Smalcald Articles - Luther on Sin

Smalcald Articles, Part III, Article I: Sin

1 Here we must confess, as Paul says in Romans 5:12, that sin originated from one man, Adam. By his disobedience, all people were made sinners and became subject to death and the devil. This is called original or the chief sin.

2 The fruit of this sin are the evil deeds that are forbidden in the Ten Commandments [Galatians 5:19-21]. These include unbelief, false faith, idolatry, being without the fear of God, pride, despair, utter blindness, and, in short, not knowing or regarding God. Also lying, abusing God's name, not praying, not calling on God, not regarding God's Word, being disobedient to parents, murdering, being unchaste, stealing, deceiving, and such.

3 This hereditary sin is such a deep corruption of nature that no reason can understand it. Rather, it must be believed from the revelation of Scripture. (See Psalm 51:5; Romans 6:12-13; Exodus 33:3; Genesis 3:7-19.) Therefore, it is nothing but error and blindness that the scholastic doctors have taught in regard to this article:

4 Since Adam's fall the natural powers of human beings have remained whole and uncorrupted, and by nature people have a right reason and a good will, as the philosophers teach.

5 A person has a free will to do good and not to do evil, and, on the other hand, to not do good and do evil.

6 By natural human powers a person can observe and keep all God's commands.

7 By natural human powers, a person can love God above all things and love his neighbor as himself.

8 If a person does as much as is in him, God certainly grants him His grace.

9 If a person wishes to go to the Sacrament, there is no need of a good intention to do good. It is enough if a person does not have a wicked purpose to commit sin, so entirely good is human nature and so effective is the Sacrament.

10 Scripture does not teach that the Holy Spirit with His grace is necessary for a good work.

11 These and many similar ideas have arisen from lack of understanding and ignorance, both about sin and about Christ, our Savior. They are truly heathen teachings that we cannot endure. For if such teaching were true, then Christ has died in vain. A human being would have no defect or sin for which He would have died. Or He would have died only for the body, not for the soul, since the soul is sound, and only the body is subject to death.

Luther has here pointed out the numerous errors of the medieval church regarding original sin. More importantly, he has also pointed out the extremely problematic conclusions of such a sloppy theology. Ultimately, it glorifies man and devalues Christ.

How much do we see this sort of theology today? I would assert that we probably see it more today than even in Luther's time. It's the standard theology in America. The only theologies that stand against such man-glorifying theology are those of the Reformation.

In short, nearly all theological errors are a result of making way too much out of humanity. We are told we have unlimited potential and that we can do whatever we put our minds to. When we carry this over into theology, we end up with Christ as an afterthought and us as the real Saviors. The more we prop ourselves us, the further we get from Scriptural theology.

This short article written by Luther is just as true today as it was then. And it's just as important too.

As we continue in Lent towards Holy Week, let us remember that it is Christ alone -not us, not us plus Christ- that saves us.

+ Grace and Peace in Christ +

What Does God Expect?

How good must one be to enter glory with Christ? It's a royally important question, and Christianity itself hinges on the answer to it. It hinges first on how we answer the initial question: Just how good do we have to be? What is the standard of righteousness that God requires? The second manner in which we must answer then is: How is this standard fulfilled?

From the outset, all Christians agree that there must be some standard for eternal life. Likewise, there also must be some manner in which that standard is met. Since no one believes that ultimately everyone is condemned (and we won't deal with universalism here), then the two preceding conditions must have answers to them that result in some people being saved.

1. Just how good do we have to be? What is the standard that God expects?

This one should be pretty easy for all Christians to answer. I say that with reservation though, since it's answered incorrectly by many people now days.

Christianity is not a religion of "just do your best." God doesn't accept that. Your best is never good enough, nor can it be.

We all agree that God is perfectly and infinitely Holy, Righteous, and Just. And if we don't, what we worship is less than God. Therefore, the answer should be obvious: God requires a standard that is completely in-line with His perfect holiness, righteousness, and justice.

He requires absolute perfection.

To relax that standard would be for God to relax His attributes and God does not do that. To relax them would be to not hold to them in a sense. In another sense, He cannot relax them because relaxing them would mean that those attributes are not perfect and infinite in the first place.

Jesus' Sermon on the Mount gives us insight into this very truth. He states:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸ For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. ¹⁹ Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ²⁰ For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (St. Matthew 5:17-20)

And then Jesus gets even more blunt later in His sermon, stating:

You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (St. Matthew 5:48)

To speak plainly, we must be perfect. We must keep God's Law to perfection. Top put it another way, God demands that we be sinless.

What is a good definition of what it is to be sinless? Well, we could go to the decalogue (10 commandments) and say; keep those perfectly. But I am going to go to Jesus' summation of the decalogue found later in the Gospel according to St. Matthew.

"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” ³⁷ And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. ³⁸ This is the great and first commandment. ³⁹ And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. ⁴⁰ On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (St. Matthew 22:36-40)

But wait a second. Aren't we all sinners? Yeah, we are. That is why the next question and answer is so vital to the Christian faith.

2. How is this standard of righteousness fulfilled?

Does God demand that we fulfill this standard? Yes, He does, we already addressed that in the last section. He demands that we be perfect and then tells us that we must love the Lord our God with our everything, all the time. And also love our neighbors as ourselves.

Have you done that today? Have you loved the Lord your God with your whole heart, mind, strength, soul, and everything of yourself for even one second? I would assert that if you say you have, you're breaking the 8th commandment regarding bearing false witness.

So, pretty clearly we as sinful humanity cannot meet this standard that God states and commands all in one fell swoop. Ironically, the theological camps that think they can meet these standards have quite a low view of sin, despite the fact that they talk all the time about not sinning!

Therefore, there must be another way, lest we all be universally condemned. Thanks be to God, the other way is the Gospel.

In other words, we have a substitute. We have an advocate. We have another who has fulfilled these demands on our behalf. His name is Jesus Christ, and He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (St. John 1:29).

You must be in Christ. If a person is in Christ, they are perfect on account of the work of Christ and His righteousness being imputed to them (Romans 4, 2 Corinthians 5:21). The only way that a person can be perfect is to be counted righteous on behalf of Christ. For you have died, and your life is hidden in Christ with God (Colossians 3:3). Not by works, lest anyone should boast (Ephesians 2:9).

Our works cannot ever save us. Our obedience can't either. Only the perfect Lamb of God can do that. Not because we are perfect obedient servants -repentant as we are, as Christians live a daily life of repentance- but that Christ is the perfect obedient Servant.

Such is the way of being simul iustus et peccator. Or in English: Simultaneously justified and sinful. Or, we are both sinner and saint.

Thanks be to God for His saving work in Christ!

Christians are Hypocrites

Darn right we are. We're no better than anyone else.

Wait a second. What did that just say? OK, allow me to spell it out for you. Christians are hypocrites. Yes, yes, yes we are. One of the most common accusations thrown at Christians is that we are hypocrites. And it's true. We are.



You Church People...

The problems are many in this discussion, but I suppose, since I decided to write a blog on it, I'll give some reasoning.


Yeah, like...everyone there.


First, Christianity is not a self-help program. Jesus is not something we add on to our life to improve ourselves. Much less, He is not an addition so that we can stand in the judgment seat and let everyone know how much better we are than them.

Second, Christianity is not moralism. This one is closely correlated to the previous one, but it needs to be said. Christianity is not about us being morally better. Does this mean that we do not desire to please God? Well, no. Does this mean that we accept sin as acceptable behavior? Well, no again. But then,we're every bit as sinful as anyone and everyone else.

Yep, all the time.

Thirdly, those outside the church see right through us. They should though, right? I mean, it's not like non-Christians are stupid. Lots of brilliant people in history have been non-Christians. So, being a Christian or not has nothing to do with intelligence. The problem here is that the world, just like many within the church, think church is about being better and improving yourself. So then when we aren't better, we get labeled as hypocrites, and the non-church people, who are just as sinful, get labeled as being more open, honest, and real. Sometimes it's because they reject that their sin is actually sin. That is most common. Other times it's simply because they're not "religious."

So then, what is the problem? Well, people have a completely incorrect view of what church is. Church people aren't better. And if they claim to be, they too have missed the point. We need the church precisely because we are not better and God judges by a perfect standard. More precisely, we need Jesus Christ. Not just church people, but everyone. He is also love and would have all people to be saved (1Tim 2:1-7).

Church is not a place to go to make yourself better. It's actually quite the opposite. It's a place to go to receive forgiveness of sins because you are not better and you know it. Because you ARE a hypocrite, you need to be forgiven. What we need is the Gospel! Self-improvement is not the good news if the standard is perfection and we cannot ever live up to that.

The world has missed the point too, or else they would be there as well. Many people within the church, as well as our culture at-large, don't know what the church is for.

It's not a self-help institution. It's not a place to get morally better.

It's a hospital for you, precisely because you're not morally perfect and never can be. We need grace and so does everyone else in this world.

+ Soli Deo Gloria +

AA is For Denial

A Confessional Lutheran blog about AA!!! What is the world coming to? But wait, isn't AA for people that aren't in denial anymore and have come to the realization that they are alcoholics?

OK, OK...AA doesn't stand for Alcoholics Anonymous in this instance. Here it stands for the Age of Accountability.

The Age of Accountability is a doctrine commonly found in baptist churches, or at least in baptist-type churches. The doctrine essentially states that a child or infant is guaranteed heaven due to innocence until they are old enough to understand who Christ is and make a decision one way or the other. Or, in more Calvinistic versions of this, the infant is saved by grace alone until they are old enough to make a choice to reject Christ. Therefore, all infants and children who die before the age of accountability are elect.



This doctrine sounds awesome. It really does. I would love to think that every single infant and child dying at a very young age is automatically elect and inherits the Kingdom. And I even hold out hope that they are elect and do inherit the Kingdom.



Baptism is for you and your children. And forgives sins. Acts 2:38

The problem is, Scripture does not teach this doctrine. It's just not in there, unless you remove three very important doctrines of the Christian faith. Keep in mind, as I point out the problems with this doctrine, I am aiming mostly at the Semi-Pelagian and Pelagian American Christianity and not at the Calvinistic Baptists. (Although I believe them to be in error as well)

The first core Christian doctrine that the Age of Accountability denies is original sin.

The Augsburg Confession speaks to original sin in this way:

Augsburg Confession, II, 1-3

1 Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with 2 concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.

3 They condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the glory of Christ's merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason.

This is to say, that all humanity is conceived and born sinful and that original sin is something that makes us guilty. We are guilty in front of God because we are sinners.

This orthodox and catholic doctrine of original sin does not mesh with any sort of age of accountability doctrine. Yeah, pretty much not at all.

The age of accountability says young children (and the mentally infirm, I should add) who cannot yet understand who Christ is and cannot thus make a decision are innocent. Original sin says not so. These two doctrines cannot coexist. One is true, the other is false.

This doctrine also denies the depravity of man. Original sin is either outright denied or redefined to what amounts to a denial.

Holy Scripture has a few things to say to this topic as well, such as:

Psalm 51:5: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Romans 5:12: Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

Romans 5:18: Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

These three Scriptures, among others, teach original sin. We are a condemned race, not a race born innocent. Adam was created innocent, but we are not born good.

Get it? Your children are sinners. Even in the womb. They need grace just as much as every other person. Ever.

So, speak God's Words to them. Teach them. Baptise them. They need grace. They are not innocent, despite what we may think or how cute they are. They're sinners. Why invent a doctrine that gives them a free pass, contrary to biblical teaching, when the grace of God is right there to be administered to them at the font? That's just rank gambling with your children, based on your opinion that your children aren't sinners. I mean, come on! Stop being so dense, whip out your KJV, ESV, or NIV, (but you better not whip out The Message. That thing is a joke) read what baptism does, recognize what God's Word so clearly says it does, stop fighting the blatantly clear words of Scripture because of your tradition that you are afraid to say is wrong, stop being a heretic like the Anabaptists of the Reformation era who openly denied original sin, and bring your kids to Holy Baptism. The grace is the water! And your kids need it.

The second core Christian doctrine that is denied by the Age of Accountability is that faith is a gift of God's grace given to recipients thereof.

In short, to the Age of Accountability supporters, faith means two other things other than one-sided divine gift of grace. It means,

• A choice of the will.

So, instead of God being able to give the gift of faith to whoever through the means of grace, a person must first be able to understand and articulate who Christ is, why they're a believer, and so on.

The first thing the AA folks object to is that faith being a one-sided divine gift of God violates the will and the right to choose of the individual. Hmm...right to choose...where else have I heard that argument? Oh, never mind, off the topic. In short, unless the person can choose to be saved, they can't be saved by God giving faith.

The Age of Accountability has a natural bedfellow in this. Her name is decisional regeneration. Usually she consists of coercing the wills of sinners to make a choice for Jesus, try Him out, ask Him into your heart, or say the sinner's prayer.

This is more or less rationalistic humanism masquerading as Christianity in a sense. The cult of choice, the triumph of the human will, as it were.

So, to fill heaven and because they love babies (don't we all?), they concoct the Age of Accountability doctrine. Because they simply aren't old enough to choose to have faith. And they're just so cute. And innocent. And stuff. Which brings us to the next problem:

• Faith requires a certain amount of cognitive ability.

Thus, their definition of faith being a free will choice ultimately defaults to faith also requiring a certain amount of cognitive ability and understanding. This of course rules out infants and the severely mentally infirm.



Gotta know enough to be able to choose. Said Scripture nowhere.

This definition of faith is pure rationalism. Who are they to say that God cannot grant faith in Christ to an infant or a small child? Really? God can't do that? Because, you know, God actually created faith in infants in Scripture. There really are examples of that. But no, God can't possibly do that! It violates the infants freedom of choice! Those little sovereign infants. Just like us and our sovereign wills. See how foolish this gets?

In their scheme, no, He can't, because they don't have the necessary ability to choose Christ and God won't just give faith as a gift apart from the person making a choice. God's not allowed to violate the will, they say. Well, that's fair, sure. But what the heck is wrong with God doing the most loving and gracious thing for them possible and saving them by granting them faith as a gift of grace?

The third problem denied by the Age of Accountability doctrine is an invention of alternate ways of salvation.

The Holy Scriptures tell us that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. They don't even hint at any other way. Making a dogma out of something that is another way of salvation is silly when Scripture is silent. This is exactly what the Age of Accountability doctrine does. Infants, young children, and the mentally infirm are incapable of choosing to have faith. Thus they don't have faith. They are saved by ignorance and innocence. It may be grace, but ignorance and innocence are not faith. So why isn't grace giving what grace gives in this case, namely, faith in Christ?

In short, the Age of Accountability doctrine comes up with an alternative means of salvation for those who can't choose to have faith. Age of Accountability folks are banking on their children being saved by a manner of salvation that Scripture never talks about. That. Is. Super. Duper. Dangerous.

That's because, to be clear, the Age of Accountability doctrine is false teaching based on a humanistic misunderstanding of faith. ALL false teaching is dangerous, and this is no exception. As opposed to a gift of God, it becomes the triumph of the human will; of the choice of man.

I call it false teaching. Is that unfair? No, because it is false teaching and baptist churches are dead wrong for teaching this false doctrine. Does this mean our baptist brothers and sisters are unsaved? No, of course it does not mean that. Yet it is still important to get our doctrine correct. And in this case, they get it wrong in a large way.

Regarding the nature of faith, the Scriptures say:

Ephesians 2:8-9: For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Philippians 1:29: For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake.

Acts 11:18: When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

Acts 5:31: God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

2 Timothy 2:25b-26: God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

Faith in Christ is a gift of grace, as is repentance, which involves faith and contrition. As it is a one-sided divine gift, God can and does work it in whoever. Age is no obstacle for the Triune God, nor is cognitive ability or lack thereof.

This is the biggest reason why we baptise infants in the Lutheran Church. We hold to the orthodox and catholic doctrine of original sin. As such, your children stand condemned apart from faith in Christ. Grace, however, works faith as a gift of God. Baptism is a means of grace. Why stake your children's salvation on a doctrine that is nowhere taught in Scripture and gamble with their eternal salvation when Scripture tells us about all the glorious things baptism brings to us? Why would we ever want to deny our children that? Seriously. To deny our children baptism is to deny them grace, deny them Christ, and deny them God's good gifts given in the washing of regeneration; the washing of water with the Word.

Keep your fonts full and your infants wet.

Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Arminianism: Depravity

This is the first in a 5 part series I will be writing as a Lutheran response to the 5 points of Calvinism as well as the 5 points of the Remonstrants put forth at Dordt to challenge Reformed doctrine by those influenced by Reformed pastor Jacob Arminius. Other Pelagian views that deny original sin and reject the depravity of man are unbiblical and outside of the Christian faith, so I will not deal with them here.

If you are looking for a quick, short, and spot-on Lutheran evaluation of the 5 points of Calvinism, my friend Pr. Jordan Cooper has done an excellent short work on this topic over at his blog. The work can be found here:

Lutheran Evaluation of the 5 Points of Calvinism - Pr. Cooper

From the outset, it is important to note that many Calvinists and Arminians see everything in non-Roman Catholic theology (sometimes Calvinists classify Roman Catholicism as 'Arminian' too) as falling into one of these two categories. So, in essence, when we say we are Lutherans, a Calvinist might first ask: "Are Lutherans Calvinists or Arminians?" The answer is neither, of course, as we shall see as the 5 points are looked at.

The first major point that the Remonstrants challenged was the Reformed doctrine of the depravity of man. I will start with the Arminian doctrine, although the Arminian doctrine is fuzzy depending on who you ask. For that reason, I will try to represent what is called "Classical" Arminianism. That is to say, the original teaching of Arminius and his direct followers.

Arminius, contrary to many of the Semi-Pelagian and Pelagian beliefs of today, did uphold total depravity for the most part. He states:

“In this state, the free will of man is not only wounded, maimed, infirmed, bent and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they are assisted by grace but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by divine grace… Exactly correspondent to this darkness of the mind and perverseness of the heart, is the utter weakness of all the powers to perform that which is truly good, and to omit the perpetration of that which is evil, in a due mode and from a due end and cause.” ~~~ (John D. Wagner, Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will and the Nature of God (2011), p.3).

John Wesley, the famous founder of Methodism and perhaps the most well-known Arminian pastor, states:

“But was there good intermingled with the evil? Was there not light intermixed with darkness? No; not at all: “God saw that the heart of man was only evil.”… For God, who “saw the whole imagination of his heart to be only evil,” saw likewise, that it was only the same, that is, it “was only evil continually;” every year, every day, every hour, every moment. He never deviated into good… From all these we learn concerning man in his natural state, unassisted by the grace of God, that “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is” still “evil, only evil” and that “continually.”” (Wesley, J., The Works of John Wesley, Third Edition: Complete and Unabridged, (2007), 14vols., 6:57.)

Savvy Calvinists such as R.C. Sproul have noted this. He said:

"He insists that is was “imprisoned, destroyed, and lost.” The language of Augustine, Martin Luther, or John Calvin is scarcely stronger than that of Arminius" (Sproul, R. C., Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will (1997), p.126"

So then, Classic Arminian theology affirms the absolute necessity of the grace of God before regeneration. The difference in Arminius' doctrine of total depravity actually lies more in his doctrine of resistible grace than it does in depravity. Nevertheless, Arminius' doctrine here of the depravity of man is that man needs grace in order to be able to make a choice for or against God. Man can only reject God apart from grace.

The doctrine of total depravity in Calvinism is summed up well here:

"Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature; therefore, he will not--indeed he cannot--choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit's assistance to bring a sinner to Christ--it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation--it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God. (Genesis 2:15-17, Romans 5:12, Psalm 51:5, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 3:10-18, Jeremiah 17:9, John 6:44, Ephesians 2:1-10) Steele and Thomas(1)" http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Reformed-Theology/The-Five-Points-of-Calvinism/

Presbyterian pastor and theologian R.C. Sproul offers up a brief article on total depravity found here: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul/depravity.html

And popular Reformed Baptist preacher John Piper writes this: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/depravity.html

Thus, in Reformed thought, man is depraved to the point of needing grace not only to put him in a position to make a decision, but to regenerate him. Man can do nothing apart from this. There is no synergism involved whatsoever. This is very similar to Arminian doctrine in one way: Both theologies stress that man is totally dead in sin and the will can do nothing of itself apart from divine grace that precedes regeneration. But the difference between the two is also quite large. The Arminian view puts man in a position by grace alone to respond of his own will to the offer given. In Calvinism, the grace actually regenerates and gives faith itself.

How do Lutherans respond to all of this? We certainly affirm the depravity of man, of course. Lutherans are also monergists like the Reformed; as opposed to synergists like the Arminians. Thus, the Lutheran doctrine of the depravity of man is nearly identical to the Calvinist doctrine of the depravity of man, and affirms, along with both Calvinism and Classic Arminianism, that the will can do nothing apart from grace and grace must precede. We do however agree with the Reformed that grace itself gives faith in the recipient. For Lutherans, regeneration is faith, regeneration gives faith, and regeneration results in faith. Yet we also affirm that this grace can be rejected, but that another topic for another day when we get to irresistible/resistible grace.

The Book of Concord states:

Epitome, I, 8-10: But, on the other hand, we believe, teach, and confess that original sin is not a slight, but so deep a corruption of human nature that nothing healthy or uncorrupt has remained in man's body or soul, in his inner or outward powers, but, as the Church sings: Through Adam's fall is all corrupt, Nature and essence human. This damage is unspeakable, and cannot be discerned by reason, but only from God's Word. And [we affirm] that no one but God alone can separate from one another the nature and this corruption of the nature, which will fully come to pass through death, in the [blessed] resurrection, where our nature which we now bear will rise and live eternally without original sin and separated and sundered from it, as it is written Job 19:26: I shall be compassed again with this my skin, and in my flesh shall I see God, whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold.

Epitome, II, 3-6: Likewise we believe, teach, and confess that the unregenerate will of man is not only turned away from God, but also has become an enemy of God, so that it only has an inclination and desire for that which is evil and contrary to God, as it is written Gen. 8:21: The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. Also Rom. 8:7: The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither, indeed, can be. Yea, as little as a dead body can quicken itself to bodily, earthly life, so little can man, who by sin is spiritually dead, raise himself to spiritual life, as it is written Eph. 2:5: Even when we were dead in sins, He hath quickened us together with Christ; 2 Cor. 3:5: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything good as of ourselves, but that we are sufficient is of God.

God the Holy Ghost, however, does not effect conversion without means, but uses for this purpose the preaching and hearing of God's Word, as it is written Rom. 1:16: The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Also Rom. 10:17: Faith cometh by hearing of the Word of God. And it is God's will that His Word should be heard, and that man's ears should not be closed. Ps. 95:8. With this Word the Holy Ghost is present, and opens hearts, so that they, as Lydia in Acts 16:14, are attentive to it, and are thus converted alone through the grace and power of the Holy Ghost, whose work alone the conversion of man is. For without His grace, and if He do not grant the increase, our willing and running, our planting, sowing, and watering, all are nothing, as Christ says John 15:5: Without Me ye can do nothing. With these brief words He denies to the free will its powers, and ascribes everything to God's grace, in order that no one may boast before God. 1 Cor. 1:29; 2 Cor. 12:5; Jer. 9:23.

Solid Declaration, II, 11: Now, just as a man who is physically dead cannot of his own powers prepare or adapt himself to obtain temporal life again, so the man who is spiritually dead in sins cannot of his own strength adapt or apply himself to the acquisition of spiritual and heavenly righteousness and life, unless he is delivered and quickened by the Son of God from the death of sin.

Solid Declaration, II, 85: Accordingly, the man who is not regenerate resists God altogether, and is entirely a servant of sin, John 8:34; Rom. 6:16. The regenerate person, however, delights in the Law of God after the inward man, but nevertheless sees in his members the law of sin, which wars against the law of the mind; on this account he serves the Law of God with his mind, but with the flesh the law of sin, Rom. 7:25. In this way the correct opinion can and should be thoroughly, clearly, and discreetly explained and taught.

On the doctrine of total depravity (the T in the TULIP), although we Lutherans sometimes use different terminology (such as Bondage of the Will) we will shake hands with the Reformed on this one. Man is dead, completely and utterly, and it is God's grace alone that revives him - not just to be able to choose, but actually revives him and grants the gift of faith (cf. Eph 2:8-9).