"Solicitation of faith is not part of the Gospel"

[Greenham]

The Cambridge Declaration, a modern recapitulation of the Five Solas, was signed by many pastors of reformed stock. There was also limited Lutheran representation, but they had some concerns, specifically with this part of the statement:

We reaffirm that our salvation is accomplished by the mediatorial work of the historical Christ alone. His sinless life and substitutionary atonement alone are sufficient for our justification and reconciliation to the Father.

We deny that the gospel is preached if Christ's substitutionary work is not declared and faith in Christ and his work is not solicited.​

Here's what they said about their concerns:

One of the initial ACE council members had been Dr. Robert Preuss, a longtime conservative leader of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod and a leader of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. When Preuss died during the initial organization of ACE, he was replaced by two Lutherans: Dr. J.A.O. Preus III, academic dean at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, and Dr. Gene Edward Veith, dean of the school of arts and sciences at Concordia University of Wisconsin.

...

The Lutheran support for the document didn't come without some qualifications, however. The Lutherans added a two-point addendum to the Cambridge Declaration specifying that "the solicitation of faith is not part of the Gospel" and that "we joyfully bind ourselves to the three ecumenical creeds as a correct articulation of our Trinitarian faith."

"As Lutherans we do believe in our creeds and we want to make that clear," said Veith. "The language that we say no creed is binding, that could be interpreted in a way that said no creed apart from the creeds that are based on the inerrant Bible. We just can't have people in our circles saying we put our names to a document that didn't affirm the creeds. We felt that was a careless thing that might be misconstrued."

The exception on "solicitation of faith," Veith said, was intended to avoid any appearance of soliciting a "decision for Christ."

"In Lutheran circles we preach to everyone, the law will convict of sin and the gospel will bring grace," said Veith. "We thought that statement that you have to solicit faith really weakens the good news of the gospel that Christ has done it all."

Both Godfrey and Wells regretted that the two items in the Lutheran addendum were necessary. "There remain some Lutheran concerns which from their vantage point are significant but I think could have been accommodated if we had time for some more revisions," said Godfrey. "We respect the consciences of the Lutherans."​

How would you rephrase the "solicitation of faith" portion of the Declaration to be more Lutheran-friendly?

 

[Grafted In]

The only words that come to mind, for me anyway, "come out from among them".

That may offend but that's what your post speaks to me.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I think Drs. Preus and Veith did a good job. If one has to compromise doctrine for the sake of ecumenism, then it's false ecumenism. "Solicitation of Faith" is at odds with our confessions and the historic doctrines surrounding the work of the Holy Spirit. We can not demand that God give us faith.

From the small Catechism, third article of the Apostles Creed:

The Third Article.

Of Sanctification.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; one holy Christian Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

What does this mean?

--Answer.

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true.​

 

[Greenham]

The only words that come to mind, for me anyway, "come out from among them".

That may offend but that's what your post speaks to me.

Your post seems cryptic to me. It doesn't offend because I don't know what you mean. Can you elaborate please?

 

[Greenham]

I think Drs. Preus and Veith did a good job. If one has to compromise doctrine for the sake of ecumenism, then it's false ecumenism.

Certainly. And I think the writers of the Declaration expressed their appreciation of that.

"Solicitation of Faith" is at odds with our confessions and the historic doctrines surrounding the work of the Holy Spirit. We can not demand that God give us faith.

From the small Catechism, third article of the Apostles Creed:

The Third Article.

Of Sanctification.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; one holy Christian Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

What does this mean?

--Answer.

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true.​

So my question is, how would you modify this statement in light of that:

We deny that the gospel is preached if Christ's substitutionary work is not declared and faith in Christ and his work is not solicited.

Would you simply remove the second part, so that it reads, "We deny that the gospel is preached if Christ's substitutionary work is not declared"?

While it's true that "we cannot demand that God give us faith," this statement in the Declaration is not about demanding anything of God, it's about Gospel proclamation. "Faith comes by hearing," after all, which raises the question, "Faith comes by hearing what?" Answer: obviously a proclamation of the Gospel. Does the Gospel include an exhortation to repentance? I suspect you'll say (and I think I agree) that "repentance" properly belongs to law, not gospel. But what about exhortation to faith? Perhaps that's the same thing, but do you see what I'm asking?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Certainly. And I think the writers of the Declaration expressed their appreciation of that.



So my question is, how would you modify this statement in light of that:



Would you simply remove the second part, so that it reads, "We deny that the gospel is preached if Christ's substitutionary work is not declared"?

While it's true that "we cannot demand that God give us faith," this statement in the Declaration is not about demanding anything of God, it's about Gospel proclamation. "Faith comes by hearing," after all, which raises the question, "Faith comes by hearing what?" Answer: obviously a proclamation of the Gospel. Does the Gospel include an exhortation to repentance? I suspect you'll say (and I think I agree) that "repentance" properly belongs to law, not gospel. But what about exhortation to faith? Perhaps that's the same thing, but do you see what I'm asking?

While that would work, why would we sign an agreement when there is none; but kind of pointless, for Christ's substitutionary works are the Gospel. Some obviously believe that we are capable of cooperating in our own grace. We can only seek and "solicit" once the Holy Spirit is at work within us. Faith either is or it is not; once we have faith, then and only then can we begin to seek and solicit. It is a result of the Gospel, not part of it.

 

[Greenham]

While that would work, why would we sign an agreement when there is none

Are you saying there is no agreement between Lutherans and Presbyterians on the nature of solus christus?

kind of pointless, for Christ's substitutionary works are the Gospel.

The whole point of the statement is to reaffirm the essence of the Gospel, because "the gospel has been distorted" in the church because "we have been influenced by the 'gospels' of our secular culture, which are no gospel." If "Christ's substitutionary works are the Gospel," then how is a statement that the Gospel isn't preached unless Christ's substitutionary works are declared "pointless"?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Are you saying there is no agreement between Lutherans and Presbyterians on the nature of solus christus?



The whole point of the statement is to reaffirm the essence of the Gospel, because "the gospel has been distorted" in the church because "we have been influenced by the 'gospels' of our secular culture, which are no gospel." If "Christ's substitutionary works are the Gospel," then how is a statement that the Gospel isn't preached unless Christ's substitutionary works are declared "pointless"?

Please quit putting words in my mouth and trying to twist the intent of what I wrote.

What part of "Christ's substitutionary works are the Gospel" did you not get???

Or this part too: "Faith either is or it is not; once we have faith, then and only then can we begin to seek and solicit. It is a result of the Gospel, not part of it."

Please read and comprehend before replying. Thankyou.

 

[Greenham]

I don't know what I said that was so offensive, nor (after rereading multiple times) do I see the answers to my questions. Ah well. Either I'm a moron for you to so vociferously state that the fact that I fail to comprehend shows I must be "trying to twist your intent," or you haven't been clear. Either way I think you need to chill out, but I suspect this conversation is over. I'm willing to keep engaging if you are, but your last reply was definitely not engagement. If I ask for clarification it's because something is unclear. No other reason. I asked for clarification on two points:

1. You said, "Why would we sign an agreement when there is none?" I want to know what it is that you're saying there is "no agreement" on.
2. You said that "Christ's substitutionary works are the Gospel." You also said that the statement "the Gospel is not preached unless Christ's substitutionary work is declared" is pointless. I'm not sure how these two assertions fit together, unless you disagree with the statement that "the Gospel has been distorted," which I doubt.

I'm also not sure what you want me to respond to about "faith either is or it is not," etc. I'm pretty sure I get it, and I really don't know what in my last post you thought demonstrated a misunderstanding of it. Maybe you can tell me. This time, preferably, without personal attacks.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I don't know what I said that was so offensive, nor (after rereading multiple times) do I see the answers to my questions. Ah well. Either I'm a moron for you to so vociferously state that the fact that I fail to comprehend shows I must be "trying to twist your intent," or you haven't been clear. Either way I think you need to chill out, but I suspect this conversation is over. I'm willing to keep engaging if you are, but your last reply was definitely not engagement. If I ask for clarification it's because something is unclear. No other reason. I asked for clarification on two points:

1. You said, "Why would we sign an agreement when there is none?" I want to know what it is that you're saying there is "no agreement" on.
2. You said that "Christ's substitutionary works are the Gospel." You also said that the statement "the Gospel is not preached unless Christ's substitutionary work is declared" is pointless. I'm not sure how these two assertions fit together, unless you disagree with the statement that "the Gospel has been distorted," which I doubt.

I'm also not sure what you want me to respond to about "faith either is or it is not," etc. I'm pretty sure I get it, and I really don't know what in my last post you thought demonstrated a misunderstanding of it. Maybe you can tell me. This time, preferably, without personal attacks.

Much earlier on, I stated that from a confessional Lutheran POV that such a statement implies that we can cooperate with our salvation; it implies that Christ's substitutionary works are separate from the Gospel; while it is the one, the only the whole Gospel.

The statement is at odds with a literal and non critical reading of the Gospel.

Drs. Preus and Veith; explained why; I explained why I agree with their position.

Why??

Because you asked. In return, you come into our home forum and tell us that we are wrong and a bunch of reformed protestants know better what Lutherans believe than Lutherans do.

Are you aware of the Congregational Rule??

If not here it is:


Congregational Forum Restrictions
Members who do not truly share the core beliefs and teachings of a specific congregational forum may post in fellowship or ask questions, but they may not teach or debate within the forum.

If you will not take our word for what we believe, then I would suggest that you maybe read this: http://www.bookofconcord.org/

And BTW, Preus, Veith, myself and a bunch more Lutherans are not the ELCA/ELCIC which has a much more universalist and conciliatory approach to Ecumenism than the Confessional Synods do.

Why?

Because we remain true to our Confessions and are unmoved when the wind of change changes directions.

Need I clarify more??

 

[Greenham]

teach
debate
tell us we're wrong

I did no such thing. Period. And I think you're doing your position a disservice by assuming bad faith from me. I came here asking questions, and when I didn't hear a satisfactory answer I kept asking. What would you rather I do? You've said, more or less, that you'd rather I "read and comprehend" since I wasn't doing that previously. Well, I can only say that I'm sorry I'm apparently too dumb to understand.

Much earlier on, I stated that from a confessional Lutheran POV that such a statement implies that we can cooperate with our salvation; it implies that Christ's substitutionary works are separate from the Gospel; while it is the one, the only the whole Gospel. ... Drs. Preus and Veith; explained why; I explained why I agree with their position.

You and they explained about a different statement, one that mentioned "solicitation of faith." This whole thread is me asking what an acceptable amendment of that statement would be, and you're acting like the original statement and the amendment that I asked about (not proposed, by the way, but asked about) are one and the same. Do you not see why that's confusing?

If you will not take our word for what we believe

I did not once tell you that you or anyone is wrong about what Lutherans teach. I've asked for clarification on parts I don't understand. That's all.

From here, I'm not going to respond to you anymore unless you drastically change the way you engage.

 

[Tangible]

Perhaps replacing "solicited" with "exhorted" would be the best Lutheran revision. Solicited requires a response on the part of the object of salvation. Dead men don't respond until they have been brought to life. Lazarus did not decide to come out of the tomb. Exhortation, however, is a scripturally sound idea, similar to Peter's call to believe and be baptized.

However, and this is a huge deal, the proclamation of the Gospel, including an exhortation to believe it, are not the gospel itself any more than a sales offer is the product itself or requirement to obey a street sign is the street sign itself.

An exhortation to believe requires something to believe. What we are called to believe is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Good News of what Jesus Christ has done for us and for our salvation. The Gospel alone is the power of God to save, not the call to believe it.

 

[A_JAY]

.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Lutheran proclamation of the Gospel is never about soliciting faith. Salvation is never presented as an offer.