or what they receive. . . . However, because we are concerned about nurturing Christians who will still be here after we are gone, and because it is Christ’s body and blood that are given out in the sacrament, we will not and cannot give such a sacrament to anyone unless he is first examined regarding what he has learned from the Catechism and whether he intends to forsake the sins which he has again committed. For we do not want to make Christ’s church into a pig pen [Matthew 7:6], letting each one come unexamined to the sacrament as a pig to its trough. Such a church we leave to the Enthusiasts!”10

Often left out of the discussion of infant/toddler communion is the aspect of the terrorized conscience, which Luther includes as a dimension of the examination of communicants. Examination includes exploration of why it is that the body and blood are needed. Lutheran practice should be both catechetical (the communicant should have knowledge of the basic texts and how to use them) and diagnostic (the communicant should have an awareness of his/her sin). The communicant should know what the sacrament is and how the body and blood of the Lord are to be used against the conscience which is afflicted by sin.

6. The Lutheran Confessions assert that none are to be admitted to the sacrament who have not been instructed, examined, and absolved. See LC V:1–3, K/W, 467; AC XXV:1–3, K/W, 73.

Arthur Carl Piepkorn summarizes the position of the Lutheran Confessions: “Communicants are to know from memory at least the Decalog, the Creed, the Our Father, and the words of institution of Holy Baptism and the Sacrament of the Altar.”11 Evidence for Piepkorn’s assertion may be seen in the Large Catechism where Luther writes, “All this is established from the words Christ used to institute it [the Lord’s Supper]. So everyone who wishes to be a Christian and to go to the sacrament should know them. For we do not intend to admit to the sacrament and administer it to those who do not know what they seek or why they come” (LC V:1–2, K/W, 467). Near the end of this section of the Large Catechism, Luther does speak of children (not infants!) being instructed in the Catechism so that they may come to the Supper: “Therefore let all heads of a household remember that it is there duty, by God’s injunction and command, to teach their children or have them taught the things that they ought to know. Because they have been baptized and received into the people of Christ, they should also enjoy this fellowship of the sacrament so that they may serve us and be useful” (LC V:87, K/W, 87). Article XXV of the Augsburg Confession coheres with the Large Catechism: “For it is not our custom to administer the body of Christ except to those who have been previously examined and absolved” (AC XXV:1, K/W, 73).

7. Lutheran theology does not begin with a generic category of sacraments but works instead from the Lord’s mandates for Baptism and the Supper. Each has its own distinctive features. They are not interchangeable. It does not follow that arguments for the baptism of infants are to be applied for the communion of infants/toddlers.

Neither the New Testament nor the Lutheran Confessions operate with a generic definition of “sacrament” but instead begin with the Lord’s instituting words for Holy Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Absolution. What might qualify under the heading of “sacrament” is rather elastic, but it is clear that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are not interchangeable. What applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other. Baptism is administered once for incorporation into the one body of Christ, while the Lord provides his Supper to be administered time after time to strengthen believers in the forgiveness of sins.

8. The Lord’s Supper is the new testament of the Lord, not the new Passover. Hence it does it does not follow that because infants/toddlers were included in the Passover meal that they are to be communed.

Paul G. Bretscher sees the inclusion of infants in the Passover seder as a grounds for their admission to the Lord’s Supper. In a paper first presented at the Institute of Liturgical Studies at Valparaiso University in 1963 and subsequently published in Una Sancta, Bretscher writes, “Little children, even infants, were never excluded from the history itself which worship is designed to relive and recover! In the case of Ancient Israel it is ridiculous even to imagine such a possibility. When that first Passover was celebrated in Egypt, and God commanded all Israel to keep it, did they leave the babies out of the house? Or, when they ate of the roasted lamb and unleavened bread, did they deny this food to their children? When they left the land and crossed the Red Sea and made their way through the wilderness, were the children left behind? It is interesting to note that Pharaoh at one point during the plagues offered to let the men go but not the children (Exodus 10:7–11, 24). The children must be participants in the saving history.”12 Bretscher’s desire for inclusivity presses the argument without regard to the obvious, namely, that an infant would choke on such food. On a deeper level, Bretscher operates with a faulty theology of worship as “reliving” a past event.

Following in the wake of Odo Casel, Louis Bouyer asserts in a discussion of Luke 22:19, “Far from needing or not needing to create a new rite for future use, Our Lord was only performing again a very ancient rite which, even without him, his disciples would have certainly gone on performing so long as they lived together. What our Lord intended by these words was to give new meaning to this old rite.”13 However, this approach fails to acknowledge the newness of the New Testament in what Christ bestows—his body and blood for disciples to eat and to drink. Norman Nagel would often point out that when we line up the Passover as described in Exodus with the narratives of the Lord’s Supper’s institution in the synoptics and I Corinthians, the first and crucial question is not how are they similar, but how are they different? This is also Luther’s approach in the Large Catechism. To paraphrase Sasse, the Lord’s Supper renders the old Passover obsolete.14 Likewise Mark Throntveit writes, “Jesus ‘fulfills’ the Old Testament Passover, but not by instituting the Lord’s Supper in ritual continuity with the Old Testament seder. By dying on the cross, Jesus ‘fulfills’ the Old Testament Passover in the sense of bringing it to an end, thereby becoming the last paschal lamb, ‘the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.’ ”15

The nature of the Passover does not establish a basis for communing infants and toddlers any more than it provides a basis for a yearly celebration of the Lord’s Supper or making the appropriate setting of the sacrament the family dining room rather than the church. Here also see Luther in the Large Catechism where he argues that the Sacrament of the Altar is not like the old Passover bound to a special time but frequently where there is “opportunity and need” and not like “the pope (who) perverted it and turned it back into a Jewish feast” (LC V:47–48, K/W, 471–472).

9. Evidence for the communion of infants/toddlers in the early and medieval church is there in some places, but it is not clear that the practice was universal or when it was first practiced. Lutheran liturgical practice is not based on historical precedent but on the Lord’s mandates. Not all practices of the early church are to be emulated. Infant/toddler communion is one of those practices.

That infants were communed in some places in ancient Christianity is not disputed, but to assert that it was a universal practice or that it is normative for historical reasons exceeds the evidence. Marc Kolden writes, “Infant communion was not widely practiced in the early church. Indeed, this practice only became more common later and then for questionable historical reasons. The first mention of it is by Cyprian in about AD 250, but it does not appear to have been well established. Origen, for example, notes that infants were not communed in his church.”16 Likewise, Justin and Cyril of Jerusalem cast doubt on the communing of infants.17

The Lutheran Confessions honor the church fathers. When their testimony is in agreement with Holy Scripture, they are gratefully cited as confessing the apostolic faith. However the Confessions also realize that the teachings of the patristic writers are fallible. They can and do disagree with one another. They certainly do not represent an unbroken continuity with the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures, which alone are the rule and norm for church teaching and practice. The fact that one or another or even the majority of patristic writers support the communion of infants does not establish the practice for Evangelical Lutherans. Unlike the Lutheran Confessions, which are received because they are in agreement with sacred Scriptures, the church fathers are received in so far as they concur with the biblical Word.

10. Arguments for infant/toddler reveal a problematic hermeneutic of the Lutheran Confessions, which undercut a quia understanding of confessional subscription.

Given the numerous references in the Book of Concord to the nature and benefit of the Lord’s Supper as well as the need for catechetical and diagnostic examination prior to admission to the Lord’s Supper, one cannot endorse the communion of infants/toddlers while maintaining an unqualified subscription to the Lutheran Confessions. To claim otherwise yields a completely ahistorical reading of the Confessions. Such a reading avoids both the meaning of the confessional texts and the actual practices of those who wrote them.

11. Luther may not be cited in support of infant/toddler communion. He knew of the practice among the Hussites and while he would not condemn them as heretics (those who deny the fundamental Christological and Trinitarian dogma), he did not accept their practice as correct.

On occasion, Luther’s comments recorded in a “table talk” in 1532 are cited in support of infant communion. Apart from the fact that these comments were made in rather “off the cuff” fashion and that it that they were recorded by auditors at the table, Luther’s words as we have them do not speak of the communing of infants but of children. In response to the question, whether the Lord’s Supper should be given to children, the Reformer replies that “there is no urgency about the sacrament of the altar” and then refers to I Corinthians 11: “When in I Corinthians [11:28] Paul said that a man should examine himself, he spoke only of adults because he was speaking about those who were quarreling among themselves. However, he doesn’t here forbid that the sacrament of the altar be given even to children.”18 Luther notes that contextually, the I Corinthians 11 pericope is not addressing children but adults. However, given the range of Luther’s other statements regarding the need for examination undergirded by teaching, it is quite a jump to conclude from this statement that he endorses the communion of infants. Children are capable of instruction and examination in a way that infants are not.

Luther was aware that the Bohemian Brethren (Hussites) admitted infants to the Holy Communion.19 While Luther did not condemn them as heretics for this practice, he clearly did not approve of the practice as in the same letter he speaks of communicants being examined and responding concerning their faith.

12. Infant/toddler communion is a novel practice in the Lutheran Church. In American Lutheranism, it gained traction only in the 1970’s as it was fueled by particular aspects of the liturgical and ecumenical movements.

Frank Senn has chronicled the move toward infant communion in the predecessor bodies of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America noting the influence of these movements.20 In regard to the liturgical movement, the work of Eugene Brand, an architect of the Lutheran Book of Worship and chief drafter of its baptismal rite indicates the connection as can be seen in his essay, “Baptism and the Communion of Infants: A Lutheran View.”21 Ecumenically, the World Council of Churches consultation at Bad Segeberg in Germany concluded, “If children are incorporated into the body of Christ through baptism, then they belong to the whole body of Christ. As there is no partial belonging to the body of Christ, children must also have a part in the eucharist.”22 The dual trajectories of ritual participation derived from early church practices (liturgical movement) and inclusiveness in the one body of Christ (ecumenical movement) converged in providing a platform for a change in Lutheran practice.

13. The fact that children who have been instructed, examined, and absolved may be admitted to the sacrament at a younger age than has been the general custom in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod is not to be confused with the admitting of infants/toddlers to the Altar. Churchly and pastoral concerns for unity in practice are important considerations. But the communion of infants/toddlers is not an adiaphoron to be left up to individual parents, pastors, or congregations.

The Lutheran Service Book Agenda makes provision for the admission of children to the Lord’s Supper prior to Confirmation with this stipulation: “Candidates for admission to the Lord’s Supper have learned the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer. They have received careful instruction in the Gospel and sacraments. Confessing their sin and trusting in their Savior, they desire to receive the Lord’s Supper for the forgiveness of sins and strengthening of their faith in Christ and their love toward others,” and “Baptized Christians are admitted to the sacrament when they have been examined and absolved by their pastor in accordance with the practice outlined in the Augsburg Confession (Article XXV)” (LSBA, 25). Younger children who have learned these texts, know what the sacrament is and why they need it and have been examined by the pastor may be communed prior to the rite of confirmation. Concern for unity of practice especially as families move from one place to another would dictate that a common form of instruction and examination be used by pastors within our fellowship. The material in the Pastoral Care Companion under “Guidelines for Pastoral Examination of Catechumens—Before the Rite of First Communion” (PPC, 664–70) provides such an instrument. In congregations where children are admitted to the Lord’s Supper prior to Confirmation, it is the responsibility of the pastor to see to it that such instruction is given and candidates are examined accordingly.

Prof. John T. Pless teaches Pastoral Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN.

As an extension of LOGIA, BLOGIA understands itself to be a free conference in the blogosphere. As such, the views expressed on Blogia are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LOGIA's editorial board or the Luther Academy.

1. LW 37:129–30. ↩
2. See Walter Bauer, William Arndt, Fredrick Danker, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 231 and Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume III, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 946–49. ↩
3. Wolfhart Pannbenberg, Systematic Theology-Volume 3, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 327. ↩
4. For more here, see Gregory Lockwood, Concordia Commentary: I Corinthians (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2000), 405–8. Also see Jeffrey Gibbs, “An Exegetical Case for Close(d) Communion: I Corinthians 10:14–22, 11:17–34” Concordia Journal (April 1995), 148–63. ↩
5. Werner Elert, Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries, translated by Norman E. Nagel (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1966), 80. ↩
6. Craig Koester, “Infant Communion in Light of the New Testament” Lutheran Quarterly (Autumn 1996), 238. ↩
7. Maxwell Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation: The Evolution and Interpretation (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1999), 68–69. ↩
8. The Augsburg Confession continues the same trajectory set by Luther in 1523 in his “An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg” where he outlines how those who would commune are to be examined: “But I think it enough for the applicants for communion to be examined or explored once a year. Indeed a man may be so understanding that he needs to be questioned only once in his lifetime or not at all. For, by this practice, we want to guard lest the worthy and unworthy alike rush to the Lord’s Supper, as we have hitherto seen done in the Roman church. There they seek only to communicate; but the faith, the comfort, the use and benefit of the Supper are not even mentioned or considered. Nay, they have taken pains to hide the Words of Institution, which are the bread of life itself, and have furiously tried to make the communicants perform a work, supposedly good in itself, instead of letting their faith be nourished and strengthened by the goodness of Christ. Those, therefore, who are not able to answer in the manner described above should be completely excluded and banished from the communion of the Supper, since they are without the wedding garment [Matt. 22:11–12]” LW 53:33. Just a bit later in the same work, Luther continues, “They should request in person to receive the Lord’s Supper so that he may be able to know both their names and manner of life. And let him not admit the applicants unless they can give a reason for their faith and can answer questions about what the Lord’s Supper is, what its benefits are, and what they expect to derive from it. In other words, they should be able to repeat the Words of Institution from memory and to explain that they are coming because they are troubled by the consciousness of their sin, the fear of death, or some other evil, such as temptation of the flesh, the world, or the devil, and now hunger and thirst to receive the word and sign of grace and salvation from the Lord himself through the ministry of the bishop, so that they may be consoled and comforted; this was Christ’s purpose, when he in priceless love gave and instituted this Supper, and said, ‘Take and eat,’ etc.” (34). ↩
9. Martin Luther, “Personal Prayer Book” LW 43:14. ↩
10. Martin Luther, “An Open Letter to Those in Frankfurt on the Main” Concordia Journal (October 1990), 343. ↩
11. Arthur Carl Piepkorn, What the Symbolic Books of the Lutheran Church Have to Say about Worship and the Sacraments (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1952), 37. ↩
12. Paul G. Bretscher, “First Things First: The Question of Infant Communion” Una Sancta (Advent 1963), 37. ↩
13. Bouyer, The Christian Mystery from Pagan Myth to Christian Mystery, translated by Illtyrd Trethowan, (Edinburgh; T & T Clark 1990), 122–23. ↩
14. Here see, Hermann Sasse, “The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament” in We Confess the Sacraments, translated by Norman E. Nagel (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1985), 49–97. Sasse observes that “all the details of the traditional Passover ritual, which Jesus doubtless observed, was irrelevant for the Lord’s Supper itself” (64). And again since Jesus himself is the Passover Lamb who gives his body and blood to be eaten and drunk, Sasse argues that “there is no analogy to this fellowship, just as there are no parallels to this celebration. The Lord’s Supper received this character as something unique, something remarkable from the Words of Institution” (66). Also see Otto Procksch, “Passa und Abenmahl” in Vom Sakrament des Altars, (Leipzig: Dörffling and Franke, 1941), 11–25. ↩
15. Mark Throntveit, “The Lord’s Super as New Testament, Not New Passover” Lutheran Quarterly (Autumn 1997), 284. ↩
16. Marc Kolden, “Infant Communion in Light of Theological and Pastoral Perspectives” Lutheran Quarterly (Autumn 1996), 249–50. ↩
17. Mark Tranvik, “Should Infants be Communed? A Lutheran Perspective” Word & World (Winter 1995), 86. ↩
18. LW 54:58. ↩
19. Here see, Thomas A. Fudge, “Hussite Infant Communion” Lutheran Quarterly (Autumn 1996), 176–94. ↩
20. See Frank Senn, “Issues in ‘Infant Communion’ ” in A Stewardship of the Mysteries (New York: Paulist Press, 1999), 155–70. ↩
21. Here see Eugene Brand, “Baptism and the Communion of Infants: A Lutheran View” in Living Water, Sealing Spirit: Readings on Christian Initiation, edited by Maxwell Johnson (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1995), 350–64. ↩
22. Senn, 164. ↩

Infant Communion Makes Strange Bedfellows

— James A. Lee II

I have witnessed arguments in favor of infant communion coming from camps that simultaneously practice open communion. While I formerly thought that a causal connection between these practices was illusionary, I'm not so convinced anymore.

It seems to me that a robust ecclesiology prevents the connection of infant communion and open communion. Take for example the Eastern Orthodox churches. These churches practice infant communion but reject open communion. How so? The reason for this is also identified in the fact that many Eastern Orthodox parishes require rebaptism of converts to the East: sacraments can only be administered by and within the Church.1 Therefore, why would the churches of the East-the church-engage in fellowship with those outside of the church? Infants are communed because they are baptized: it is all part of initiation into the church.

But we also see the practice of infant communion by the Episcopal church and voices within the ELCA. In church bodies that welcome all baptized Christians to the altar-even the non-baptized-infant communion is not an issue. Why? Again, the answer is connected to ecclesiology. The church has no confessional borders, the church is open, the church is not defined by propositional truths. Why then would the celebration of the sacrament not be administered to infants?2

The similarity of these two sides is in the immediacy between the administration of baptism and the reception of the Lord's Supper. All that is required of an individual for the reception of the sacrament of the altar is his or her individual participation in the church. The difference is that the Eastern churches do not operate with such a broad and open understanding of the church. The churches of the East are the church; those outside of this communion do not participate in the fullness of the church catholic and orthodox. Our Episcopal and ELCA examples operate with less rigid and defined boundaries. While the churches of the East do not practice open communion, in both instances initiation into the church entails and demands reception of the Supper.

How does a confessional Lutheran who favors infant communion fit into this landscape? It appears that there are three possible options: (1) Infants receive communion because they are baptized. That is to say, confession of faith doesn't matter. Faith is seen primarily in categories of relationship and participation rather than articles of faith and propositional truth. (2) Infants receive communion because they share in the faith of the communities to which they belong, familial and ecclesial; they are communed on account of this faith and in anticipation of their future confession. (3) Infants receive communion because they already have a perfect knowledge of the faith and all of its articles.

While there are issues with all three options, particularly problematic to (1) and (3) is the practice of open communion. Why would a Lutheran parish that practices infant communion not commune all baptized infants, regardless of church confession? While a position against open communion may still be tenable, I fail to see a means of avoiding open infant communion. How could one admit a Lutheran infant to the altar and not a Baptist or Pentecostal infant? It cannot be on account of an infant's confession of faith, for no such confession has been articulated. It appears the tenable options are to conclude (a) that there is something lacking, missing, or irregular in baptism practiced by other denominations, or (b) that while baptism brings an infant into the church, the particular community to which the infant belongs imparts something additional to the infant that is not given in the waters of baptism. Otherwise, how could one not admit to the altar any infant that has received Christian baptism?

James A. Lee II is a Ph.D. student at Saint Louis University and Assistant Pastor at Trinity Lutheran Church in Worden, Illinois and Zion Lutheran Church in Carpenter, Illinois.

As an extension of LOGIA, BLOGIA understands itself to be a free conference in the blogosphere. As such, the views expressed on Blogia are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LOGIA’s editorial board or the Luther Academy.

1. See John Klentos, “Rebaptizing Converts into the Orthodox Church: Old Perspectives on a New Problem,” Studia Liturgica 29 (1999): 216–34. ↩
2. This seems to follow the logic found in Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, which then, in 1988, receives official support by the House of Bishops. See World Council of Churches, Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1982), 12.9; Ruth A. Meyers, "Rites of Initiation," in The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey, eds. Charles Hefling and Cynthia Shattuck, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 484–99. ↩

Toddler Communion

— Mark Mattes Increasingly, Lutheran congregations are administering the Lord's Supper to children at ever earlier ages. The ELCA's "A Statement on Communion Practices" (II.A.2) had precluded infant communion. But the later "The Use of the Means of Grace," adopted by the Fifth Biennial Churchwide Assembly in 1997, opened a Pandora's box. It said that "mutual conversation" between the pastor, the child in question, and parents or sponsors should be involved to determine whether or not the child should be admitted to the Lord's Table. In Application 37c, it noted that "Ordinarily this beginning will occur only when children can eat and drink, and can start to respond to the gift of Christ in the Supper." The phraseology of "start to respond" is vague. What is meant by response?

St. Paul made it clear that a person must "examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (1 Corinthians 11:28). Self-examination entails that one can test to see if one's belief squares with what Paul taught about the Lord's Supper. Given the wondrous gift that is offered in the Lord's Supper, every Christian before going to the sacrament does well to ask himself: (1) have I confessed and repented of my sins?, (2) do I believe God's absolution?, (3) do I believe that I am receiving Christ's precious body and blood, under the bread and wine, for the forgiveness of my sins, (4) do I share in the same confession and unity as had all the saints before me and alongside me?, and finally, (5) will I seek to amend my sinful life?

Those questions would be a tall order for a toddler. But increasingly congregations are admitting toddlers to the Lord's Table. In one congregation a five-year-old went to the table twice because the supply pastor had only blessed him but had not given him the elements.

Several questions need to be asked: If we don't use St. Paul's standard for admission to the Sacrament of the Altar, then where do we get our standard? If as a parent it is my intuition that my four-year-old should receive the Lord's Supper, then how can I defend my intuition except by claiming that it is based on the guidance of the "spirit." But if one should trust such an intuition and not rely instead on God's firm word, then is not my standard nothing other than that of the Schwämerei? Would guidance of the Holy Spirit contradict those words of Paul that he inspired in the Scripture? There need be no debate about this. God's Spirit will never falsify what he has already written in the word.

Even worse, many congregations with an "open communion" policy unquestioningly and encouragingly admit the unbaptized to Lord's Table. How does that square with St. Paul's position as well as apostolic practice? Many congregations replicate the situation in the Book of Judges, where everyone did what was right in their own eyes. In light of toddler communion, it is ironic that many in our culture tend to make their toddlers older than what they actually are but their young adults younger than what they actually are.

While it is true that no one can fully comprehend the mystery of Christ's real presence in the Supper, that is no reason to dumb down those admitted. If anything, it is a basis to be far more cautious about admission to the Lord's Table.

Mark Mattes is Professor of Theology and Philosophy at Grand View University in Des Moines, Iowa.

As an extension of LOGIA, BLOGIA understands itself to be a free conference in the blogosphere. As such, the views expressed on Blogia are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LOGIA’s editorial board or the Luther Academy.