LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1971, Page 241

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

PRESIDENT’S REPORT 241

the blessing emanating from the fathers, be avoided and used
as a warning that we become more circumspect, more free
from idolatrous confidence in men in spite of their great
fame, wisdom, and piety, and more conscious of the fact
that Scripture alone is the perfect, pure fountain of truth,
“the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas,
together with all teachers, should be estimated and judged.
_.. Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers
(sive patrum sive neotericorum scripta), whatever name they
bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures.”
(Epitome, Trigl., p.777.) Although the old faithful teachers
of our Church still are our teachers and examples in many
respects, yet in the errors they made they are a warning to
us according to the well-known proverb “Lapsus maiorum
sit tremor minorum,” i.e., “May the fall of the great deter
the smaller spirits.”

Error and sin are similar. Just as all Christians still have
sin because of their natural human weakness, so all of them
also have their individual errors. And both, their sins as
well as their errors, are forgiven. But not only does every
wilful sin against the Law of God frustrate grace and con-
demn; also every wilful error against revealed truth frus-
trates grace and condemns. Just as one and the same sin is
forgiven to one man and not to another, so one and the same
error is forgiven to one man and not to another. Likewise,
just as he sins against grace who wilfully imitates the sins
of the saints which they committed in moments of weakness
and tries to justify himself by appealing to the saints, so he
also sins against grace who wilfully imitates the errors of
the orthodox teachers which they committed in moments
of weakness and tries to justify himself by appealing to those
teachers.

Luther held this fact before the eyes of the papists on
many occasions. In his essay on “The Abuse of the Mass,”
written in the year 1521, he says: “In the second place, they
(the papists] refer us to the holy Fathers, to Gregory, Ber-
nard, Bonaventura, and others, who used this canon (the
canon of the Mass) and considered the Mass a sacrifice.
To appeal to the work and life of the saints which is not
founded in Scripture is a most dangerous thing, because it
is evident that a just man falls seven times and that the
saints sin in many ways, Prov. 24:16. Who will convince us
that it is not sin to practise and perform an act which
cannot be justified from Scripture? In this connection I praise
St. Anthony, who gave the sound advice that no one should
entertain and carry out an act without authority from Scrip-
ture. Yes, it is better to look upon the acts of the saints
which they did without Scriptural authority as sin than to
adduce them as good examples. Furthermore, you do not
rouse any saints to anger when you regard their unscriptural
acts as sin. They acknowledge themselves to be sinners.
But you do anger God and the saints if you fall through the
example of the saints and break your neck. ... There are
two reasons why sins cause no injury to the saints but do
destroy the godless. The first is this: The saints have faith
in Christ. And since they are buried in such faith (although
they do many things in ignorance which are damnable for
the ungodly), they always rise again and are preserved... .
The second reason is this: Through faith in Christ the saints
are so wise that they cling only to God’s mercy, repudiating
their own works and confessing from the bottom of their
hearts that their works are unprofitable and sinful. So Ber-
nard said on his death-bed: “I have wasted my time, for
I have lived an unholy life.’— In Augustine we see many
errors, but he recanted them. Would they not have damned
him if he had not been preserved in the true faith? For the
most part those errors are contrary to faith. But as he
confessed faith in Christ and feared God, they could not
harm him. Whoever should try to follow those same errors
now would be destroyed. This is the case with many who
follow the words of the fathers without discriminating be-
tween fallible human opinion and the infallible divine truth.
It is quite apparent that the saints do err now and then, even
in faith, i.e., they are not yet perfect, but they do not perish
because of the faith which God has begun in them. Those,
however, do perish who accept the errors of the saints as
truth and follow them as examples. There is no prospect of
salvation for any one who has followed the saints instead
of Scripture. ...

“Such also is the case with the sacrifice of the Mass.
Without a doubt many pious Christians still cling to the

Mass in simple faith and regard it as a sacrifice. But since
they do not depend on this sacrifice, look upon everything
they themselves do as sin, and cling to the pure mercy of
God, they are saved from perishing in spite of this error.
However, when the priests who celebrate Mass follow this
error without such faith, elevate their sacrifice, and sell it
for genuine goods, they deserve to have this error charged
against them and perish eternally because they followed the
saints. For God considers, tries, and judges the hearts and
reins, Ps. 7:9, i.e., the inner disposition of the heart. There-
fore God relents and forgives an error in one man and con-
demns the same error in another, because one man believes
in humble, childlike faith, and the other does not... .
Since we have finally recognized the error, it is no longer
proper to continue therein and consider the Mass as a sacri-
fice. That would be a sin against faith and against our own
conscience, —a sin which no faith, no confession, could ex-
cuse. You cannot say: I will err after the manner of a Chris-
tian. A Christian errs in ignorance, and St. Paul commands
us in Rom. 14:1 that we should bear with an erring Christian
(seeing he lives by the grace of God), because it is not right
for us to despise and condemn him who does not yet recog-
nize his error as error. It is our duty, however, to point out
error to everybody and no longer consider it truth, so that
the sins of the godless do not increase and no offense be
given to weak consciences. . . . Gregory, Bernard, Bona-
ventura, Francis, Dominic, and their followers, failing to
recognize the true nature of the Papacy, held the Pope and
his dominion in high esteem and believed that all his ways
and acts were divine, Christian, and ordained of God; yet
the Papacy with all its ecclesiastical courts, ordinances, and
decrees is manifestly contrary to the Gospel. They have
misinterpreted the Gospel, building up and fortifying the
Pope and his realm through some glaring errors. Is it not
unchristian to believe that the Pope is the ‘rock,’ Matt. 16:18?
Is it not unchristian to interpret the ‘sea,’ Matt. 14:29, as hu-
man beings, on whom St. Peter and the Pope are to walk,
i.e., over whom they are to rule? Is it not unchristian to
suppose that the word ‘feed’ should imply the honor, power,
and authority of the Pope? There are many similar errors
of the saints. Yet, failing to recognize them as errors, they
adhered to them in simple, Christian faith; therefore, God
forgave them. But those who know and acknowledge them
to be errors and still adhere to them as though they were
not erroneous do indeed follow the Fathers; nevertheless,
they will not be in sweet communion with them in heaven.
The Fathers finally renounced their errors and were received
in grace. Certain men of our day, however, consider those
errors as articles of faith and promulgate and defend them
as such unto their end.” (Walch, XIX: 1378—1385.)

In another connection Luther declares that it is permis-
sible, and at times obligatory, to condemn the error of an
orthodox person which he entertained in weakness, without
at the same time condemning that orthodox teacher. He
illustrates this instance in the case of Cyprian as follows:
“St. Augustine condemns St. Cyprian’s doctrine of anabap-
tism” (concerning those baptized by heretics); “and ever
since, that doctrine has been justly condemned. But we could
easily be satisfied with Cyprian, for in him Christ comforts
us poor sinners wonderfully by showing us that His great
saints also were human just as we are.” (Of Councils and
Churches, XVI: 2657.) Luther does not want to deprive even
St.Thomas of his holiness, great as his errors were. He
wrote: “Yet I do not doubt that his doctrine (that of St.
Thomas), dull and without spirit though it is, is one of the
vessels full of the wrath of God which He has sent down
upon this earth, Rev. 15:7, 16,17. Mainly because of this
doctrine he became a (papistic) saint and received his
canonization from such a man as he deserved. I do not wish
to say that he is not holy, although he did teach doctrines
that are truly heretical and undermine the teaching of Christ.
He may have done this in ignorance. I am sorry, however,
that his influence deceived so many noble Christians and
induced them to accept arid wastes instead of beautiful
flowers. (Cf. Lam. 4:5.)” — (Revelation of the Antichrist,
A.D., 1521, XVIII: 1760.)

It is no doubt necessary at this point to call attention to
the following facts: 1. In the writings of otherwise orthodox
teachers more than just a few important points of doctrine
can be found which are erroneous. But an appeal to the
deviations of the otherwise orthodox teachers as a justifica-