Tällä foorumilla on tänä päivän antiluterilainen leima. Se näkyy monissa ketjuissa jatkuvana vian etsimisenä luterilaisuudessa. Foorumilla jossa olisi tarkoitus etsiä sitä, mikä meitä yhdistää. Eräässä vuoropuheluun tähtäävässä ketjussa joka sitten lopulta kumminkin päätyi luterilaisuuden vikojen etsimiseksi (siinä määrin, että ortodoksienkin suurin nykypäivän ongelma oli luterilaisten/protestanttien vika), penättiin vastauksia Lutherin pannabullaan. Tämä johtui ilmeisesti siitä, että ajatellaan että jos Lutherilla oli joitain kirkolle (katolisella) kestämättömiä ajatuksia, jotka tuomittiin harhaoppisiksi, niin luterilaisuus on itsessään harhaoppista. En puutu tarkemmin tämän väitteen kestämättömään logiikkaan.
Ensinnäkin pannabulla koski tietenkin Lutheria, ei luterilaista kirkkoa. Toiseksi kaikki Lutherin ajatukset kaikilta aikakausilta eivät eksplikoidu luterilaisessa kirkossa sillä intensiteetillä kuin Lutherilla.
Luterilaisia kirkkoja yhdistää Tunnustuskirjat. Kaikkia yhdistää Confessio Augustana. Lisäksi muut ovat eri tavalla ja eri laajuudessa käytössä. Raamattu on kaikkien näiden yläpuolella. CA kirjoitettiin 1530 ja se on ehdotus ekumeeniseksi tunnustukseksi. Se on kirja jota vasten keskustelut nykyisin käydään. Ei Lutherin henkilökohtaisia kirjoituksia vasten (paitsi Iso ja Pieni Katekismus).
Foorumilla on kuitenkin esitetty ihmettely miksi paavin pannabullaan, Exsurge Domine:n ole vastattu.
Luther vastasi tietenkin itse.
Tässä ketjussa käydään läpi Exsurge Dominen väitteet ja Lutherin vastaukset niihin. Lutherin vastaukset löytyvät täältä. Kommentit ovat toivottuja. Tekstit yleiskielellä englanniksi
- It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.
Lutherin vastaus (alku)
To understand this article it should be noted that my opponents have taught that the holy sacraments give grace to everyone, even though he be not repentant for sin and have no intention to do good; it is enough that he do not “oppose an obstacle,” that is, that he be without a wanton intention to commit sin. Against this doctrine I have set, and continue to set, this article, and say that it is unchristian, misleading and heretical; for beside the removal of the obstacle, that is, the evil intention, the reception of the sacraments not only requires genuine repentance for sin, but the worthy reception of the sacraments also requires that there be a firm faith within the heart.
Lopputeksti
This is proved by Christ in Matthew 9:2, when He heals the paralytic
man. He first said to him, “Believe, my son, and thy sins are forgiven
thee.” If faith had not been necessary for the forgiveness of his sins, why
should Christ have demanded it? Again, we read that Christ did no signs,
nor ever helped any one, unless it was believed that He could and would do
it, as St John also writes, “In His own country He could do no signs
because of their unbelief.” Matthew 13:58
Again, when in Mark 11:24 He teaches His disciples to pray, He says,
“When ye pray, believe that ye shall receive, and ye shall surely have it.”
But what is it to receive the sacraments except to have a desire for divine
grace? And what is the desire for divine grace except a true and heartfelt
prayer? How, then, can it be anything else than unchristian to teach that the
sacraments and God’s grace are to be received without such a desire,
without faith, nay, without repentance for sin, without any intention to do
good? Is it not pitiful to hear such teachings in the Church? But because
this article stands at the head of the list, and all the others depend upon it,
we must establish it and explain it still further, if that will do any good.
St James says, “If any man lack wisdom let him seek and ask it of God,
Who giveth to every man abundantly, and it shall be given him. But let him
ask with a firm faith, and not doubt. For if he doubteth he is like a wave or
billow of the sea, which is driven hither and thither by the wind. Let not
that man think that he will receive anything of God. Such a man is unstable
in all his ways, because he has a divided heart.” James 1:5 ff.
Does not that say clearly enough that the man who prays and does not
firmly believe that he will receive his request, cannot receive anything from
God? How much less can he receive anything who does not pray, does not
believe, does not repent, has no intention to do good, but only removes the
obstacle of an evil purpose, as they teach! God keep all His Christians
against such an unchristian error, taught by this deceitful bull and masters
of the same sort! Its like was never heard since the beginning of the world.
Again, St Paul says, in Romans 14:23, “Everything that is not done in
faith, is sin.” How, then, can the sacraments give grace to unbelievers, who
in all their works and ways do nothing else than sin, so long as they do not
believe? Nay, how can they “remove the obstacle,” if they remain in that
unbelief, because of which all that they do is sin, as St Paul here says? Yet
they teach that faith is not necessary for the reception of the sacraments
and of grace, and condemn these clear passages of Scripture when they
condemn me.
In the same sense St Paul, in Romans 1:17 and Hebrews 10:38,
quotes the saying of the prophet Habakkuk 2:4 as one of the chief
things in all Christian doctrine, when he says, Justus ex fide sua vivat, “A
righteous man shall live by his faith.” He does not say, “A righteous man
shall live by the sacraments,” but “by his faith,” for it is not the sacraments,
but faith in the sacraments, that gives life and righteousness. Many men
receive the sacraments and get from them neither life nor righteousness;
but he that believeth is good and liveth.
That is also the meaning of Christ’s saying, in the last chapter of Mark,
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Mark 16:16 He puts
the faith before the baptism, for where there is no faith the baptism does no
good; as He Himself afterwards says, “He that believeth not shall be lost,”
even though he is baptised, for it is not the baptism, but faith in the
baptism, that saves. Therefore, we read in Acts 8:36 that St. Philip
would not baptise the eunuch, without first asking him whether he
believed. And thus we still see it done every day. Wherever in the whole
world baptism is administered, the question is first put to the child, or to
the sponsors in his stead, whether he believes, and on their faith and
confession, the sacrament of baptism is given him. Why, then, does this
heretical, blasphemous bull presume to teach against all Scripture, against
the whole world, against the faith and practice of all Christians, that one
need not believe, nor repent, nor intend to do good? It is so plainly
unchristian, that if it were not for the bull no one would believe that
anybody held such a senseless doctrine. I hope they will be heartily
ashamed of this bull. They would not like to have the laity read it in
German.
Furthermore, St Paul says in Romans 10:10, that for a man to become
righteous, it is necessary that he believe from the heart. He does not say it
is necessary that he receive the sacraments, for a man can become
righteous by faith without bodily reception of the sacraments, so long as he
does not despise them; but without faith no sacrament is of any use, nay, it
is altogether deadly and pernicious. For this reason he writes in Romans
4:3, that Abraham believed, or trusted, God, and it was counted to him for
righteousness, or goodness; as Moses also had written inGenesis 15:6
This was written in order that we might know that nothing makes us good
and righteous except faith, without which no one can have any dealings
with God, no one receive His grace.
All this is also proved by the reason and experience of all men, for when
we are dealing with words and promises, there must be faith, even between
men here on earth. No business and no community could long exist if no
one was willing to take another’s word or signature on faith. Now, as we
plainly see, God deals with us in no other way than by His holy Word and
the sacraments, which are like signs or seals of His Word. The very first
thing necessary, then, is faith in these words and signs; for when God
speaks and gives signs man must firmly and whole-heartedly believe that
what He says and signifies is true, so that we do not consider Him a liar or
a trickster, but hold Him to be faithful and true. This faith pleases God
above all things, and does Him the highest honor, because it believes Him
to be true, and a righteous God. Therefore He, in turn, counts this faith to
us as righteousness good and sufficient unto salvation.
Therefore, since every sacrament contains a divine word and promise, in
which God offers and promises us His grace, it is assuredly not enough to
“put away the obstacle,” as they call it, but there must be in the heart an
unwavering, unshaken faith, which receives the promise and sign, and
doubts not that what God there promises and signifies is so. Then that
grace which the sign, or sacrament, promises and indicates is certainly
given to faith. If faith is not present, then the “putting away of the
obstacle” is labor lost; and not only so, but God is utterly blasphemed and
dishonored, as though He were a liar and foolish jester. In such case the
sacraments not only give no grace to those who “put away the obstacle,”
but they bestow disgrace, wrath and misfortune, so that it is better, if faith
is not present, to stay far away from the words and signs, or sacraments, of
God.
Thus the sacrament of baptism is a divine sign or seal, given by virtue of
the promise and word of Christ in the last chapter of Mark, “He that
believeth and is baptised shall be saved.” Mark 16:16 Therefore, he that
is baptized must hold this word to be true, and must believe that he will
certainly be saved if he is baptised, as the word says and the sign signifies;
but if he does not believe, then this word and sign of God are in vain, and
God is despised in the sacrament. For unbelief makes Him out a fool and a
liar. So grievous, unchristian, horrible, terrible a sin is unbelief, or mistrust,
in the sacraments. To such wickedness this blasphemous, damnable bull
would drive us. It makes faith a heresy, and blasphemy a Christian truth.
God keep us from the abomination standing in the holy place! Matthew
24:15
So also the divine sign, or sacrament, of penance is given in virtue of
Christ’s word in Matthew 16:19, “Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven, etc.” Therefore, he that goes to confession and
does penance must see to it, before all else, that he hold this word to be the
truth and firmly believe that he is “loosed” before God in heaven when he
is absolved on earth. If he does not believe this, then God must seem to
him a liar, and by this unbelief, or doubt, he denies Him. Of what help,
then, is his “putting away of the obstacle,” his laying aside of evil intention,
if he keeps the greatest obstacle, the worst intention, that is, unbelief,
doubt, and the denying of God?
It is the same with the sacrament of the altar. Because it is given in virtue
of Christ’s words in Matthew 26:26 “Take and eat, this is My body
which is given for you,” therefore he that goes to the sacrament must
firmly believe that what the words of Christ say is really true that His body
is given for him, and His blood shed for him. If he does not believe this, or
believes that it is given not for him but for others, again Christ is a liar and
His word and sign come to naught. O the countless, abominable sins that
are committed these days by this unbelief and abuse of the sacraments,
because faith like this is nowhere taught! And now it is condemned by this
bull! We are taught only to “put away the obstacle,” to repent and confess.
If they preach about faith, the preaching goes no farther than to say that
Christ is truly present and that bread is not present, but only the form of
bread; but what Christ is doing there, or why He is there, of that we hear
no one preaching or teaching rightly.
From all this I think it is clear that for the sacrament faith is necessary —
faith which does not doubt that it receives everything the words declare
and the sacrament signifies. Their talk about the “putting away of the
obstacle” is profitless; nay, it is heretical to say that with the mere “putting
away of the obstacle,” without faith, grace is given by the sacraments. This
saying, taken from the teaching of St Augustine, holds true, “Not the
sacrament, but the faith of the sacrament makes righteous and saves;” and
again, the same St Augustine, in his commentary on John, says of
baptism, “The word comes to the element, and there is a sacrament,” and
again, “The water touches the body, but purifies the soul, not because of
the work, or of the pouring, but because of faith.”
Against these strong arguments in behalf of this Christian article my
opponents have not a tittle of Scripture or a spark of reason for their
opinion about the “putting away of obstacles,” but the whole thing is a
naked, baseless human fabrication, a dream. I would gladly hear their
refutation. Is it not a pity, even if it were not heresy, that they dare to teach
doctrines of their own devising in the Church, where nothing should be
taught except God’s Word?
They have one lone argument with which they support their opinion. It is
as follows: “If the sacraments of the New Testament do not give grace to
those who ‘put away the obstacle,’ even though they have not faith, then
there would be no difference between them and the sacraments of the Old
Testament; for the Old Testament sacraments had the power to give grace
to those who believed, and the New Testament sacraments must be more
powerful and better than the Old; therefore they must give grace to those
also who do not yet believe, to whom the Old Testament sacraments did
not give grace.” This is a broad subject and much could be said about it.
To put it briefly, their whole argument rests on a false and erroneous idea,
for there is no difference between the sacraments of the Old and New
Testaments. Neither the one nor the other confers the grace of God, but, as
has been said, it is nothing else than faith in God’s word and signs which
gave grace then and gives it now. Therefore, the ancients obtained grace
through the very same faith as we. Thus St Peter says in Acts 15:11,
“We trust that we shall be saved through faith, like all our fathers”; and St.
Paul in 2 Corinthians 4:13, “We have the same spirit of faith, which
they had”; and in 1 Corinthians 10:3, “Our fathers ate the same spiritual
meat and drank the same spiritual drink that we eat and drink,” that is to
say, they believed, as we do.
It is indeed true that the types of the Old Testament gave no grace, but the
types are not sacraments, as they think. For in the types there is no word or
promise of God, as there must be if there is to be a sacrament, but they
were merely figures or signs, such as we have now. Bodily adornments and
trappings are a mere figure or sign in which there is no word or promise
from God that he who has it shall have this or that gift. They contain no
such promise as we see in baptism, that he shall be saved who believes and
is baptised. Whatever like promises of God, in which men believed, were
given in the Old Testament, they were in all respects equal to our
sacraments, except that they had many of them and many kinds of them,
while we have few of them, and all of one kind, and they are the common
property of all men in the whole world.
On the other hand, the types and signs we have, which are not sacraments
and are not accompanied by a word of God, are like the Old Testament
types. So, for instance, a bishop’s dress is just as much a type as was the
dress of Aaron; neither bestows any grace. Therefore they ought not to
confuse the sacraments and the types, and mistake the one for the other;
then they would not have fallen into the error of making a distinction
between the sacraments of the Old and of the New Testaments, when they
cannot make a distinction between the Old and the New Testament faith.
If this article is thoroughly grasped and understood, all the rest will easily
be understood, and the whole bull will be put to open shame; for this is by
far the most important article, because it has to do with faith.
Lutherin vastaus paljastaa jo miten suuri paino on Raamatun lupauksilla kristityille. Usko on myös uskoa Raamatun lupauksiin, sillä jos emme usko Raamatun lupauksiin, teemme Kristuksesta (ja Jumalasta) velehtelijan)
Tähän voisi lisätä että nykyinen opetus sakramentin vastaanottajan kelvollisuudesta puhuu myös uskosta. Sakramentti ei vaikuta “Ex opere operato” eli tehtynä tekona, irrallaan vastaanottajan uskosta.
CA V:ssa sanotaan että
Sanaa ja sakramentteja välineinä käyttäen lahjoitetaan Pyhä Henki, joka niissä, jotka kuulevat evankeliumin, vaikuttaa uskon missä ja milloin Jumala hyväksi näkee.
Sen sanamuoto on sallivampi kuin Lutherin tekstin (yli kymmenen vuoden ero). CA:n perusteella voisi sanoa että se joka ei usko, saa sakramentissa Pyhän Hengen joka vaikuttaa uskon, missä ja milloin Jumala niin hyväksi näkee. Siksi en itse luterilaisena harrasta uskon tenttaamista ehtoollisella.
Ehtoollisen voiman ja hyödyn saa jokainen, joka uskoo sen, mistä sanat kertovat ja mistä ne antavat. Eihän niitä ole opetettu eikä julistettu kiville eikä kannoille, vaan niille, jotka kuulevat nämä sanat. Heille Kristus sanoo: “Ottakaa ja syökää” jne. Koska hän antaa ja lupaa siinä syntien anteeksiantamuksen, se voidaan ottaa vastaan vain uskolla. hän itse vaatii tällaista uskoa lausuessaan sanat: “Teidän edestänne annettu” ja teidän edestänne vuodatettu". Nämä Kristuksen sanat tarkoittavat: Sitä varten minä annan tämän teille ja käsken teidän syödä ja juoda, että te puolestanne ottaisitte sen vastaan ja nauttisitte sen. Joka suostuu kuulemaan nämä sanat ja uskoo ne tosiksi, hän saa, mitä ne lupaavat. Se taas, joka ei usko, ei saa mitään. Turhaan sellainen, joka ei tahdo tuota pelastavaa hyvää nauttia, antaa ojentaa itselleen ehtoollisen. Aarrearkku on aivan auki. Se on kannettu jokaisen oven eteen, pantu joka pöytään. Mutta sinun on myös otettava ehtoollinen vastaan ja ajateltava, että se varmasti on se, mistä sanat sinulle puhuvat.
Lutherin vastauksessa Exsurge Dominen:n 1 väittämään näkyy että se on kirjoitettu aiheen ollessa poleemisimmillaan. Isossa katekismuksessa (ja pienessä) on jo paljon pastoraalisempi sävy. Ei nykyluterilaisen tarvitse hävetä Lutherin vastausta tässä asiassa. Se korostaa aivan oikeita asioita. Sakramentti otetaan vastaan uskolla Raamatun lupauksiin.
D
Päätän tämän rupattelun tähän.