# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1969_S543
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

582 THEOLOGY OF FELLOWSHIP

The law [canon law is to be understood] defines and
describes a heretic as a man who defends his error
stubbornly. This we on our part have never done, but
freely showed testimony from the Word of God and
Scripture, and have gladly listened to the opinion of
others.*2
Strong in its insistence on the difference between an
erring Christian and a heretic is particularly the follow-
ing statement, in which Luther uses the example of
St. Augustine himself to establish and illustrate the
difference:
[The Holy Spirit] prophesies publicly and mightily that
mingled among Holy Church there will be builders of
wood, straw, and hay, that is, teachers who nevertheless
remained on the foundation would suffer damage through
fire but would nevertheless be saved. This cannot be
understood of heretics. For these lay another foundation,
while those remain on the foundation, that is, in faith
in Christ, are saved and are called God’s saints, never-
theless have some hay, straw, and wood, which must
be burnt through the fire of Holy Scripture, however
without harm to their salvation. As St. Augustine says
of himself: “Err I may; a heretic I will not be.” The
reason is that heretics do not merely err, but are not

willing to be corrected, defend their error as being right,
and fight against the truth which they have come to
know. . . . But St. Augustine will gladly confess his
error, and be instructed. Therefore he cannot be a here-
tic, even though he should err. All other saints do like-
wise, and gladly give their hay, straw, and wood to the
fire, that they may remain on the foundation of sal-
vation.23

The similarity between the concept of heresy and
heretic in Augustine and in Luther is unmistakeable.
There is, however, also a difference, due to Luther’s
clearer understanding of the doctrine of justification and
of the nature of the church.

The conception of heresy and heretic here set forth
from Augustine, and particularly from Luther, is trace-
able in the Lutheran dogmaticians of the 17th century,
and is plainly evident in some of the writings of
Dr. C. F. W. Walther.?4

5. The Concept of the One Holy Catholic
and Apostolic Church

The concept of heresy and schism as set forth from
the writings of Augustine was intimately linked with
Augustine’s concept of the church, which was generally
the concept in the Western Church during the Middle
Ages, except that after Augustine the primacy of the
pope tended to play an increasingly important role in
that concept. Nor should it be overlooked that this con-
cept aroused strong protest from men like William of
Occam, John Wyclif, and John Hus.

It has been properly said that there was no dogma”
of the church before the Reformation. The doctrine had
not been confessionally fixed. There were, to be sure,
two creedal statements on the church. The Apostles’
Creed says: “I believe in ... the holy Christian church,
the communion of saints,” and the Nicene Creed: “I be-
lieve one holy catholic and apostolic church.” Neither of
these statements constitutes a developed doctrine of the
church. Dr. Werner Elert, in his book Abendmahl und
Kirchengemeinschaft in der alten Kirche etc., presents
evidence that the expression in the Apostles’ Creed, “the
communion of saints” may not have been understood

originally as a synonym of the holy Christian church,
but may have meant “participation in sacred things,” in
the sense of the Sacrament of the Altar.7%

The words of the Nicene Creed, “I believe one holy,
catholic, and apostolic church” do not define the church
by a dogmatic definition. Rather, they indicate what
qualities Christians at the time of the Nicene Creed
and thereafter ascribed to the church. These are, in-
deed, genuine qualities of the church. However, these
qualities were not perfectly understood and defined by
Augustine and other church fathers, because the doc-
trine of justification, which is basic for a proper under-
standing of the church, was not adequately understood
by them.

Augustine and other teachers before and in his day
taught that the church is one in the sense of one visible
organization. Heretics and schismatics and their ad-
herents did not belong to this one church. They were
considered to be without hope of salvation unless they
left heresy and schism and joined the one church.

This one church was holy, not so much through the
forgiveness of sins (for as has been said, the doctrine
of justification was obscured even in the theology of
St. Augustine and other church fathers) but because it
was the one church; its unity guaranteed its holiness.

This one, holy church was catholic, that is, it was
diffused throughout the world. In Augustine's view a
sect could not possibly be the church, because it was
not catholic, not diffused throughout the world.

Finally the church was apostolic, that is, linked to
the apostles by the apostolic succession of bishops. In
Augustine’s view any church outside the apostolic suc-
cession could not be part of the true church.

This one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church was
understood to be a visible, tangible body of men. It be-
came even more visible and tangible when the bishop
of Rome achieved the primacy over the other bishops.

Rome has been very slow to announce a definition
of the church. Nevertheless she has operated through
the centuries with a tacit definition that was understood
both by herself and by her critics. Melanchthon was
setting forth this tacit definition fairly when he said
in the Apology:

Perhaps our opponents demand some such definition of

the church as the following. It is the supreme outward

monarchy of the whole world in which the Roman pontiff
must have unlimited power beyond question of censure.

He may establish articles of faith, abolish the Scriptures

by his leave, institute devotions and sacrifices, enact

whatever laws he pleases, excuse and exempt men from
any laws, divine, canonical, or civil, as he wishes. From
him the emperor and all kings have received their power
and right to rule, and this at Christ's command; for as

the Father subjected everything to him, so now this
right has been transferred to the pope... .*"

This is essentially the definition later set forth by
Robert Cardinal Bellarmine and taught since his time to
many generations of Roman Catholic priests in the
dogmatics courses in their seminaries.

The church is a union of men who are united by a pro-

fession of the same Christian faith, and by participation

in the same sacraments under the direction of their

lawful pastors, especially of the one representative of
Christ on earth, the Pope of Rome.28