Commitment to The Lutheran Confession-What Does It Mean Today? PETER BRUNNER University of I-Ieidclberg \ Editor's Note: l'rofessor l'c.ter Brzrntzer, professor errzeritus of doglrraticnl theology at the Ulliversity of Hcidelherg in Ger- llrnrly, rlcerls rro ilrtroduction. He has served or1 tlz:. theologicnl colrl~lrissiolr of the Lnthcran World Ferieratioiz nlrd the bo~rd of riircc-tors for its 11zstitrtte 011 Eczrrrlc~rical Ilesearch. Recerlt/\ Collcor-dia l'z~blishitrg Hozise pzrblishcd his IN JESUS SAhli, The stntir.~ of the I,ztt?tcran Cor~fessio~ls irl the I,tlthernlr Churches is beconzi~zg sol~ze~i~hat prohlelrzrrtic. in the fnce of re- ceizt biblicsl strtdieb. The exegcftical frcetlom per~rzitted bl t\le Co~zfcssiorls itr regard to i~zdividzlal pericopes is freq~~errtl~ ill- terpreted to meall that the Lutheralr exegete has total excgetil,al I frecldo~rz, as long ns he holds to the Lutheran Con fessiol~s. Tl~j\ uttitzrdc hrzs I-cslflted either ill trcatirrg the Confessior~s l~lcre/\ as historiccll docz~)r~errts belonging to the 1,utherall tradition or i;l their calrorrizutioll, i.e., they are trzle silzzply bccaz~sc of therrl- scltles. Both of t1lc.s~. stances overlook that the positiolr tskclr h~ ~JIL~ Co~~fes~iol~s t11e~rzsell7es i~r that they purport to he cxl~ositior;s of thc Bible orr certain points. This crisis irz Lutheran theolog! c-ol~ccr~ling its collfessioljs is ?sell descrihcrl by u Lzctlzerali Church in Aluerica clergjmarr, Dr. Horac:~ Huln~rtel, profe.jsor of Olri 7'estntrrerrt at the Lrttheran Sclzool of Theology, irr tlrr October, 1969 issue of the LUTHERAS FORURT, ill ail article erl- titled "!Yo other Gospel." 1~ the follozring article Professor- 13r1rnrzer l~rm~ides -so~~rc basic ansl17ers to questio~rs 1r.hic.11 11al.c 17eelr legitilrzately raised by Dr. Hurtlmcl. lit colrjulrctiorr ir'itll rec~rii~lg I'rofessor Hru~zner's article, the reader is also directed to Dr. Hzrnz rrzel's excellent article ill the LUTHERAN FORUM. .A fo1lo11i)rg isszlc will contain several reactions, one 1~3zich I Jzn~ colrtribrrtrd. The follo~vilrg article is translated by Vicar 1VJ- hrnlnz Tmgerso~l arirl prepared for publication by Mr. Kerrlleth TZ'aglar~rr. It appears by consent of Professor Hrun~rer arrll b! per~~ris.sion of 1,utZzerisches Verlagshaus in Berlin. D. P.S. THE ~'IIST 250 \.ears the Lutheran Church has not bee11 able tr, 1 overcome the distkss into which the histort of thenlo!! hs her. and large she has not yet recognized thedclepth of this distress All talk of commitment to confession is senseless when the Hal' Scriptures have been lost as the concrete judge over all proclamatinn alld doctrine. Coilfessioil yrcsupposes the Scriptures, that is, the Scri1>tures as a communicating authority, not merelj- as historical factor! This prerequisite has come to be problematic for man\7 pastors, theologial~~ aid non-tlle~logian~. 'Therefore confessional colhlnitlllent itself has con~c to bc problematic. Commitment to the Lutheran con- fessioil includes today first of all recovering the prercquisitc of e\ler)- confessional con1mitment-the concrete authoritv of the canonical scriptures of the Old arid Nr\\ Testament for the content of the proclalnatio~~ of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. I \\ e call also forniulate this prerequisite of cvery confessioilal colnl~~itn~e~~t in this maliner: The churches, the congregations, their s]lepherds and teachers hear \\it11 great accord from the canonical Scriptures of the Bible the I oice of thc Good Shepherd in the voice of his messengers. Bccoming full! anarc of the coinmunicating Bible, IlCnring the unanimousl! harmonious voices of thc Scriptural wit- ,lcsses, the self-unvciling of God's \\lord in the Scriptures through the \\ark of the Holy Ghost, this is the prerequisite for the Scriptures i c\ercising their office of iudge over all teachers and doctrine in the I 1 C]lurch. If it is not given to congregations, their shepherds and teach- ers to hear from the totalit\. of the Hol) Scriptures-and not perhaps i I. III abbreviated Paul on&-the saving word of the Gospel with one I gcat harlnon\,, then the existence of the Church itself is in danger. ' Ihun the coifessing word of the Church has come to be impossible, I the commit~nent to a confession has become a mere formal-legalistic matter. If the Scriptures no longer speak out of their canonical core ,11so in their ccinonical breadth to the congregations, their shephwrds dnd teachers as the living \\lord of God, tlicn an\ commitment to any I u~ifcasion is in\vardly ~lndrrminecl and has conk to he mcnningless. 'The Lutheran Confession commits congregations, their shep- herds ant1 tcachers exclusi\rel!. to the apostolic Gospel. Therefore the Lutheran Confession contains no truths that rest in or consist of tl~cmsel\res, but all valid expositions it sets forth receive their validit\ colcl! from the apostolic Gospel. Moreover, it is part of the unshakablr foundations of Luther's Reformation that the Church cannot of its o\\n accord establish articles of faith. IVhat is not established bv Gotl's revelation in God's IVord as the content of fatih can never, a;- cording to Lutheran confession, become content of a dogma. B! collimitting the Church exclusi\7el\, to the apostolic Gospel, the ILut1~eran confession frees the church from the binding power of all [cachings not basecl in God's \170rd. The content of the apostolic Gospel includes an immediate back- icfcrence to the sacred writings of Israel. The apostolic Gospel cannot proclaimed properly if such a back-reference to the Old Testament (IOCS not take place. How this back-reterence is to be concretely achieved and what its dogmatic relevance is cannot be full!, ex- ~'~undod here. \Ve must here be satisfied with the conclusion that in 'Ilc apostolic Gospel as such a peculiar dogmatic authority of the Old lc\tamn~t for just this Gospel is attested. The manner in which Israel's sacred writings effect thcir authorit! in the Cl~urcll of lesu, Christ is fundan~eotally diffcrcot fnrm thc outhoritv ~rhirh th, Synagogue ascribed to these writings. But the authorit) of these writ. ings is not annulled by the Gospel, but rathcr it is take11 into tlli Gospel and its character is dctined through the Gospcl. Even if tilr theological forms, in which wc ought to reflect the apostolic nlcsS30; 5t back to the Old Testament, cannot be identical, in our judgment, t9 the fornls employed bv the New Testament nrritino,s, yet thc ~l~l)jt~~~~ intended b! these f6rms must he retained even today. The l)nch. reference to the Old 'Tcstamcnt that the apostolic Gospel itself ill. cludes puts the Christ-E\-cnt into the ver! real history of God's acts. This history commcnccs with the crcation in the bcginni~l~, rc- ceives a tlecisive turn tojvard a messianic fuliillmc~~t with thc clcctiorT of Israel, and looks toward completion i11 a Dav of the Lord. Thc \Icz- siahshii, of Jesr~s clare never be substit~it~d for Ilis Lordship. Tli;lt i\ the most profound reason for that back-reference to the Old -rctsta- nlent so characteristic of the Gospel and also for thc peculiar authorit\ of the 01t1 Tcstamcnt in the Church of Jesus Christ as defined b! tilt Gospel itself. Therefore thc apostc.)lic Gospel cannot bc presen.ttl in its apostolicit\! if its ties to the Old Testanlent as Sacrcd Scriptures-- ties defined bv the Gospel and characteristic of it-arc al)antlonctl. The apostolic Gospel is given to us in the New Testament \\sir ii~gs. This-sentence secins to bc self-evident. Yet in trutll it is (,rtrh- ablv ~ilore (lifficult to pro\.i(le for it a basis than for the authorit! oi the' Old Testomrnt. The apostolic Gospcl is not n-ritten ktcr. Irs, living IVord. 'I'he apostolic Gospel is thc kcrygnlatic witness of ,! clear117 limited group of pcrsons. r\postles, in the clogmatic scnsc ot the -&~rr?, are e~c\r.itnesses of the resurrectetl Lortl, n-llo lrerc c.olri- missionec-l by thc resurrected Lord Hirnsclf, at His Easter appcnrancc. to be His ~\!itnesses. Paul, who only saw the resurrected J_or(l nf'tcr l'entecost and nras then sent by Hin;, had to fight for the rccogilitinn of his apostolic office. The Cl~urch has at all times ~~cogni~ccl thc apostolate of Paul. Beside Paul, there arc elcven or t\~elvc, reprcseut ing an eschatological institution, that are apostlcs at the saint tiliic.. \Vhether other disciples also sau. thc Resurrected One and \\.ere rhu? commissioned to be His messengers we do not know. Apostolic Gos~L,~ means that message of salvation and that doctrine of salvation \\liidi those a11 thori~ed e):e\vitnesses uttered. \\:hen ~vc, together with the Form~~la of CO~ZL:OT~, call thc xc\\ -1-estament \\lriti~~gs apostolic Scriptures, urc arc claiming that thea writings takc for us the place of the verbal apostolic Gospel. \\.it]; what justification do we claim this? What kind of clainl is this7 (tr- tainly this claii~l is not purels historical judgment, evm thougl~ ti)? historical circumstances pla!. a role in this jutlgnlent. Is not thc c.011 viction that the apostolic Gospel is given to 11s in the Ne\v Tcstarl~rnr writings basic to the confession of the Chorch? From ~rllat so~1n.c (I1] n.e today proside a basis for the dogmatic authorit\ of thc rcitf, a~crlt part of thc Holv Scriptures? In fact, are ~h&oloai;ins totla\ ltlll able to speak of Holy Scril~tures "which alone are the true guide, ac- corcling t~ rvhicll all teachers and doctrinc are to be judgec] and de- r~led:" (FC SD 3) Does thc Lutheran Church still a judge o,cr teachers and doctrine in its midst? In view of the New Testa- ll,ent this que~ti011 seems to me especially pressing. Commitnlent to tllc Lutheran confessioll, particularl! today, n~ear~s fundamentally the. co~lfession to the New Testament as a collection of such writings in \vllich the apostolic Gospel is given to us as the sole, ultilllatelv de- cisi\c norin for the passing 011 of this Gosl>el, which frofrom of the coi~ln1issionc.d eyewitnesses of the Resurrected One. \Ire dare not close our eyes to the fact, that in our Church, too, in tile tlleology tauqht in our churches, concerning the concrete au- ttlorit\. of the Holy Scriptures has by and large crumbled away. When tllc q;estion is raised, "\l7hat content sermon and instruction must in the Church in order to be the saving word of the Gospel?", jurigcs beside the Scri13tures or even in circuinvention of the are not selcloin called upon for a decision. And we here as- sume that even the fundamental conviction is not challenged, that the sal\.ntion of man before God is freely given by God to man through \\ortl nncl Sacrament. To find the content of the Gospel proclamation, solne, for instance, call upon a certain religious experience, upon a ccrtniji understanding of existence, upon a moclernistic version of the j,rstific.rrtio i~llpior~t~~~, 11pon a reduction-to-a-minimum of the Gospel ci\-cn in the Scriptures to an arbitrary establishnlent of "1i7lz.s Christzrm ;leibet." The result of this is that not seldom, in the name of so-called ol,~rrti\,e criticism, larpc parts of the e Testament have been rtrbbeti of their author~t!, for the proclamation anti doctrine of the C:hurch, as for exanlple the Gospel according to Luke, the Acts of the \~)c~stles of Luke, ~11c so-called Deutero-Paulines and the Pastoral Ixtters. For some thc doctrinal content of these writings alreadv pssse for a sign of the Church's fall into Proto-Catholicism. In the i)pinion of many the place of variety in the New Testan~ent witness is tilhrn by contradictor\, contrast. en if w1e clisrcgard that dim mar- $11 of ihe New ~eskment canon, the Antilegonrewa, the deutero- ciinonical writings, and onlv consi~ler the part of the canon \vhich the 1-uthcran Reformation, too, did not dispute, even there people are unable to behold the unitv of the New Testainent witness in its di- \.crsit\- and its diversity in its unitv. Rather thev see in the core of the cajlo~; itself a mutuallt exclusive contrariness. '~ut if the New Testa- lllrnt no longer harindnires, if in the canonical writings of the Ncw Tcst;inleot a consensus is no longer heard regarding the Gospel that jj to he proclaimed, then a confessional cominitnient has becon~e fun- tlalllcntallv iml>ossible. In the same measure that the Church loses the collrrete authhritv of the Holy Scriptures, she also loses a binding coflsen~us in regard to the content of the Gospel proclanlation. The lllace Of commitment to confession is taken by comnlitment to this or lllat theological opinion, which now itself inust necessarily appear '''ith the exclusive authority of 3 doglnn. Where the authority of the scriptures is lost, tllc kairtsis of ;I school of t110~1ght takes the of the coizfessio of the church- ~o~~~n~itl~lent to the Lutheran confession nicans totlar first of all recuoniring o the profound spiritual distrcss of our churches. It toll- sists in this, that the communicating Scriptures, the judging Scrip. tures, the Scriptures as only rule and guide for proclamation and doctrine largelv been lost. Commitnient to the Lutheran confes. sioll kvill lla\le to include today the petition for the coming of the Spirit, \~h() \rill again enable US to hear the apostolic voice and in it tllc authority of the Nc~v Tesanlen t linked to the 01(1 Tcstament. \\'hen this happens, and to the extent that it does happen, it \\:ill hccomc clear to us that comnlitment to the Lutheran confession toda),, too, means commitment to the confession of the priliiitiye (',hurcb. To sin~le out just one, thouph decisive point: It is inilmssiblu to \\.itness to a slnner about the justification of the sinner, if Jesus of Nazareth is not substantially God. In this ackno~vledgincnt I an1 sure \\.c ma\, recognize the core of the primitive Church confessions-that Jesus is true God, born of the Father before time, and also true man. born of the \,irgin Mary. But one cannot confess the Izornoozisios ol tlie Xicr~~e (;reed without the doctrine of the Trinity of the Atha- nasian Crectl. Ain I saving too nluch when I say our position in regard to the confessinn of the primitive Church decides not only whether \ye kno\\- ourscl\:es in truth comniittecl to the Lutheran confession, but also at the same time it is decided whether wc preserve the apostolic Gos~>cl in our midst. Pointing to the "results of New Testament cscgcsis" cannot sliakc this scntcncc in any way. The facts in\-olved licrc. ;ire exegetically quite clear. No one denies that the Pauline imtl Iohannine writings and other Ne\v Testament ~vritings for a large part itd\,oc;~tc :I Cl~ristology of pre-existence. Co~npared with the fathers of the Hcformation, \IT have become, of course,-more clever in the niean- time through historical-critical research. \Ve are able to extricate tlie finest shat1c.s of nwaning bc.t\\-cen the understantling of pre-existence in thc genuine letters of Paul, ant1 the Deutero-Paulines and the Gospc.1 of John. \\lith virtuosity 1vc are able to point out the ~on~c.()ti~al-historical presuppositions, the religiot~sgescbticJztlic~~e in- tcrrclalions of this conceptualitv. But this question still loonls impar- tiill]\ o\er all eacgcsis: Is the apostolic, canonical attestati011 to Christ in !ollll 1. I'hil. 2 and FIebre\vs still valid? Is that attestation concern- ing tlic inci~rnation of the Son of God, supported by Luther and the 1-tltllc.ran confession and b\, thc mainstrealll of Reformed confessional \\ritillgs. ~~LIC for toda!.? o;, with carefullv clever exegesis can we rc- clucc thr incarniltion to a concept of per&nal inlagination that ollli ;111()\\~ niorh importance as our theologi;s arill It is ~ln(lcrli:ihlc that hlattherr and Lukc witness that Jesus na/ llot I)()rll of male seed, I>ut was conceiIred of the Holv Ghost tkrcforc horn of the virgin h4ar-r. In view of this decl&tion of tllf C;()'~ 1hei-c is no serious cxcgerif prob]rn,. But to nrhjch theoh~iail Com~~itlnent to The 1-utheran Confessio~z - - -. - -- -. - 9 - -- - 1 does this dcclaratioli of thc cvanglists still speak as apostolic witness I to Christ? For confessing the virgin birth of Jesus Christ cannot be a matter of a sacrificizirr~ intcilrctus, but solely a inatter of Spirit-infused insight into the Goslxl content of this declaration, a matter of Spirit- infused rccogl~itiol~ of the nature of the sign set b\ God for this cir- cun~stance. Do ne see that we never have the sign without the nlatter that is the sign? Or shall I point to the resurrection of Jesus, which included his and changed it, or to the externalit\ of His Easter ap- I prarances, that in the New Testament are never bnderstood as pneu- nlatic visions? Or shall I point to the coming apocalvptic end of the \\orld and return of Jesus to judge the living and the bead? Each time the esegetical facts are uneclui\local, but their adoptioll in modern tlieolog~., their affirn~ation as dogmatical11 valid pro~~oui~cei~lents are eqiiall\ dmied-again a sign for the extent to which the communicat- Ing sc;iptures, the luclging Scriptures, the Scriptures as concretc norm - have been lost. It is also a sign of what commitment to t11c Lutheran confcssion uould mean toda!, if this commitmcnt viere actually what ~t b\ nature is: commitment to the apostolic witness to Christ in the floi! Scriptures. Coinmitine~~t to the Lutheran confession ineans today the rccag- nition, that the reception b! the Reformation of the dogmas of the primitive Church was precisely not doing merel\ 11,llf a job, an action quite understandable fro111 historical reasons, but rather it necessarily belongs to the cause of the Gospel itself. Commitment to the Lutheran confcssion means todav the admission, that thc reality of forgiveness 15 qilestioned to the core it' Jesus is not trul~ and substantiall\ God, eternal Son ot the athe her, of one substance 11 it11 the Father, or ~t he is not truly and substaniall\, man, born of the \ irgin Alary, of the $me substance with us men, onl\ 11 ithout sin. Commitment to the Lutheran confession mcans toda) the obligation to point out the ncc- essar! relation between the content of thc apostolic Gosl>cl ancl the tlognin of the prin1iti1.e Church. Let me no\\ go on to the specificall\ reformatory content of the Lutheran confession. In no instance does the Lutheran confcssion \\dnt to establish a ncu- dogma. In fact, the Church cannot set an) drtlcles of faith except tu nitness to those contents of faith already set in the writings of th;: prophets and apostlus b~ God's rc\~elation. But In \ie\\- of this witness to the Biblical content of the faith b! the (Il~lrc11, "new" teachings are from the start snspcct to the Lutheran confession. The Gospel did not disapl3ear in the world around the \car 120 and onl! re-appeared at \\'ittenberg in the years from 15 16 to 152 1. The Gospel has hatI its n-itnesses to truth at all times among f diverse ha\, straw and chaff in the dear fathers, even in the Roman Church, a; the Augsburg Confessiolr expressly assures at the end of first part after Article XXI. According to the Lutheran confessions I lnlentivc noveltv of a doctrine in no wise speaks for its scripturality, Ijllt rather its C~Lrnrnical foundation does. Sometimes it is downright for us to sce how intcnt Luther was not to establish a teach- ing that rvith view to the histor) of dogela could have been brandai "new.7' To be sure, for his doctrine of the eucharistic real presence ,I the body and blood of Christ, for instance, his understanding of thr respective New Testament reference was clecisivc. But he \,.as forted in this by thc fact, that he knew himsclf to be at one \\~ith th( fathers in this matter. How unabashedly Rlelanchthon in Apologia 1 points to the canon on the inass in the Eastern Church-in qzto npna orat sacerd~s, ut rilutato palle ipsum corpus Chrisfi fiat. The Luthcral; confession is in one aspect a peaceful confession, n llence seeking con. fcssioll, a confession that seeks the brethren, n confession formujatet1 in ccunlencial responsibility and in this sense catholic. Com1iiitlnent to tht. Lutheran confession for us today include this responsl bilitv to bring out the importance of an ecumenical breadth in oul thedog,. that searches for witnesses to the Gospel also in patristics, tile ~~stcrn Church, too, and even in the Roman Church, illstead of paying honlage to a liniitetl, narrow de\~otion to Iather, \vhich con- fines itself in the main to a one-sided selection froni the so-calleti "1 oung Lutl~er." Preciselv this ecumenical foundation of the 1,utheran col1fe.- sian has as a ks111t its polemic relentlessness. The Lutheran SO to thL papal Church has as its prercquisitc the YES to the catholic Church. which coincitles with the YES to the apostolic Gospel. In this lies tht strength for its rejection of thc papal Church. Comn~itnlent to th~ Luthcran confession today, aftcr i7atican I, aftcr the dognlatisatior: of nssuirlptio Murim virginis, means the obligation to repeat this 50 to the papal Church from the same foundation. \\'hv is the Protestnnl polenlic against Rome often so without effect, so ~\;eak, so littlc con- vincing? Because it largely lacks the prerequisite with whicli tlli. Luthcran confession has spoken its NO to Rome! \\Thoever says SO to the papal Church because he takes out of the Gospel. whic11 is given in the Scriptures and passed on in the ecclesia ccltholica, on( sl~litarv point and alreadv thereby neccssarilv distorts it ancl o\.cr and abovc 'that mutilates it, ilocs not attack the-papal Church at all; hi> lx~lernic clocs not tint1 its goal. It is rather an indirect strengthening ot the papal Church. Onl! \vhcre in the name of the apostolic iillli catholic Church with the power of the scriptural Gospel thc lo against Komc is spoken is Rome real111 hit. All else is wasting anlmuui. tion that can drive serious ~hristians right into the arms of Rolnc. The coilimitnient to the apostolic Gospel ant1 the foundatioll 1); the .universal Christian Church that is given thereill forces thi 1-utheran confessions also into an inter-Protestant plemic against ~1- thusiasts ant1 sacramentarians. This NO, too, is not lncrel, a liiattcr oi n1eintaining a perhaps still medieval11 shackled, not whollv ril1plled theohpica1 op~nion, hut rathcr it is e hatter of thc existence of cath()llc Cllurch, which as such is the Church of the apostolic Go~pel, There call be onlv one reason for the Lutheran Church to re\.isc lht' stand of her confession on this point: if the apostdic I~J~~~CSS of ljll Commit~ncnt to Thc Lutheran Confession 11 H~]V Scriptures, in regard to the function of the z7erbzirn externurn antl'in regard to the nature of baptism and the Lord's Supper, should LIS today something different froin what the fathers of the thera ran confession perceived in it, thcn, of course, we would have drop the darn~lant of CA V and the inryroharzt of CA X. In answering the questions before us this recognition is funda- nlental, that both as far as the Lutheran confession and we are con- cc.rncd, the witness of the Scriptures takes, with the same validity, the of the primitive apostolic rvitncss. If we look to the understand- ,ng of thc Lord's Supper of Paul in 1 Cor. 10 and 11 and that of the eynngeli~t~ Matthew, Mark ant1 Lukc, it is made very clear, that for 1lauI as for Mark-to name here onlv the oldest ~vitncsses-the consecrated bread and the consecrated~c~~p are the bcarers of the bod\ and blood of Christ. The exegetical difficulty of this question 5ets'in when it is a matter of interpreting the history of tradition that 5tands behind the New Testament texts on the Lord's Supper. Il7e Iin\.c no reason to protest against the attempt to clarify this history of tradition. But, we have every reason to protest against the attempt to play off this more or less hrpothetically reconstructed history of tradition against the witness to thc Lord's Supper of Paul and the u\an$lists. This dogmatizing historism in New Testament exegesis sigt~ihes basically nothing but the denial of the ever-active Christ- 1'1lcuma in the history of tradtion. This dogmatizing historism hasicaIly signifies nothing but the denial of the fundamental thesis on \\hich the catholic and ai3ostolic Church stands and falls, namely that to the concrete nature if the Scriptural \fitness itself, and not to a 11ostuIated state of tradition Iying behind it, belongs the concrete ~ipostolic authority according to ~vhich all teachers and doctrine in the Church ought to be judged. But if we look to the concrete +criptural ~vitness itself, there is every reason to resist in the name of the catholic and apostolic Church any softening of the teaching confcs5t.d by the fathers in CA V ancl CA X. 'The situation regarding the doctrine of predestination in the l:cforliled confessional writings is no different. 'I'here are many 11oints from which we could raise objections against them. The drcisi~:e point to me, however, seems to be the universal significance for salvation of the work of Christ. If the doctrine of predestination of the Gallkana and its kindred writings is valid, then Christ did [lot (lie for all men, but rather only for one part of humanity, for [hose predestined from eternity. From its standpoint the Helvetic Ft~r~nlrlo of C~~~se~zsz~s has, therefore, justly dogmatized this terrible 5t'ntellce: Christ, because of the Father's eternal decree, was made guarantor of the Nekv Covenant only for the re destined and also f~~~ His osn intention took bitter death upon Himself only for them -and not for all men that are born. And also in the question of the presence of Jesus with His (~l~~rch compels us to follow the decision of the fathers of our I-uthcnn confession. ' It is part of the soteri~lo~ical core of the very Gospel that we proclaim, that Christ is trul! with His people, alone according to His divinity, but also according to and with H~ adopted human nature, according to which He is our brother and ne are flesh of His flesh." (FC SI) VIII, 78) The declaration which the Heidelberg Catechisn~ makes on this point in its famous Question 47 is not only a "theological accident of trade" (Karl Barth), but it attacks the Gospel itself. Behind it stands a theological conception that is of decisive importance for the whole understandin:: of Church and Spirit, of \\70rd and Sacrament. Again the exegetical facts arc clear: He, to whom all power is given in heaven and on earth, He, nrho has been exalted above all heavens ant1 yet fills all in a]], precisel" the man Jesus who has been made Lord of all powers. Also on the doctrine of church order the recognition of the Lutheran confession has proven valid. In the Church only one offjcc has been divinely instituted, that office, which administers the nlealls of grace. All else in the line of ecclesiastical order ought onlv to serve this office and ought to be regulated according to the aspectr of expediency and propriety in the. liberty of the believers on the basis of their reason. In the naille of the liberty to \vhich Christ has frectl us \vc ought to resist the expansion of what is valid for the order of the Church de irlre di.t?ino ~vhich the Rcformed confessional writines demantl . Coinmitmcnt to the Lutheran confession gi\res to the Lutheran Church a very definite, clear directive regarding their attitude within the ecumenical movement. The Lutheran Churches cannot and must not allow that the ecumenical movement results in a Protestant Ssn- thesis, urhc.rt.;i middle line between the teachings of the Baptists, tlic i\.lethodists, the Calvinists and the Lutherans, coupled with accept- ance of the episcopal constitution of the Anglicans, forins the unif!ins principle under \vhose protecting roof all can gather, without clariti and agreement having been achicvcd concerning the truth of thr Gospel. It is not a matter of vindicating the Lutheran Confessions of thc 16th centurv at all costs in the present ecunlenical discussion. but it is a matter of vindicating the apostolic Gospel given in tht, Scriptures. Lip to this point we havc looked to the outside. But abovr. all \VL' m~ist s\\eep in front of our own door. \\/hat does commitmrnt to the Lutheran confession mean for the inner life of thc Luthernrl Churches thernsel\~es? I shall recall once inore what commitment to the I .ut heran confession docs not mean : it is not a sacrificill?~ irllel- lectzis, it is not a servile submittin: to a doctrinal law as under th~ rod of a t~rannical drirrer, it is not a legalistic handling of a lcttrr of the lit\\-, nor a formal-legalistic act without importance for the content of doctrine ant1 proclamation. Rather comnlitnlcnt to thc Lutheran confession is a gift which cannot be forced on one III~~ has not alren(l\ recei\.ed it fi-0111 elsc\~:here. Conlllljtment to the Lutheran confessio~l is a gift of the Holy Ghost which no man has at his disllosal on o11~n. Commitment to the Lutheran confession is the pne~lnlatl~ Con7rrrirnzc,nt to 'Ilze 1,zltlzevmn Confession - - - -- -. .- - - . - - -. -. - - - pp 13 into the harnrno!~ between that Gospel that emanates from the Scriptures as li1,ing \\'orcl ant1 those confessional statements of : our fathers. Commitment to the Lutheran confession is an act of spiritual libert! for which onl? the Gospel heard in the Spirit can free us. When such coinnlitment to the Lutheran confession becomes then, preciselv at that point, we will see that we cannot make do with a mere recithg of the formulations of the fathers. ,'Once it is really discerned that the apostolic Gospel has fashioned for itself a legitimate source of exlx-ession in the Lutheran confession and par- tlcularlv in its thcologi:ically disputed parts, then this confession, as aonila ~lorrnata, will exercise concrete authority in the Church. For the11 the apostolic Gospel itself exercises its concrete authority through tllis confession. The authority of the apostolic Gospel, however, is ,lleays a very rcal one, it demands decision. One cannot withdraw from it into a state of amiable non-obligation. Should the miracle occur that in a Lutheran Church that pneumatic commitment to the * Lutheran confession heconles reality, then at the same time a great ~norement of repentance nil1 sct in regarding doctrine and preaching dnd sacramental administration. Spirit-effected commitment to the Lutheran confession will overcome the paralysis which historism for about 200 years has brought to theology and preaching. \Vhere to~llmitmcnt to the Lutheran confession takes place in the sense indicated one cannot l~retend that since 1700 nothing happened in the history of theology and learning. Comnlitnlent to thc Lutheran confession demands today not a repetitive, forn~alistic recitation of the statements of the fathers, but rather their binding, actualizing ~nterpretation and application. If we toda) want to speak of genuine to~nmitment to the Lutheran confession, then we are obliged to clpress in the current situation of this year just what lire confess \\hen confessing with the fathers. Since the year 1580, the Lutheran Church has no longer dared to explain and reiterate, under the guid- dtlce of thc \\Tord of God and in a manner binding on all congrega- tions, shepherds aild teachers, several articles of the Augsburg Con- te\qio)i, about which disputes have arisen among several thelogians. he Church would surely have had more than ample reason to do 50. \\'hv did she remain silent! Dare she keep silence any longer? ]letseen * 15 80 and todar stand the collapse of old-Protestant Ortho- (lo\:, of the Enlightment, of Idealism, of Historism, of Existentialism, \\hich all left their traces in the preaching of the Church to this very At the place in history where we stand today lire expect of the orc1;lincd a YES to the teachings of the Lutheran confession. But \\lt1lout telling him beforehand just what obligating content this YES hrs at this place in historv today, we either demand too much of l~lfn, or we are giving hi& to understand that with his YES each Ordained may think what he wants, since no one is any longer in the ilosition to say authoritatively just what this YES includes in the line Of real content. If the Lutheran Church does not dare. at least [Wrding a few central items of the Gospel, to express in arbinding manner in her o~vn words, what is already binding witness of the apostolic Gospel on thc inan). printed pages of her confession, the, she denies the Spirit of God, who now, today, here, in our historical situation, denlands loyalty to the apostolic Gospel together with its actualizing interpretation. Commitment to the Lutheran confession means therefore todav a coinnlon tabulation of a summary of the Lutheran confessional writings, \v hich at the same time applies thr Biblical insights of the fathers to our situation and which ~~~itnesse~ to and preserves the apostolic Gospel against the effective heretical errors of our present time. Docs this challenge demand too much of us? What mill our synods, our bishops and church administrations say to this cl~allen~~: \\'iII they not say: "That is too touchy a subjcct. IVc cannot brin; that up." Thc attempt to makc several articles of the Aagsbu~:, Confessio~i applicable to our theological and church situation b\ nlcails of a binding reiteration and explanation will conjure up one crisis after another. Considering thc nature of our churches sucll an attcillpt mould be bouild to fail from the start. \Ve therefore ha\e to put ul~ ~vith the dogmatic twilight that hovers over our churchtj\ unil further notice. Only in this ttvilight we can live together." ShoulcI they, who speak in this manner, be right? Then orlI\ thc one thing rcmains: our sigh from the depths: Veni, Sanctc Sl~iritus, et cmitte caelitus Iucis tuae radium. Veni, patcr pauperurn, veni, dator munerum, veni, lumen cordium . . . Lava quod est sordidum, riga quod est aridum, sana quocl cst saucium.