The Article on which the Church Stands or Falls
Article IV of the Augsburg Confession
The Holy Roman Emperor (in the late 1520s): “Hey German Province Leaders, it’d be cool if you guys had my back in this little thing I’ve got going out east. Okay, it’s a war, I guess… against the Ottoman Empire. Are we on the same team with that? We’ve been hearing about this outlaw guy, Martin Luther, causing some… “unrest” with the Pope and all that (sorry about the whole “excommunication” thing), but can we manage something and come together? Compromise? Could really use some help from you, my German dudes!”
German Province Leaders who all have their own personal agendas and power issues: “Um. Yeah. We’ll get back to you. We’ll have our best guys (Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, Justus Jonas) draft something up to see if the unity you’re looking for is possible. They wrote the Torgau articles already. Meet you at the Diet of Augsburg.”
Melanchthon had quite the challenge in front of himself! Agreement with the Pope would lead to a higher chance for peace in the land, and much less blood shed. Good things. Good things. But, in the central matters of faith, “compromise” isn’t something that one can do.1 Would you forfeit anything about the gospel — the forgiveness of sins on account of Jesus Christ? A Word given freely that leads to faith and the eternal salvation of souls? On that, you’ll not bend! So, a rather bold proclamation came out, called the Augsburg Confession.
So, what did the Roman Catholic church think of the items detailed in this confession?
Article 1 - on “God”: We’re cool with what you wrote here, Philipp.
Article 2 - on “Original Sin”: Hmm. I guess we’re fine with this, too. The language is a little sticky, but let’s move on to the next one.2
Article 3 - on “The Son of God”: So far, so good, you crazy Lutherans.
Article 4 - on “Justification”(by Faith Alone): WHAT?!?!?!?!? Now that is some dangerous stuff. We’re out. You Can't Be Serious!
What did Article IV of the Augsburg Confession say?3 What Scripture says, really! It’s so awesome.
Our churches also teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works but are freely justified for Christ’s sake through faith when they believe that they are received into favor and that their sins are forgiven on account of Christ, who by his death made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in his sight.
Read Romans 3:31-4:1-254 and see if you or the Apostle Paul wouldn’t summarize this Justification doctrine the same way as Melanchthon did! Unity was not found with Rome on many of the other articles, either, but it was this one — Article IV — that determines whether “agreement” is possible between church institutions. When this card falls, the whole deck does. As I said in the sermon last Sunday, it is the keystone of an arch. Without it, the bridge collapses and "agreement" is not attainable. Too much is at stake.
Questions for YOU, readers. (Please leave a comment on one or more of them!)
What seems “normal”, or even “mundane” about Article 4?
What seems “explosive” to you? What is so controversial about Justification by Faith Alone? 500 years ago? TODAY?
How might this article be threatened — then, now, or any time in between? What things are preached (even in Christian churches) that would go against a Justification by Faith Alone confession?
We’ll compromise on many things, like “what food to serve after church” (the pudding bar was brilliant last Sunday) and “the color the carpets should be”. We’ll even accept that some people eat sweet corn in a random fashion (I’m looking at you, Leah Hoegh), or in up-and-down columns, even though everyone knows that eating it from left to right in rows like a typewriter is WAAAYY better.
Feel free to take a Book of Concord from my office anytime you want to. Or my copy of Leif Grane’s commentary on The Augsburg Confession. Grane (pronounced GRAH-nay, because I’m 96% certain I’m right about that) is Danish, so you know it’s really awesome. (I’m half-Danish, BTW. Hi, Dad! The other half of my blood is Norwegian. Hi, Mom! I hope you read footnotes, even the ones with parentheses!)
Melanchthon later wrote an Apology to the Augsburg Confession. This is not an “apology” how we might use that word today, but a deeper explanation of the Justification-by-Faith-Alone confession — kind of like a “behind the scenes” or commentary from the director of a movie. The section on Article IV is expansive, relentless, and unyielding when it comes to the Gospel.
Seriously - if someone close to you ever needs a sermon, you could read this section of Romans to them. Then include their name in it — that Jesus Christ forgives YOU, (insert name), and justifies YOU with this promise you cling to by faith. Another “I’m in a pinch and need a 1-minute sermon to come out of my mouth” option is page 301 of the Book of Concord, Tappert translation. It is Article 2 of Martin Luther’s Smalcald Articles. Just beautiful. Might need to do another post on that one.
2a. What seems “explosive” to you?
"This faith God imputes."
I'll come clean and admit I had to google impute to make sure I had it right and here's what I found: "ascribe (righteousness, guilt, etc.) to someone by virtue of a similar quality in another."
I can handle giving Christ the reigns when it comes to matters of righteousness (see answer to question 1), but even MY faith? I can't even do God a solid by at least initiating this whole thing by believing in the God who has blessed me so much and given his only Son to die for my sins? That one little thing isn't something I can claim as my own as a work for God? Doesn't he at least deserve that from me? Can't I have at least that virtue of Faith as my own? Even my faith is given to me by virtue of Christ??? At this point old Kyle has to get off the boat and join his friend John McEnroe: "You CANNNOT BE SERIOUS!!!"
Well, now that I'm cooled off from that rant and took a cold shower and thought about it I guess it makes sense: Faith really isn't about the virtue or work of the person having faith, it's always about what we have faith in. I can work all I want at the art of faith to try to make myself seem virtuous, but ultimately it comes down to having something trustworthy to believe in. When Jesus says, "This is my body, given for you," that means I have Christ given to me! That is a word I can trust much more than any of my efforts at faith. Looking to the words of Christ and his promises to me for faith makes a lot more sense than clutching prayer beads trying to convince God and myself that I have faith saying "I believe, I believe, I believe. . . " Man, I feel kind of silly for freaking out that first paragraph. oh well. . .
2b. What is so controversial about Justification by Faith Alone? This places all of the efficacy in hearing the word of God and his promises to us, not what we do, which is controversial takes a bit of getting used to. We always want to be the one in charge, but the most life changing thing (It kills the old Adam in us and makes us new!), is hearing the word of God, a blessed promise to us from our creator. We can try to do many things like "leading by example," "being the change we want to see," or even "living out our faith," or whatever the catch phrase of the day is, but just saying or trying to do those things doesn't actually change or do anything, it is impotent. But when we hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ, what he has done for us, and who he says I am? Now, all of those things I've been trying and failing to do have already been accomplished in faith. With faith in Christ as the source our hearts overflow with good news that cannot help but spill out to the benefit of ourselves and our neighbor.
500 years ago? Placing the efficacy all in hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not what we do, sure did take a lot of "spiritual power" from the church 500 years ago. Of course this eroded "spiritual power" also led to eroded economic and political power, which only increased the controversy and had major implications for years to come.
TODAY?
Efficacy of hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ through faith alone, with the mirror placed firmly away from ourselves and what we do and say also takes power from the preacher who is intent on turning the mirror on themselves and teaching you how to "live out your faith." It exposes this way of thinking and preaching for what it is: Impotent, and that is even the best case scenario (if the advice seems good, it still doesn't change anything). No longer are we reliant on a preacher to interpret what the bible reading means for us today as if it is some riddle they need to solve each week so they can turn this outdated text to life and tell us what it really means when putting it in "today's context," because with faith alone we have been given Christ! Praise be to God for that, because us humans, when intent on coming up with new and better ways to preach our new improved version of adherence to the law, always end up inventing new and innovative ways to sin. Controversial: yes. Takes away power from those intent on turning the mirror to themselves as the source of good: yes. Thanks be to God!