Translating the Apology of the Augsburg Confession: (Art. III) De Dilectione et Impletione Legis (xxxvi)

Postea incipimus legem facere. Procul a ratione humana, procul a Mose reiiciendi sunt[1] oculi in Christum et sentiendum,[2] quod[3] Christus sit nobis donatus, ut[4] propter eum iusti reputemur. Legi nunquam in carne satisfacimus. Ita igitur iusti reputamur non propter legem, sed propter Christum, quia huius merita nobis donantur, si in eum credimus.

Si quis[5] igitur haec fundamenta consideraverit, quod[6] non iustificemur ex lege, quia legem Dei humana natura non potest facere, non potest Deum diligere, sed quod[7] iustificemur ex promissione, in qua propter Christum promissa est reconciliatio, iustitia et vita aeterna: is facile intelliget[8] necessario tribuendam esse[9] iustificationem fidei, Si modo cogitabit[10] Christum non esse frustra promissum, exhibitum, natum, passum, resuscitatum, Si cogitabit[11] promissionem gratiae in Christo non esse frustra, praeter legem et extra legem factam esse statim a principio mundi, Si cogitabit[12] promissionem fide accipiendam esse, sicut Iohannes inquit 1. ep. 5, 10 sq.: Qui[13] non credit Deo, mendacem facit eum, quia non credit in testimonium, quod testificatus est Deus de Filio suo, et hoc est testimonium, quod vitam aeternam dedit nobis Deus, et haec vita in Filio eius est. Qui habet Filium, habet vitam; qui non habet Filium Dei, vitam non habet. Et Christus ait Ioh. 8, 36: Si vos Filius liberaverit, vere liberi eritis. Et Paulus Rom. 5, 2: Per hunc habemus accessum ad Deum, et addit: per fidem. Fide igitur in Christum accipitur promissio remissionis peccatorum et iustitiae. Nec iustificamur coram Deo ex ratione aut lege.

Haec tam perspicua, tam manifesta[14] sunt, ut[15] miremur tantum esse furorem adversariorum, ut[16] haec vocent in dubium. Manifesta αποδειξις[17] est, quum non iustificemur coram Deo ex lege, sed ex promissione, quod necesse sit fidei tribuere iustificationem. Quid potest contra hanc αποδειξιν opponi, nisi totum evangelium, totum Christum abolere quis volet? Gloria Christi fit illustrior, quum docemus eo uti mediatore ac propitiatore. Piae conscientiae vident in hac doctrina uberrimam consolationem sibi proponi, quod videlicet credere se certo statuere debent, quod[18] propter Christum habeant placatum Patrem, non propter nostras iustitias, et quod Christus adiuvet tamen, ut[19] facere etiam legem possimus. Haec tanta bona eripiunt ecclesiae adversarii nostri, quum damnant, quum delere conantur doctrinam de iustitia fidei. Viderint igitur omnes bonae mentes, ne[20] consentiant impiis consiliis adversariorum. In doctrina adversariorum de iustificatione non fit mentio Christi, quomodo[21] ipsum debeamus opponere irae Dei, quasi vero nos possimus iram Dei dilectione vincere, aut diligere Deum iratum possimus.

[1] The passive periphrastic

[2] The passive periphrastic; it depends upon an implied est, and is an impersonal construction

[3] A quod substantive clause

[4] A purpose clause

[5] Si (ali)quis

[6] A quod substantive clause

[7] A quod substantive clause

[8] Introduces an indirect statement

[9] A passive periphrastic

[10] Introduces an indirect statement

[11] Introduces an indirect statement

[12] Introduces an indirect statement

[13] He, who…

[14] A neuter substantive

[15] A result clause

[16] A result clause

[17] proof

[18] A quod substantive clause

[19] A purpose clause

[20] A negative purpose clause

[21] An indirect question

Afterwards we begin to do the law. Our eyes must be turned far from human reason and far from Moses towards Christ, and it must be known that Christ has been given to us so that on account of Him  we are considered just. We never satisfy the law in our flesh. Therefore, in this way we are considered just not on account of the law but on account of Christ because His merits are given to us if we believe in him.

Therefore, if anyone considers these fundamentals– that we are not justified by the law, because human nature is not able to do the law of God or to love God, but that we are justified by the promise in which reconciliation, righteousness and eternal life, have been promised on account of Christ–, he will understand easily that necessarily the righteousness of faith must be offered. If only he will think that Christ was not promised, presented, born, suffered and resurrected in vain. If only he will think that the promise of grace in Christ was made not in vain immediately from the beginning of the world before and outside of the law. If he will think that the promise must be received by faith as John says, “He, who does not believe God, makes Him a liar because he does not believe in the testimony which God has demonstrated concerning His Son, and this is the testimony that God gave eternal life to us and this life is in His Son. He, who has the Son, has life; he, who does not have the Son of God, does not have life” (1 John 5:10 sq.). And Christ says in John 8:36, “If the Son has freed you all, you will truly be free.” And Paul says in Romans 5:2, “Through this man we have access to the Father,” and he adds, “through faith.” Therefore, the promise of the forgiveness of sins and righteousness is received through faith in Christ. And we are not justified before God by reason or the law.

These things are so clear and so obvious that we only marvel that there is so much rage from the adversaries that they call these things into doubt. This proof is clear since we are not justified before God by the law but by the promise: that it is necessary to attribute justification to faith. What can be opposed to this proof unless someone wishes to abolish the whole gospel and all of Christ. The glory of Christ becomes brighter when we teach to use him as a mediator and propitiator. Pious consciences see in this doctrine the richest comfort is presented to them: that surely they ought to believe that they understand certainly that on account of Christ they have a pleased God, not on account of our righteousness and that Christ, nevertheless, helps us so that we are able to also do the law. Our adversaries snatch away such good things of the church when they condemn and when they attempt to destroy the doctrine of the righteousness of faith. Therefore, all good minds should watch lest they share in the impious plans of the adversaries. A mention of Christ does not not happen in the doctrine of the adversaries concerning justification, how we ought to oppose Him to the wrath of God, as though we truly are able to overcome the wrath of God with our love or we are able to love an angry God.

Check out the Concordia Latin Reader series:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BKL4MPXD?binding=paperback&ref=dbs_m_mng_rwt_sft_tpbk_tkin

CAVE, EMPTOR, SELF PROMOTION: Check out my author page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B09F3PXYJY

And follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61550921382723&mibextid=ZbWKwL

And on X:
https://twitter.com/LSApublishing

Like this post and follow the blog if you enjoy this content!

Translating the Apology of the Augsburg Confession: (Art. III) De Dilectione et Impletione Legis (xxxv)

Verum si quis[1] cogitabit[2] evangelium non esse frustra datum mundo, Christum non esse frustra promissum, exhibitum, natum, passum, resuscitatum, facillime intelliget[3] nos non ex ratione aut lege iustificari. Nos igitur cogimur de iustificatione dissentire ab adversariis. Evangelium enim alium modum ostendit; evangelium cogit uti Christo in iustificatione, docet, quod[4] per ipsum habeamus accessum ad Deum per fidem, docet, quod[5] ipsum mediatorem et propitiatorem debeamus opponere irae Dei; docet[6] fide in Christum accipi remissionem peccatorum et reconciliationem et vinci terrores peccati et mortis. Ita et Paulus ait,[7] iustitiam esse non ex lege, sed ex promissione, in qua promisit Pater, quod[8] velit ignoscere, quod[9] velit reconciliari propter Christum. Haec autem promissio sola fide accipitur, ut testatur Paulus ad Rom., cap. 4, 13. Haec fides sola accipit remissionem peccatorum, iustificat et regenerat. Deinde sequitur dilectio et ceteri boni fructus. Sic igitur docemus[10] hominem iustificari, ut supra diximus, quum conscientia, territa[11] praedicatione poenitentiae, erigitur et credit[12] se habere Deum placatum propter Christum. Haec fides imputatur pro iustitia coram Deo, Rom. 4, 3. 5.

Et quum hoc modo cor erigitur et vivificatur fide, concipit Spiritum Sanctum, qui renovat nos, ut[13] legem facere possimus, ut possimus diligere Deum, Verbum Dei, obedire Deo in afflictionibus, ut[14] possimus esse casti, diligere proximum etc. Haec opera, etsi adhuc a perfectione legis procul absint, tamen placent propter fidem, qua iusti reputamur, quia credimus[15] nos propter Christum habere placatum Deum. Haec plana[16] sunt et evangelio consentanea et a sanis intelligi possunt. Et ex hoc fundamento facile iudicari potest,[17] quare fidei tribuamus iustificationem, non dilectioni, etsi dilectio fidem sequitur, quia dilectio est impletio legis. At Paulus docet[18] nos non ex lege, sed ex promissione iustificari, quae tantum fide accipitur. Neque enim accedimus ad Deum sine mediatore Christo, neque accipimus remissionem peccatorum propter nostram dilectionem, sed propter Christum. Ac ne[19] diligere quidem possumus iratum Deum, et lex semper accusat nos, semper ostendit iratum Deum. Necesse est[20] igitur nos prius fide apprehendere promissionem, quod[21] propter Christum Pater sit placatus et ignoscat.

[1] Si quis=si (ali)quis

[2] Introduces a series of indirect statements

[3] Introduces an indirect statement

[4] A quod substantive clause

[5] A quod substantive clause

[6] Introduces an indirect statement

[7] Introduces an indirect statement

[8] A quod substantive clause

[9] A quod substantive clause

[10] Introduces an indirect statement

[11] A perfect passive participle

[12] Introduces an indirect statement

[13] A purpose clause

[14] A purpose clause

[15] Introduces an indirect statement

[16] Neuter substantives

[17] An impersonal construction: it can be easily…

[18] Introduces an indirect statement

[19] Ne…quidem: not even

[20] Introduces an indirect statement

[21] A quod substantive clause

But if anyone will think that the gospel is not not given to the world in vain, that Christ has not in vain been promised, put forward, born, suffered and reborn, he will very easily understand that we are not justified by reason or the law. We, therefore, are compelled to dissent from the adversaries concerning justification. For the gospel shows another mode; the gospel compels us to use Christ in justification; it teaches that through Him we have access to God through faith; it teaches that we ought to oppose him, our mediator and propitiator, to the wrath of God; it teaches that the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation is received by faith in Christ and that the terrors of sin and death are conquered by faith in Christ. Paul also speaks thusly, “a righteousness not from the law but from the promise” in which the Father promises that He wants to pardon that He wants to be reconciled on account of Christ. However, this promise is received by faith alone as Paul testifies to the Romans in the 13th verse of chapter 4. This faith alone receives the forgiveness of sin, justifies and regenerates. Then love and other good fruits follow. Therefore, we teach thusly that men are justified, as we have said above, when a conscience, terrified by the proclamation of repentance, is raised and believes that it has a placated God on account of Christ. Romans 4:3-5 says, “This faith is imputed as righteousness before God.”

And since a heart is raised in this manner and is made alive by faith, receives the Holy Spirit, who renews us so that we are able to do the law and so that we are able to love God, the Word of God, to obey God in afflictions so that we are able to be chaste, to love our neighbor, etc. These works, even if they are still far from the perfection of the law, nevertheless, are pleasing on account of the faith by which we are considered just because we believe that we have a pleased God on account of Christ. These things are plain and in harmony with the gospel and able to be understood by the sound. And from this foundation it can easily be judged why we attribute adjudication to faith not love, even if love follows faith, since love is the fulfillment of the law. But Paul teaches that we are justified not by the law but by the promise which is received only by faith. For we neither approach God without Christ our mediator, nor do we receive the forgiveness of sins on account of our love but on account of Christ. And we are not even able to love an angry God, and the law always accuses us; it always shows us an angry God. Therefore, it is necessary that we first grasp the promise that on account of Christ the Father is pleased and forgives.

Check out the Concordia Latin Reader series:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BKL4MPXD?binding=paperback&ref=dbs_m_mng_rwt_sft_tpbk_tkin

CAVE, EMPTOR, SELF PROMOTION: Check out my author page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B09F3PXYJY

And follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61550921382723&mibextid=ZbWKwL

And on X:
https://twitter.com/LSApublishing

Like this post and follow the blog if you enjoy this content!

Translating the Apology of the Augsburg Confession: (Art. III) De Dilectione et Impletione Legis (xxxiv)

Prior modus iustificationis est apud ipsos, quod docent[1] homines per bona opera mereri gratiam tum de congruo, tum de condigno. Hic modus est doctrina rationis, quia ratio non videns[2] immunditiem cordis sentit[3] se ita placare Deum, si bene operetur, et propterea subinde alia opera, alii cultus ab hominibus in magnis periculis excogitari sunt adversus terrores conscientiae. Gentes et Israelitae mactaverunt humanas hostias et alia multa durissima opera susceperunt, ut[4] placarent iram Dei. Postea excogitari sunt monachatus, et hi certaverunt inter se acerbitate observationum contra terrores conscientiae, contra iram Dei. Et hic modus iustificationis, quia est rationalis et totus versatur in externis operibus, intelligi potest et utcunque praestari. Et ad hunc canonistae detorserunt ordinationes ecclesiasticas male intellectas,[5] quae a patribus longe alio consilio factae sunt, nempe non ut[6] per opera illa quaereremus iustitiam, sed ut[7] ordo quidam propter tranquillitatem hominum inter se in ecclesia esset. Ad hunc modum detorserunt et sacramenta maximeque missam; per hanc quaerunt iustitiam, gratiam, salutem ex opere operato.[8]

Alter modus iustificationis traditur a theologis scholasticis, quum docent, quod[9] iusti simus per quendam habitum a Deo infusum,[10] qui est dilectio, et quod[11] hoc habitu adiuti[12] intus et foris faciamus legem Dei, et quod[13] illa impletio legis sit digna gratia et vita aeterna. Haec doctrina plane est doctrina legis. Verum est enim, quod[14] lex inquit: Diliges Dominum Deum tuum etc., Deut. 6, 5. Diliges proximum tuum, Lev. 19, 18. Dilectio igitur est impletio legis.

Facile est autem iudicium homini Christiano de utroque modo, quia uterque modus excludit Christum, ideo reprehendendi sunt.[15] In priore manifesta est impietas, qui docet, quod[16] opera nostra sint propitiatio pro peccatis. Posterior modus multa habet incommoda. Non docet uti Christo, quum renascimur. Non docet[17] iustificationem esse remissionem peccatorum. Non docet[18] prius[19] remissionem peccatorum contingere, quam diligimus, sed fingit, quod[20] eliciamus actum dilectionis, per quem mereamur remissionem peccatorum. Nec docet[21] fide in Christum vinci terrores peccati et mortis. Fingit[22] homines propria impletione legis accedere ad Deum sine propitiatore Christo; fingit[23] postea ipsam impletionem legis sine propitiatore Christo iustitiam esse dignam gratia et vita aeterna, quum tamen vix imbecillis et exigua legis impletio contingat etiam sanctis.

[1] Introduces an indirect statement

[2] A present active participle

[3] Introduces an indirect statement

[4] A purpose clause

[5] A perfect passive participle

[6] A result clause

[7] A purpose clause

[8] A perfect passive participle

[9] A quod substantive clause

[10] A perfect passive participle

[11] A quod substantive clause

[12] A perfect passive participle

[13] A quod substantive clause

[14] A quod substantive clause

[15] The passive periphrastic

[16] A quod substantive clause

[17] Introduces an indirect statement

[18] Introduces an indirect statement

[19] Prius…quam = priusquam diligimus: before we love

[20] A quod substantive clause

[21] Introduces an indirect statement

[22] Introduces an indirect statement

[23] Introduces an indirect statement

The first mode of justification is among them because they teach that men merit grace through works then from a suitable work and then from a wholly deserving work. This mode is a doctrine of reason because reason, not seeing the foulness of the heart, thinks that it pleases God in such a way, if it does good works, and, therefore, constantly some works and some forms of worship are invented by men in great dangers against their terrors of conscience. The gentiles and the Israelites slaughtered human sacrifices and undertook other more severe works in order to please the wrath of God. Afterwards monastic orders were invented, and these contend among themselves with the severity of their observations against the terrors of conscience against the wrath of God. And this mode of justification, because it is rational and entirely dwells in external works, is able to be understood and supplied. And the canonists twisted the church orders, which were understood poorly and which had been made by the fathers with a far different understanding, namely that we do not seek righteousness through those works but that certain order was in the church for the sake of tranquility of men among themselves. They twisted both the sacraments and the mass very badly in this way: through these things we seek righteousness, grace and salvation through a work which has been done.

Another mode of justification is teach by the scholastic theologians, when they teach that we are just through a certain habit, which is love, infused by God, and that, helped by this habit, we do the law of God both inwardly and outwardly, and that that fulfillment of the law is worthy of grace and eternal life. This doctrine plainly is the doctrine of the law. For it is true that the law says: “You will love the Lord Your God” etc, and “You will love your neighbor” (Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18). Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law.

However, the judgment of Christian men concerning each mode is easy since each mode excludes Christ and, therefore, must be condemned. In the first the impiety, which teaches that our works are a propitiation for sins, is clear. The second mode has many troubling things. It does not teach us to use Christ when we are reborn. It does not teach that justification is the forgiveness of sins. It does not teach that the forgiveness of sins is obtained before we love, but it imagines that we draw out the act of love through which we merit the forgiveness of sins. It does not teach that by faith in Christ the terrors of sin and death are conquered. It imagines that men approach God with their own fulfillment of the law without Christ as their propitiator; it imagines that afterwards that very fulfillment of the law without the propitiator Christ is righteousness worthy of grace and eternal life when, nevertheless, a feeble and meager fulfillment of the law barely happens in even the saints.

Check out the Concordia Reader series:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BKL4MPXD?binding=paperback&ref=dbs_m_mng_rwt_sft_tpbk_tkin
CAVE, EMPTOR, SELF PROMOTION: Check out my author page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B09F3PXYJY