摘要、准则与规范
第一条 论原罪
第二条 论自由意志，或人的能力
第三条 论在上帝面前信心的义
第四条 论善行
第五条 论律法与福音
第六条 论上帝律法的第三功用
第七条 论基督设立之圣餐
第八条 论基督的位格
第九条 论基督下到地狱
第十条 论教会的惯例
第十一条 论上帝永恒的预知<预定>和拣选
第十二条 论其他异端和派别
摘要、准则与规范
所有教导均应按照这摘要、准则与规范来判断，那些已出现的错误教导亦应以基督教的方法裁决和解释。
批注：什么是教会中教义的唯一来源呢？那就是圣经，而且惟独圣经。上帝的道是上帝真理的纯正根基与来源。同时，教会所使用的信经和信仰告白是为圣经真理作见证。这些信经和信仰告白也因此成为准则，我们靠着这些就能分辨教导的是非对错。教会可以且应当坚持所有被呼召的牧师和教会同工，都要无条件地宣誓他们会支持教会的信仰告白。如此行，教会的信仰告白就能护卫上帝话语的纯正教导。这么做会违背圣经是教义唯一的来源与规范的主张吗？绝不会！信仰告白虽然不是教义的来源，但却是一种规范或标准，我们可以藉着信仰告白来判断宣讲和教导的内容，因为它们是以上帝的道为基础。这可能是个极其细微的差别，但却是一个至关重要的区分。现今，纯正的信义宗教会，所有牧师和教会同工，都宣誓要照着圣经和信义宗信仰告白，忠实地教导和实践信仰，他们如此行，已经有五百年了。
[1] 1. 我们相信、教导并宣认：惟独先知和使徒所撰写之新旧约圣经，为评估和判断所有教导和教师的唯一准则与规范〔提摩太后书3：15-17〕。因为诗篇119篇105节写着说：“你的话是我脚前的灯，是我路上的光。”圣保罗亦曾写道：“但无论是我们或是天上来的使者，若传福音给你们，与我们所传给你们的不同，他该受诅咒！”（加拉太书1：8）
[2]任何古代或是现代教师所撰述的著作，不论他们享有何等的名声，都绝不能被视为与圣经同等，而是当服从于圣经一切的道理〔哥林多前书14：32〕。这些著作见证了先知和使徒纯正的教导自从使徒时代以来是如何以及在什么地方被保存的，我们只能接纳它们为见证，而非其他的角色。
[3] 2. 就在使徒之后不久，甚至是当他们还活着的时候，假教师和异端份子就已经出现了〔提多书3：9-10〕。早期教会为了对付这些异端，就制定了信条（就是简要明确的信仰告白）。这些信条就被当作正统纯真教会共同一致的普世基督教信仰告白，它们就是使徒信经、尼西亚信经，和亚他那修信经。所以我们誓言忠于这些信经，并使用它们去抵制一切渗透到教会内的异端，以及与它们相冲突的教训。
[4] 3. 然而，如今我们当中也发生了信仰事务分裂的情况。因此，我们认为那最初且未经更改的〈奥斯堡信条〉，是我们全体共同一致宣告的基督教信仰和信条，特别是要用来对付教宗制及其虚妄的礼拜仪式、偶像崇拜、迷信，并对付其他的异端。这信条是我们这个时代应运而生的信仰告白，它是在1530年于奥斯堡所召开的重要国会会议上，呈递给皇帝查理五世的。连同〈奥斯堡信条〉一起的，还有〈奥斯堡信条辩护论〉，以及1537年于施马加登所完成的信条——当时那些最重要的神学家都在〈施马加登信条〉上署名，这些都是我们共同坚守的。
[5]这些信仰事务也与普通信徒及其灵魂救赎有关。我们也宣认路德博士所著的大小问答，和他的作品集中收录的一样。大小问答可称作“一般信徒的圣经”，因为基督徒对其救赎所必须知道的一切都包括在其中了，当然圣经是更广泛深层地谈论救赎问题。
[6]如前所述，所有的教导都应藉着这些得以查验。凡与这些信仰告白相违背的，都应受到弃绝和谴责，因为是与我们一致宣告的信仰冲突。
[7]以此方式，就能分清新旧约圣经和其他著作之间的不同。圣经仍是唯一的判断、准则，和规范。我们应当依据圣经这唯一的试金石，来辨别和判断一切教导的好坏〔帖撒罗尼迦前书5：21-22〕和对错。
[8]之前所提及的其他信条和著作，不像圣经那样作为权威去判断。它们只是见证和信仰的宣告。它们表明当时的人，在面对上帝教会中有争议的信仰条款的时候，是如何理解和阐释圣经的；同时也显示，错误的教导是如何受到弃绝和谴责的<亦即怎样论证这些与圣经相冲突的教义应该被弃绝和受谴责>。
第一条
论原罪
批注：罪是人类真本质的一部分吗？绝不是的。若是如此，上帝就被指控是罪的创造者。但是，罪是我们人性中一种极为深切和彻底的败坏，是一种可怕和严重的腐败。除了基督耶稣我们的主之外，无人能为我们战胜这败坏，并将我们从其中拯救出来。因为这个罪，从灵性上来说，我们彻头彻尾是死的。不过，我们仍然有盼望！因为正如基督使拉撒路从死里复活，照样，祂今日也要藉着祂的道与圣礼的福音使我们再次的复活。此摘要中的第一和第二条都阐述圣经对这个议题的立场。（也请参〈奥斯堡信条〉第二条；〈奥斯堡信条辩护论〉第二条；〈施马加登信条〉第三部分第一条；〈协同式宣言全文〉第一条。）
争论议题的内容
此争论的主要问题
[1]原罪真的纯粹就是人败坏的本性、属性和本质吗？它是人本质中最主要的部分吗（即有理性的灵魂自身的最高形式和能力）？或是即使在人堕落之后，在原罪与人的属性、本性、本质、身体，和灵魂之间有一种区别，以致人性本身是一回事，而属于败坏本性并使本性败坏的原罪则又是另一回事？
肯定说明
根据上述所提及之标准和摘要声明，属于纯正的教导、信仰与宣认
[2] 1. 我们相信、教导并宣认：人的本性和原罪之间是有区别的。这观点不仅适用于上帝最初造人时，人是纯朴、圣洁且无罪的〔创世记1：31〕，而且也适用于：就是在堕落之后，包括我们现在仍具有的那本性。换言之，我们将人性本身（亦即在堕落之后，这本性也是仍为上帝所造）与原罪区别出来。这个区别的重要性，就像辨别上帝和魔鬼之间的工作一样的重要。
[3] 2. 我们相信、教导并宣认：应当尽最大的努力来维护这个区别。因为我们败坏本性与原罪之间无差异这样的道理，是与我们基督教信仰论创造、救赎、成圣，以及肉身复活等主要信仰条款相冲突，且不能与这些教导共存。
[4]上帝不但在人堕落之前创造了亚当和夏娃的身体和灵魂，也在人堕落之后造了我们的身体和灵魂。即便我们的身体和灵魂是败坏的，上帝仍然承认这些都是祂手所作的工，就正如约伯记10章8节写道：“你的手塑造我，造了我。”（也请参考申命记32：18；以赛亚书45：9-10；54：5；64：8；使徒行传17：28；诗篇100：3；139：14；传道书12：1。）
[5]再者，上帝的儿子也取了我们这样的人性〔约翰福音1：14〕，只是祂没有罪。所以祂并不是取了一个另类的本性，而是在祂合一的位格里有着像我们一样的肉身。因此，祂已成为我们真正的弟兄了。希伯来书2章14节说：“既然儿女同有血肉之躯，祂也照样亲自成了血肉之躯。”又说：“诚然，祂并没有帮助天使，而是帮助了亚伯拉罕的后裔。所以，祂凡事应当与祂的弟兄相同，⋯⋯只是祂没有犯罪。”〔2：16-17；4：15〕[6]照样的，基督救赎了我们的人性，因为这人性恰是祂的创造之工，使其成为圣洁，使其从死里复活，又将之当作祂的作品荣耀地妆饰它。然而祂从未创造、领受、救赎原罪，也没有将之分别为圣。祂也绝不会在选民中间使其复活、妆饰它，或救赎它。在<蒙福的>复活中，原罪将会彻底地被摧毁〔哥林多前书15：51-57〕。
[7]因此我们可以很容易地辨明和区分开：（一）人类败坏的本性；（二）玷污人性的败坏，即让人性堕落的败坏。
[8] 3. 另一方面，我们相信、教导并宣认：原罪不是一种轻微的败坏。它是人性中如此严重的腐败，以致在人的身体或灵魂中，在人内在与外在的能力上，没有任何部分是健全或不腐败的〔罗马书3：10-12〕。就如教会所唱的那样：
因为亚当的堕落，人的本性和本质，一切尽都败坏。
[9]这种损害，言语不足以形容〔诗篇19：12〕。人的理性是不能理解这个真相的，我们只有藉着上帝的道才能明白。10我们坚信：没有任何人，惟独上帝，能将人性和人性的腐败彼此分开。这将在<蒙福的>复活中，藉着死亡完全地实现。到那时候，我们的本性，即我们现今所拥有的本性，将会完全脱离原罪，复活且永远的活着。正如约伯记19章26-27节所记：“我这皮肉灭绝之后，我必在肉体之外得见上帝。我自己要见祂，亲眼要看祂。”
否定说明
拒绝反面且谬误的教导
[11]1. 我们拒绝并谴责这样的教导：原罪只是基于另一个人所犯的罪的一种罪债<转嫁给了我们>，可是我们的本性没有任何的败坏。
[12]2. 我们拒绝并谴责这样的教导：邪情私欲并不是罪，而是被造的，是人本质的根本属性；上述提及的过失和损害都不算是真正的罪，若是罪，人因此就是离了基督，是可怒之子了。
[13]3. 我们也同样的弃绝伯拉纠派的谬误，因其宣称：人的本性即便是在堕落之后，也没有败坏，特别是在属灵的事上，人的本性仍保有完全的良善和纯洁的天然能力。
[14]4. 我们拒绝这样的教导：原罪只是涂抹在人性表面的一种轻微且无足轻重的污点，或它只是使人性受到损伤的一个疤痕，在这伤疤之下，人的本性仍保持其完好的能力，甚至在属灵的事上也是如此。
[15]5. 我们拒绝这样的教导：原罪只是良好属灵能力的外在阻碍，而不是一种腐败或是缺乏这种属灵能力。我们认为，原罪不是好比涂上大蒜汁的磁铁，磁铁的天然能力没有被除去，仅仅受到了妨碍；原罪也不是很容易抹去的斑渍，好比脸上的污垢或是墙上的油漆那样。
[16]6. 我们拒绝这样的教导：一个人的本性和本质并没有完全的腐败，而且在他里面仍保有一些良善，甚至在属灵的事上也是这样（例如：在属灵的事上，人有才能、技巧、资质或能力，去开始、继续或帮助成就一些良善的事）。
[17]7. 另一方面，我们也弃绝摩尼教派的错误教导，因他们教导：原罪就像某种本质上自存的东西，已被撒但注入人的本性里，并与其混合在一起，如同毒药和酒混合在一起那样。
[18]8. 我们拒绝这样的教导：属血气的人没有犯罪，而是人身以外的东西在犯罪，因此被控告的不是人的本性，而是在人本性中的原罪。
[19]9. 我们也弃绝并谴责摩尼教的错误教导：原罪纯粹完全就是堕落之人的属性、本性与本质。这个教导主张，我们不应该将堕落后的人性本身和原罪实质性地分开；即使在思想观念上，也不应该认定二者可以互相区分。
[20]10. 值得一提的是，路德之所以称原罪为“本性罪”、“位格罪”，和“本质罪”，并不是因为人的本性、位格或本质的本身就是原罪，好像这两者之间没有任何区别一样。事实上，他使用这样的术语是为了表明，属于人本性的原罪和人实际所犯的“罪行”这两者是有分别的。
[21]11. 原罪不是人所犯的一种实际的罪行，而是存在于人的本性、实质和本质内的。所以即使一个败坏之人其内心从未出现恶念、不说闲话、不做恶事，但是因为原罪的缘故，人的本性仍是败坏的。因着那有罪的种子的缘故，原罪在我们出生的时候就存在我们里面了，原罪就是一切其他实际罪行的根源，实际罪行就比如：邪恶的思想、言语，和行为，正如马太福音15章19节所写的：“因为出于心里的有种种恶念”，还有〔创世记8：21也说〕：“因为人从幼年就心里怀着恶念。”（也请参考创世记6：5）
[22]12. 还要充分地注意“本性”这个词的不同用法，因为摩尼教派藉此隐藏他们的谬误，并且误导许多单纯的人离开正道。因为有时候这个词是指着人的本质<本体>而言，如同我们说：“上帝造了人的本性”。有的时候它则意味着一件事物的倾向和特质，这个特质或倾向，隶属于其本性或本质，就好比我们说：“毒蛇的本性是咬人，而人的本性与倾向是犯罪，人的本性就是罪。”所以本性这个词在此的意思并非是指人的本质，而是某种隶属于本质或本体的东西。
[23]13. 现在让我们好好地斟酌本质和偶然属性（一种非本质性的特质）这两个拉丁文名词。它们都不是圣经用语，对一般人而言也是陌生的。所以在讲道中，不该在普通信徒和未受过专业训练的人面前使用这两个名词。一般老百姓可以不用在乎这样的名词。
[24]但是在学校里，在那些博学之士当中，辩论有关原罪议题时，就有充分理由保留这些名词。因为它们为有学问之人所熟知，且在被使用时不会产生任何的误解，并能精确地区分一件事物的本质和它拥有的偶然属性。
25这些名词极为清楚地区分上帝的工作与魔鬼的工作。因为魔鬼不能创造任何的本质事物，只能以一种偶然附属的方式，且在上帝的允许之下，败坏祂所创造的本质事物。
第二条 论自由意志
批注：自从人堕落犯罪后，人的意志是如此的盲目和败坏，以致我们只能选择行恶。按着我们的本性，我们在属灵之事上是死的，是上帝的敌人，且天生就对祂充满敌意。尽管我们可以自由地选择属世的事物，但是我们却没有任何权能、能力或是自由意志处理属灵的事。在我们归入基督信仰之前，我们完全没有能力用任何方式回应或配合上帝的恩典。然而在归入基督之后，且因着基督的缘故，在我们里面的新人实际上就能回应圣灵上帝并与之配合。（也请参考〈奥斯堡信条〉第十八条；〈奥斯堡信条辩护论〉第十八条；〈协同式宣言全文〉第二条。）
争论议题的内容
此争论的主要问题
1人的意志可以按照四种不同的状态来讨论：（一）堕落之前；（二）堕落之后；（三）重生之后；以及（四）肉身复活之后。在本条款中最重要的问题，只是针对人类在第二种状态中的意志和能力。那就是：人类始祖犯罪堕落之后，以及人在获得重生之前，在属灵的事上有什么样的能力？上帝藉由祂的圣灵使人重生之前，人是否可以靠着自己的能力做好准备，并为领受上帝所赐的恩典预备好自己？人是否有能力接受<与拥抱>圣灵在圣道和圣礼中所提供的恩典？
肯定说明
以上帝圣道为依据，本条款的纯正教导
[2]1. 这是我们对于此议题的教导、信仰，和宣认：在属灵的事上，人的悟性和理性是<完全的>盲目，而且靠着他们自己的能力，他们什么也不能明白，就如哥林多前书2章14节所记：“属血气的人不接受上帝的灵的事，他反倒以这为愚拙，并且他不能了解，因为这些事惟有属灵的人才能领悟。”
[3]2. 同样的，我们相信、教导并宣认：人在重生之前，其意志不仅远离上帝，且是上帝的敌人。所以人的意志只有一种邪恶和违背上帝的倾向和欲望，正如创世记8章21节所说：“因为人从幼年就心里怀着恶念。”罗马书8章7节也说：“因为体贴肉体就是与上帝为敌，对上帝的律法不顺服，事实上也无法顺服。”好比死尸本身不能使自己身体复活，恢复肉体的生命；相同的，一个因为罪而在灵性上死了的人，也不能靠着自己恢复其属灵生命。因为以弗所书2章5节说：“竟在我们因过犯而死了的时候，〔祂〕使我们与基督一同活过来。”还有，哥林多后书3章5节也说：“并不是我们凭自己配做什么事，我们之所以配做是出于上帝。”
[4]3. 然而，圣灵上帝并非是凭空领人归入基督，不靠着任何媒介。事实上，为了领人归主，祂使用上帝的道的宣讲和聆听作为媒介，正如罗马书1章16节所记：“这福音本是上帝的大能，要救一切相信的。” 5同样的，罗马书10章17节也说：“信道是从听道来的，听道是从基督的话来的。”上帝的旨意是要人听祂的道，不要人捂住自己的耳朵（诗篇95：8），因为圣灵是与圣道同在同工，藉着圣道开启人心，使人（如同使徒行传16：14中的吕底亚一样）专心听道，而且唯有藉着圣灵的恩典和能力，人才能相信基督，使人归入基督惟独是圣灵的工作。6若没有祂的恩典，而且若祂不赐恩典使我们生长，我们一切所定意和奔跑的，我们所播种、栽培和浇灌的（哥林多前书3：5-7），都算不了什么。就如基督在<约翰福音15：5>所说：“离了我，你们就不能做什么。”在这几个简短的字句中，圣灵否定自由意志的一切能力，并且将一切都归于上帝的恩典，免得有人在上帝面前自夸（哥林多前书1：29；〔哥林多后书12：5；耶利米书9：23〕）。
否定说明
对立的谬误教导
7因此我们弃绝和谴责以下所有与上帝圣道准则相违背的谬误：
[8]1. 斯多亚派哲学家的荒唐见解。我们也同样拒绝摩尼教派的意见，因为他们教导：万事的发生皆出于必然，并不会有任何其他可能；人所做的每一件事情，即使是外在的事，都是被迫而为；人被迫做出邪恶的事情和行为，如淫乱、抢劫、谋杀，和偷窃等类的事。
[9]2. 我们也弃绝伯拉纠派的谬误，因为他们教导说：人可以靠着一己之力，且无需圣灵的恩典，就能使自己归向上帝，相信福音，发自内心顺服上帝的律法，因而赚得罪得赦免和永生。
[10]3. 我们也弃绝半伯拉纠派的谬误，因为他们教导说：人靠着自己的能力就可以开始归向基督的过程，只是无圣灵的恩典就无法完成它。
[11]4. 有些人承认：人在重生之前实在是太软弱了，自己没有能力开始这个归入基督的过程，而且人也无法靠着自身拥有的一切能力，使自己转向上帝并发自内心地顺从上帝。可是他们却主张：若圣灵藉由宣讲圣道开了个头，在圣道中赐予祂的恩典，那么人的意志就可以照着它所拥有的天然能力，辅佐这事的成就；人的意志虽是微不足道且软弱的，但是却能提供帮助和配合，能预备好自己去接受恩典，因此有能力抓住和接受圣道，并相信福音。
[12]5. 有些人教导说：人在重生之后，绝对能够遵守并完全地履行上帝的律法；而且这种履行上帝律法的行为就是我们在上帝面前的义，使我们藉此赚取永生。
[13]6. 我们同样也弃绝和谴责狂热派的谬误，因为他们认为：上帝不需要使用任何媒介，不用人聆听祂的圣道，也不需要使用圣礼，而是凭空直接吸引人到祂面前，并启导光照人、使人称义，和拯救他们。（我们之所以称这些人为狂热主义者，是因他们想不藉着上帝圣道的传讲，就能够促成属天的圣灵光照。）
[14]7. 也有人教导说：在归正和重生时，上帝已全然灭绝老亚当的属性与本质，特别是消灭了有理性的灵魂。他们认为：在归正和重生时，上帝凭空为灵魂造一个新的本质。
[15]8. 当人们使用以下的表达方式却不给出解释时，我们就弃绝这样的情况，亦即：在归向上帝之前，其整个过程中以及之后，人的意志都是抗拒圣灵的；而且那些故意且持续抗拒圣灵的人，仍能领受到圣灵。因为奥古斯丁说，在归向上帝的过程中，“上帝使不愿意的人成为愿意的人，且住在愿意之人的里面。”
[16]同样的，当人们使用古今教会中教师的说法却不予以说明时，我们也弃绝这样的情况。例如这样的说法：“上帝吸引人到祂面前，但是祂只吸引那些愿意的人。”照样的，亦有人说：“在归向上帝的过程中，人的意志并非闲着，而是有所作为。”然而我们坚持：这些说法违背上帝恩典的道，不符合纯正的教导，因为人们引进这些说法是为了<这一谬误想法>，即人在归向上帝时，其与生俱来的自由意志是有能力的。因此，当我们讨论人归向上帝这个问题时，应当避免使用这些说法。
17另一方面，正确的说，在人归向上帝的过程中，上帝藉着圣灵的吸引，使那些顽强抵抗且不愿意的人变为愿意的人。人在这样的归正之后，每日操练悔改，这个时候人重生的意志就不是闲着的，反而会配合圣灵的一切工作，让圣灵透过我们作工。
[18]9. 路德博士曾写道：人的意志在归向上帝的过程中，完全是被动的，也就是说，它一点作为都没有。这是指着神圣恩典在人里面激发新性情来说的，即上帝的灵藉着人所听到的圣道或是所领受的圣礼，抓住人的意志，在人里面运行，做成重生和悔改归正。在圣灵运行并完成这工作，一个人的意志单单因着祂的神圣大能和运行被改变更新了之后，人的这个新意志就成为圣灵上帝的媒介和器皿。因此，人不仅会接受恩典，还会在随之而来的善行上与圣灵合作。
19人归向上帝只有两个有效的因素：一是圣灵；二是上帝的道，上帝的道乃是圣灵的工具（施恩具）—圣灵藉此动工，使人归向上帝。人必须听这圣道。然而，这悔改归正不是藉着人自己的能力实现的，而是凭藉着恩典与圣灵的运行，人才信靠和接受这圣道。
第三条
论在上帝面前信心的义
批注：此条款重述了福音真正的核心重点，亦即：我们称义惟独倚靠上帝的恩典，也惟独藉着信心，因为信心领受基督的义。本条款明确地表达了这事是如何发生的。基督为真神和真人，祂整个位格就是我们的义。我们在上帝面前的义，就是在基督里的赦免，以及上帝将基督的义应用在我们身上，并不在乎我们的善行。而信心是媒介，或说是工具，使我们能藉此领受基督的义，但它不是我们在基督里得着义的原因。因为圣灵藉着施恩具工作，赐下信心为礼物。所以我们得救乃是本于上帝在基督里的恩典，并惟独透过信心，但是这并不意味着信心是孤立的，善行就是称义信心的果子。然而，对于那些选择任性顽固、故意且持续犯罪的人而言，则是显明他们不再持有这个得救的信心。对于这样的人，必需要上帝的律法驱使他们因着自己的糟糕境况和将要确实临到的地狱而陷入绝望，然后需要福音藉着对基督的信心洁净、饶恕，并更新他们。大卫王对其所犯的奸淫和谋杀之罪进行悔改，以及先知拿单对大卫王的安慰赦免，可以佐证这一真理。（也请参考〈奥斯堡信条〉第四条；〈奥斯堡信条辩护论〉第四条；〈施马加登信条〉第二部分第一条；〈施马加登信条〉第三部分第十三条；〈协同式宣言全文〉第三条。）
争论议题的内容
此争论的主要问题
1我们教会根据上帝的圣道以及〈奥斯堡信条〉的内容一致地宣认：我们这困苦的罪人，在上帝面前惟独藉着信靠基督而称义得赎。所以唯有基督才是我们的义，祂是真神也是真人，在祂里面的神性与人性因着同一位格彼此联合（耶利米书23：6；哥林多前书1：30；哥林多后书5：21）。所产生的争议问题：“基督是依据祂的神性还是人性成为我们的义呢？”由此，两种对立的谬误就出现在一些教会当中。
2一方主张：倘若基督是透过信心住在我们里面，那么祂就只是按着祂的神性成为我们的义。和住在我们里面的基督神性相比，世人所犯的众罪就像是一望无际的海洋面前的一滴水。相反的，另一方则主张：基督惟独按着祂的人性作为我们在上帝面前的义。
肯定说明
基督教会的纯正教导反对上述两项谬误
[3]1. 我们反对上述两项谬误，并全体一致地相信、教导并宣认：基督是我们的义〔哥林多前书1：30〕，但既不是单单按其神性，也不是单单按其人性，乃是整个基督位格按其二性是我们的义。为神为人的基督，甘愿亲自顺服，把自己献给天父，以至于死〔腓立比书2：8〕，祂也单单因此顺服之工而为我们获得罪得赦免和永生。正如经上记着说：“因一人的悖逆，众人成为罪人；照样，因一人的顺从，众人也成为义了。”（罗马书5：19）
[4]2. 我们相信、教导并宣认：我们在上帝面前的义乃是：上帝赦免我们的罪，完全是出于祂的恩典，不在乎我们过去、现在或未来的任何善行、功劳或自身价值等，而将基督顺从的义赐下并归给我们〔罗马书5：17-19〕。因为这义，我们被上帝接纳进入恩典中，并且被视为是义的。
[5]3. 我们相信、教导并宣认：我们藉着信心这唯一的媒介和工具抓紧基督。并且我们是在基督里抓紧那义，这义使我们在上帝面前蒙恩〔罗马书1：17〕，而且因基督的缘故，这信就算为我们的义了（罗马书4：5）。
[6]4. 我们相信、教导并宣认：这信心不只是了解有关基督生平的知识，而是上帝所赐的礼物〔以弗所书2：8〕。藉这信心的礼物，我们在福音的圣道中开始正确认识基督是我们的救赎主。我们信赖祂，就是单单因着祂的顺服，凭着恩典，我们领受了罪得赦免，且我们在天父上帝面前被视为是圣洁和公义的，也因此永远得救了。
[7]5. 我们相信、教导并宣认：依照圣经的用法，称义这个词在本条款中的意思是“赦罪，亦即宣告为无罪”。就如箴言17章15节所说：“定恶人为义的，定义人为有罪的，都为耶和华所憎恶。”又如罗马书8章33节所说：“谁能控告上帝所拣选的人呢？有上帝称他们为义了。”
8在奥斯堡辩护论文件中，有时候“重生”和“生命更新”（regeneratio and vivificatio）这两个词汇术语用来代替“称义”，这时候他们的意思都是一样的。然而在其他地方，这两个词汇是指一个人生命的不断更新，与藉信称义有区别。
[9]6. 我们相信、教导并宣认：虽然真信徒和确实重生的人仍有许多的软弱和缺点，即便到了他们离世的那一日也是如此〔约翰一书1：8〕，但是他们仍不应为此怀疑自己所拥有的这义，即透过所赐的信被算为义的义，也可以说是自己灵魂已得着的救赎。他们应确信，因为基督的缘故，并按着圣福音的应许和永不动摇的话语，他们拥有一位恩慈的上帝。
[10]7. 我们相信、教导并宣认：为了保存在上帝面前藉信称义的纯正教导，我们有必要格外努力地教导这“惟独排他 (particulae exclusivae)” 的修辞用语。我们所谓的惟独且排他的说法，就是使徒圣保罗所使用的术语，用来将基督的功劳和我们的善行彻底地分开，并且将荣耀惟独归与基督。使徒保罗写到：“本乎恩”，“不用功德”，“在律法之外”，“在行为之外”，“不是出于行为”等，这些说法意思都是：我们得以称义并得救，乃是惟独藉着在基督里的信心〔以弗所书2：8；罗马书1：17；3：24；4：3-25；加拉太书3：11；希伯来书11〕。
[11]8. 我们相信、教导并宣认：称义之前的痛悔以及之后的善行，都不属于那“在上帝面前称义”的信仰条款。然而，人不该因此幻想某种可以与违背良心、故意犯罪的邪恶动机共存和并驾齐驱的信心。相反的，人在藉信称义之后，便会有真正活泼的信心，以仁爱行事（加拉太书5：6）。所以，倘若这信心是真实且活泼的〔雅各书2：26〕，善行总会随著称义的信心而来，有信心的地方一定可以找见善行。因为信心从来不是孤立的，它总是带着仁爱和盼望〔哥林多前书13：13〕。
对立或否定说明
弃绝对立的教导
12我们弃绝并谴责以下所有的谬误：
[13]1. 基督仅依照祂的神性成为我们的义。
[14]2. 基督仅依照祂的人性成为我们的义。
[15]3. 凡先知和使徒提及信心的义时，称人为义和被称为义这两个词，并非是“宣告或被宣告为无罪”，和“获得罪得赦免”之意；相反的，他们的意思实际上乃是：“在上帝面前成为义，而这都是因为圣灵所浇灌的爱和德行，及随之而来的善行而变成义人。”
[16]4. 信心不只是倚靠基督的顺服，还要倚靠祂的神性，因其在我们里面居住并工作，使我们的罪藉此神性的内住而被遮盖。
[17]5. 信心是对基督的顺服工作的信靠，即使一个人没有真的悔改，在他里面也没有生发爱心，反而持续违背良心犯罪，信心却能在人的里面存在并持续下去。
[18]6. 上帝自己并没有住在信徒里面，住在信徒里面的只是上帝的恩赐（礼物）而已。
[19]7. 信心能拯救人是由于这个原因：生命的更新，即爱上帝和爱邻舍，已经藉着信心在我们里面开启。
[20]8. 信心在称义中具有首要的地位，然而生命的更新和爱心也以一种特有的方式为我们在上帝面前的义做出贡献。虽然<更新和爱心>不是我们的义形成的首要因素，但是若无爱心和更新，我们在上帝面前的义就不完整或不完全。
[21]9. 信徒不仅是藉着归给他们的基督的义，而且也藉着在他们里面开启的新顺服，才得以在上帝面前称义和得救。或说信徒得以称义，部分是归功于基督的义，部分则是靠着在他们里面所开始的新顺服。
[22]10. 恩典的应许临到我们身上，不仅要藉着心里的信，且要藉着口里的承认，以及其他的德行。
[23]11. 没有善行，信心就不能使人称义，因此善行是获得义的必要条件，所以若无善行，人就不能被称为义。
第四条
论善行
批注：善行为得救所必需，这是错误的说法。但是若说善行对得救有害，也不正确。同样地，不谈论善行也是错误的。或许善行的最佳比喻，也是圣经中的一个比喻，就是将它们看作树上的果子（马太福音7：17）。一棵活树会结满果子，但是一棵死树则结不出果子来。同样的，一个人若靠着基督里的信心而活，就会行出善行。另一方面，若一个人的属灵生命是死的，即没有在基督里的信心，也许他们能表现出某些外在的行为，但是这些外在行为并不是真正的善行。尽管善行在我们的救恩中没有任何作用，但却是我们作为上帝儿女生命中极为重要的部分。基督徒生活中的善行，并不是出于我们畏惧上帝的惩罚；相反的，它们是因着上帝爱我们而来的。因为上帝在基督里完全的爱将所有的惧怕都赶走，并且以爱祂和服事邻舍的心、灵魂和意念取代惧怕。（也请参考〈奥斯堡信条〉第六条；〈奥斯堡信条〉第二十条；〈奥斯堡信条辩护论〉第五条；〈奥斯堡信条辩护论〉第二十条；〈施马加登信条〉第三部分第八条；〈协同式宣言全文〉第四条。）
争论议题的内容
有关善行的主要争论
1关于善行的道理，在一些教会中出现了两种分裂的意见：
[2]1. 首先，有些神学家因下列说法而意见分歧。一派认为：“善行是得救所必需的。没有善行，就不可能得救。”他们又说：“从来没有人在不行善的情况下，还能得救。”但是另外一派则恰恰相反，他们说：“善行对得救有害。”
[3]2. 之后，一些神学家，因为“必需”和“自愿”这两个词汇又出现了一次的分裂。一方主张：讨论有关新顺服时，不应使用“必需”这个字，他们说，因为这新顺服不应该是出于必要和强迫，而是出自于一种自愿的心灵。另一方则坚持使用“必需”这个词。他们说：顺服上帝不是我们可以自愿选择的事情，重生的人有义务行出这样的顺服。
[4]从这些相关用语的争论开始，又有关于这议题本身的争论产生。因为一方坚持主张：完全不应在基督徒当中提及律法，只提福音激励人行善。另一方则否定这个观点。
肯定说明
基督教会对此争议的纯正教导
5有关此争议的详尽说明与决议，我们的教导、信仰，以及宣认如下：
[6]1. 善行确实且毫无疑问地随着真信心而来，亦即，若这信心不是死的，而是一个活跃的信心，那么善行就会像是好树上结出的果子一样随信心来到〔马太福音7：17〕。
[7]2. 我们相信、教导并宣认：善行应当完全地从有关得救的问题上排除，正如它们也应当从在上帝面前称义的条款中排除一样。使徒保罗用清楚的字句为此作证，他写到：“正如大卫称那在行为之外蒙上帝算为义的人是有福的：⋯⋯『主不算为有罪的，这样的人有福了！』”（罗马书4：6-8）又说：“你们得救是本乎恩，也因着信；这并不是出于自己，而是上帝所赐的；也不是出于行为，免得有人自夸。”（以弗所书2：8-9）
[8]3. 我们也相信、教导并宣认：所有人，特别是那些藉着圣灵重生和更新的人，都有义务行善〔以弗所书2：10〕。
[9]4. 按照这层意义解释，才是正确地使用“必需”、“应当”，以及“必要”等词，而且是以基督信仰的方式描述重生之人的生命，同时这些词汇术语也不会破坏纯正话语的表述形式。
[10]5. 当我们使用这些词（就是“必要性”和“必需”）谈论重生之人的时候，我们只能将其理解为应有的顺服，而不是强迫性的顺从。因为真正相信的人，只要是已经重生了的，就不会因律法的强制或强迫而顺服，却会因其自愿的心灵而顺从。这是因为他们已经不在律法之下，而在恩典之下了（罗马书6：14；7：6；8：14）。
[11]6. 我们同样也相信、教导并宣认：若说“重生之人出于自愿的灵而行善”，就不应将其理解为重生之人有自由选择行善或不行善，就好像说人若故意地持续犯罪，仍能保存信心那样〔约翰一书2：5-9〕。
[12]7. 我们只能以基督和祂的使徒所宣告的话语来理解此教义，没有其他的可能。换句话说，自愿的灵，不是因惧怕刑罚而顺服，就像奴仆一般；乃是出于爱慕公义的心，正如儿女应做的一样（罗马书8：15）。
[13]8. 但是，这种自愿性<灵的自由>，在上帝所拣选的儿女当中不是完整无缺的，它仍被极大的软弱所困扰，正如圣保罗在罗马书7章14-25节和加拉太书5章17节中对自己的控诉一样。
[14]9. 尽管如此，因着主基督的缘故，主并未将这软弱记在祂选民的帐上，正如经上记着说：“如今，那些在基督耶稣里的人就不被定罪了。”（罗马书8：1）
[15]10. 我们同样也相信、教导并宣认：善行不能保守我们里面的信心和救赎，惟独上帝的灵藉着信心才能成就此事。而善行是圣灵同在和住在我们里面的证据〔罗马书8：5，14〕。
否定说明
谬误对立的道理
[16]1. 我们弃绝并谴责以下的论述、教导和描述：“善行是得救所必需的”；还有“从来没有人在不行善的情况下，还能得救”；以及“没有善行，就不可能得救”。
[17]2. 我们弃绝并谴责这简单粗暴的论述：“善行对救赎有害”，视其为损害和破坏基督徒生命的操练。
18在这末后的世代，尤其应该以基督徒的操练<正当与敬虔的生活方式>劝勉人，鼓励他们行善。我们需要提醒众人：在善行中操练自己，以此宣告信仰〔马太福音5：16〕和表达对上帝的感谢〔希伯来书3：15-16〕，是非常必要的！但是，我们却不应将善行混入称义的条款中，因为这就正如伊壁鸠鲁派对信心的错误认识，以及教皇派和法利赛人信赖他们自己的行为和功劳一样，都能使人堕落沉沦。
[19]3. 我们也弃绝并谴责这样的教导：信心与圣灵的内住，不会因人故意犯罪而丧失。而且圣徒和选民即使陷入奸淫和其他的罪中，并持续在罪中活着，也仍能留住圣灵。
第五条
论律法与福音
批注：如何定义律法与福音，是正确辨别这两个道理的关键。此条款为这两个特定的名词提供了一份详尽的定义，包括狭义和广义这两方面。严格说来，福音完全且只是关于我们在基督里的救恩这个好消息，亦即祂藉着自己的生、死与复活为我们所做的一切。当我们恰当地区分律法与福音时，是在讨论它们的狭义层面。若有人主张福音乃是关于我们应当做的事，那就是混淆律法与福音了。（也请参考〈施马加登信条〉第三部分第二与第四条；〈协同式宣言全文〉第五条。）
争论议题的内容
此争论的主要问题
1正确地宣讲圣福音，是否不仅只是宣讲恩典（即宣告罪得赦免），也是宣讲定罪和悔改（即斥责不信，对于此点，有人认为并非由律法来谴责不信，而是惟独藉福音斥责）？
肯定说明
上帝话语的纯正教导
[2]1. 我们相信、教导并宣认：区分律法与福音，就像是一道格外明亮的光，必须竭力地在教会中保存它。藉着这样的区分，才能做到圣保罗的劝勉，正确地分解上帝的道〔提摩太后书2：15〕。
[3]2. 我们相信、教导并宣认：实际上，律法是神圣的道理〔罗马书7：12〕。它教导我们：什么是上帝视为正确且祂所喜悦的事，并且斥责一切罪恶和违背上帝旨意的事。
[4]3. 因此，凡一切谴责罪恶的事，就是属于律法的宣讲。
[5]4. 然而，福音严格地说是教导：凡未遵守律法的人（因而被律法定罪的）应该相信的事。它教导我们：基督已经为所有的罪付上了代价和补赎〔罗马书5：9〕。而且祂为每一个人赢得了罪得赦免，在上帝面前的义，以及永生〔罗马书5：10〕，这一切都不是靠着人的任何功劳而得着的。
[6]5. 圣经中，“福音”这个词并非都是以单一且相同的意义出现。这就是这个争议当初产生的原因。因此，我们相信、教导并宣认：倘若“福音”这个词其被理解为：基督在其圣工中所提出的全部教导，如同祂的使徒所提出的一样（也就是马可福音1：15和使徒行传20：21中所使用的福音定义），那么福音为宣讲悔改和罪得赦免的说法和表述，便是正确的。
[7]6. 律法与福音也是彼此互相对立的。同样，就如摩西本身是律法的教师，而基督却为福音的宣告者一样，他们彼此也是相互对立的〔约翰福音1：17〕。在这些语境中，我们相信、教导并宣认：福音并非悔改和谴责的宣告，恰当的说，它只是宣扬安慰和喜乐的信息，且不斥责人或使人感到害怕。福音安慰人的良心以抵挡律法带来的恐惧，又引导人单单倚靠基督的功劳，并且藉着宣讲因基督功劳所获得的上帝恩典与恩宠鼓舞抬举人。
[8]7. 关于暴露罪的工作，要人们只听律法而不听有关基督的福音，就会像摩西在众人眼前用帕子蒙住脸一样〔哥林多后书3：12-16〕。所以，人们并未从律法那儿学习正确地察看他们自己的罪，要么变得像法利赛人那样厚颜无耻的伪善者<即是充满自我为义的想法>〔马太福音23〕，要么变得像犹大那样绝望一样〔马太福音27：3-5〕。因此，基督就亲自处理律法并以属灵的意义来解释它（马太福音5：21-48；罗马书7：14）。这样，“上帝的愤怒从天上显明在”所有罪人身上（罗马书1：18），使罪人终能明白祂的愤怒是何其大而可畏。就此来说，罪人受指示回到律法那里，然后首次从这当中学习正确地认识自己的罪，这律法的功用是摩西永远也不能强迫人明白的。
9照这叙述，宣讲基督上帝儿子的受苦和死亡，就是一种严肃且极其可怕的报告和宣扬上帝的忿怒。藉由这样的宣讲，人们才首次正确地被引导至律法那里，因为摩西的帕子已经从他们当中除去了。如此，他们才能第一次正确地理解上帝在祂的律法中对我们所要求的一切重大的事情，而且明白我们不能够遵守其中的任何一件事。这样，他们就会明白，每个人都必须在基督里寻求我们一切的义。
[10]8. 然而，只要这些（亦即基督的受苦与受死）只宣讲上帝的愤怒并使人恐惧，就仍然不算是狭义层面上的宣扬福音，依旧是传讲摩西和律法。也因此算是“基督非常的工(alien work of Christ）”（参以赛亚书28:21）。穿过这个教导，基督就抵达祂恰当的使命和职分（proper work of Christ)，亦即宣讲恩典，安慰人心，并赐予生命，这就是狭义层面的宣讲福音了。
否定说明
被弃绝的相悖教义
11我们弃绝并视为错误且有害的教导是：福音严格说来，就是宣讲悔改或定罪，而不单是恩典的宣告。因为如此的误用，使得福音变成了律法的教导，隐匿了基督的功劳和圣经的话，剥夺了基督徒的真正安慰，并且再次地为教皇派<的谬误和迷信>敞开大门。
第六条 论上帝律法的第三功用
批注：上帝以三种方式来使用祂的律法：维持社会的外在纪律、使我们认清自己的罪，以及指示基督徒使他们知道什么是上帝所喜悦的事。这三种律法的功能或作用常常被描述为勒马绳（约束）、镜子（显明），和规则（指示）。这是因为我们肉体中那有罪的老我一直紧抓着我们不放，至死方休，所以我们基督徒需要律法作为指引，使我们明白什么是上帝所喜悦的，也是上帝指示我们去作的善工。否则，我们只会凭空虚构一些事去讨好上帝。但是这并不表示上帝有三种律法，而是一个律法拥有三种功用。所以上帝在我们当中以三种独特的方式使用祂的律法来完成祂的旨意。（也请参考〈路德小问答〉中的早祷文和信徒职责录；〈协同式宣言全文〉第六条。）
争论议题的内容
此争论的主要问题
1上帝为人订定律法有三个理由：（一）藉着律法维持外在纪律，以对抗那些无法无天不服从的人；（二）使人能藉着律法认清自己的罪；（三）人在重生之后，其肉体情欲<极大部分>仍附着在他们身上，故此，人需要一个既定的规范，使他们能依此规范管理和指导他们的整个生命。有关律法的第三功用，亦即是否应教导重生的基督徒这一道理，在一些神学家当中产生了意见分歧。一派说应当教导，另一派则说不。
肯定说明
关于此争议之正确的基督教教导
[2]1. 我们相信、教导并宣认：真正相信<基督>且真正被改变而归向上帝的人，虽然已经从律法的咒诅和强迫中得到了自由和释放，但是他们不会因这缘故而没有了律法；相反的，他们已被上帝儿子赎回，就是为了要使自己能无时无刻地实践这律法（〔诗篇1：2〕；诗篇119）。况且即使是我们的始祖，在他们堕落之前，也不是没有律法。事实上，他们有上帝的律法刻在他们的心上，因为他们是照着上帝的形象受造的（创世记1：26-27；2：16-17；3：3）。
[3]2. 我们相信、教导并宣认：应当勤奋致力于律法的宣讲。因这律法不但适用于不相信且不知悔改之人，亦适用于真正回转、重生以及因信称义的真信徒。
[4]3. 虽然信徒在心灵和意念上是重生和更新的，但是这种重生与更新在今生是不完全的，而且只是个开端而已。信徒靠其心志不停地与肉体争战。他们不断地对付那依附在他们里面一直到死的那败坏的本质和品性，这个老亚当仍然存在于人的理智、意志和其他一切能力之中。所以主的律法时刻在他们面前光照他们是有必要的，因为这样，他们才不致根据人所捏造的敬虔操练，发动那些刚愎自用和自创的形式来服事上帝。主的律法同样也是必要的，因为这样，老亚当〔罗马书6：6〕才不会照自己的意志行，而能被律法克制以抵抗自己的意志。然而能产生如此的情况，不仅是因为律法的警告和威胁，也是藉着上帝的刑罚与击打，人才能遵守和降服于圣灵，并作圣灵的俘虏（参考哥林多前书9：27；罗马书6：12；7；12；加拉太书5；6：14；诗篇119；希伯来书13：21；12：1）。
[5]4. 论及律法的行为〔加拉太书2：16〕与圣灵的果子〔加拉太书5：22-23〕之间的区别，我们相信、教导并宣认：律法的行为就是那些按照律法的要求所做到的事情。它们之所以被称为是律法的行为，乃是因为人因着律法的刑罚并上帝的愤怒和威胁的教导，而被迫做出这些行为来的。
[6]5. 反之，圣灵的果子乃是住在信徒里面的圣灵所做成的善工，是圣灵透过重生者做成的工。信徒之所以能完成这些善工，因为他们是重生的<心甘情愿和自发的>。他们的表现就像是他们不知道有命令、威胁，或是奖赏的存在。上帝的儿女就是以这样的方式活在律法之中，并按照上帝的律法行事为人。圣保罗在其书信中称这为“基督的律法”以及“心中的律”（参考罗马书7：23-25；8：7；8：2〔；加拉太书6：2〕）。
[7]6. 无论悔改与否，以及重生与否，对任何人来说，律法始终都是唯一且相同的律法，是上帝永不变的旨意。然而若从顺服的角度来看，不同的地方只在于人。尚未重生的人，是出于被迫而遵守律法，心不甘情不愿地去做律法要求他们当行的（重生之人也可能是按其肉体的能力做出来）；但对于信徒，若他已重生，其表现就不会勉强，而是以乐意的灵去行，这也是任何律法的威胁<无论有多么苛刻>无法强迫他行出来的。
否定说明
谬误的相悖教义
8因此我们弃绝这样的教导：律法不应该用在基督徒和真信徒的身上（即上述方式和程度），只当用在不信者、非基督徒，以及不悔改者的身上。这样的教导是错误的，会危害和抵制基督徒生命的操练和真正的敬虔。
第七条
论基督设立之圣餐
批注：依据基督的道与应许，信义宗基督徒相信：基督的真身体和真宝血在圣餐中是真实的存在（在饼与酒里），且要派给并使人亲口领受。所有领受圣餐的人，无论他是否配得、是否相信或是否敬虔，其所领受的就是基督的身体与宝血。改革宗基督徒，其圣餐的神学观乃源于慈运理和约翰加尔文的教导，他们否认基督确实地临在饼与酒里、和饼与酒并存，以及在饼与酒之中；他们主张祂的属灵或象征性的临在。再者，这一信条同时也弃绝罗马天主教会所支持的众多错误观点。当我们谈论主的晚餐时，上帝明确的道必须掳获我们人的理性。这说法不仅适用于基督教教义的所有议题，此观点也呼应了马丁路德在1521年举行的沃木斯会议中的名言；路德被当局勒令撤回他所的教导时，他说：“我的良心是被上帝的道所俘虏。”（也请参考〈奥斯堡信条〉第六条；〈奥斯堡信条〉第十条；〈奥斯堡信条〉第二十二条；〈奥斯堡信条辩护论〉第十条；〈奥斯堡信条辩护论〉第二十二条；〈施马加登信条〉第三部分第六条；〈路德小问答〉第六部分；〈路德大问答〉第五部分；〈协同式宣言全文〉第七条。）
1慈运理派的教师们不应算在那些接受<承认和公开宣告>〈奥斯堡信条〉的神学家之列，因为就在呈递此信条的时候，他们便与我们的神学家分道扬镳了。然而他们却不断藉此基督教信条的名义为掩护来抬高自己，而且企图以此散布他们的谬误道理。因此，对此争议，我们也提出必要的声明<我们认为基督教会应该知晓此事>。
争论议题的内容
本教会的教导与圣礼派之间对于此信条的主要争论
2疑问：在圣餐中，我们主耶稣基督的真身体和真宝血是否（一）确实和实质性的临在；（二）藉着饼和酒分递出去；以及（三）被所有使用这圣礼的人-不论他们是否配得，是否敬虔，以及是否相信-亲口领受了呢？是不是说，信者领受这圣餐，为要得着安慰和生命而不信者领受则得到审判呢？圣礼派的回答为“不是”，我们则为“是的”。
3为了解释这争议，首先必须注意，圣礼派有两种。有些人是公开的、非常直白粗鄙的圣礼派，他们用简单清楚的言语宣告他们心里所相信的，就是在圣餐中除了饼和酒没有别的，也只有饼和酒被分递出去并被人亲口领受。4不过，另一类型的人则属狡猾的圣礼派，他们最具破坏性。一方面，他们也使用我们的话，但说的很圆滑，并且是高谈阔论。他们佯装自己也相信基督鲜活的身体和宝血按其自身和本质真实地临在于圣餐中。然而另一方面，他们却声称，这是藉由信心属灵性地发生的（属灵临在说）。5尽管如此，在这些华丽的词藻之下，他们所相信的真正是前者的粗鄙见解，即在圣餐中除了饼和酒此外，人口所领受的没有别的。因为对他们来说，“属灵”这词仅只是基督的灵临在，或是基督缺席的身体及祂的功劳的临在。他们认为，基督的身体除了在高天之上，不会以任何其他形式或方式临在；还说我们应当藉着自己出于信心的默想来升入高天，并应在那寻求基督的身体与宝血，而绝不是在圣餐中的饼和酒中寻求。
肯定说明
关于圣餐的纯正教义之宣认，并以此对抗圣礼派
[6]1. 我们相信、教导并宣认：在圣餐中，基督的身体和宝血是真实地存在于其中，并且真真确确地同着饼和酒一起分递给领餐者吃喝。
[7]2. 我们相信、教导并宣认：基督立约的话，只应当按照所读到的字面意思去理解，而且不得以任何其他方式去解释。所以，这饼并不是代表缺席的基督身体，同样的，这酒也不是代表缺席的基督宝血。相反的，由于圣礼的联合，<这饼和酒>真真实实是基督的身体和宝血。
[8]3. 至于有关祝圣仪式这事，我们相信、教导并宣认：人的任何行为或是牧师的宣读本身，都不能使基督的身体和宝血临在圣餐中。相反的，这样的临在，只单单归于我们主耶稣基督的全能。
[9]4. 同时，我们也一致地相信、教导并宣认：在施行圣餐礼时，基督设立圣餐的话绝对不可省略。而是应当公开宣读出来，正如哥林多前书10章16节中所记：“我们所祝谢的杯⋯⋯”等话语。而这样的祝福乃是藉着复述基督的话临到。
[10]5. 就这争议而论，我们所持定的和用以对抗圣礼派的立场，是路德博士在其著作《有关基督晚餐的认信》（路德文集37：214）中所提出的:
11“第一点，就是我们基督信仰的这个条款：耶稣基督乃真正、实质和本性为完全的上帝和人，其位格的合一是完整不可分割的。12第二点，上帝的“右边”是无所不在的。”而且基督是按其人性切实、毋庸置疑地坐在上帝的右边。如今天上地下所有的一切都为祂所掌管，且在祂的手中和脚下<正如圣经中的以弗所书1章22节所言>。没有任何人或是天使，惟独马利亚的儿子，坐在上帝的右边。因此，祂能做这事。“13第三点，上帝的道绝无错谬，亦非骗人〔提多书1：1-3〕。14第四点，上帝拥有并知道各种无所不在的不同方式，而不拘束于哲学家所说的有限空间(local/拉丁词 localis)的方式”。
[15]6. 我们相信、教导并宣认：基督的身体和宝血是同着饼和酒一起被领受，但不只是藉着信心的属灵领受，还包括人亲口的吃喝。但是这不是以一种“迦百农”式的吃喝，而是因着圣礼的联合以一种与超然属天的方式领受。我们有基督的话清楚地指出这一点，也就是当基督指示人拿着吃喝的时候，使徒们也照样如此行。因为马可福音14章23节记着说：“他们都喝了。”照样，圣保罗〔在哥林多前书10章16节中〕也说：“我们所擘开的饼，岂不是同领基督的身体吗？”也就是说，人吃这饼就是吃基督的身体，这也是古代教会那些出众的教父们，如：屈梭多模、居普良、利奥一世、贵格利、安波罗修、以及奥古斯丁等，共同一致所见证的。
[16]7. 我们相信、教导并宣认：不但是在基督里的真信徒和配得之人领受基督的真身体和真宝血，连那不配得的人和不信者同样也领受。然而，倘若这等不信之人领圣餐的时候并未悔改归正（哥林多前书11：27-29），那么领受基督的真身体和真宝血的结果就不是得生命和安慰，反倒会是得到审判和定罪。
17虽然他们悍然拒绝基督作他们的救主，但是他们都必须领受祂，一位严厉的审判者，那怕他们不情愿如此。他们必须承认：正如祂的临在是要真信徒和配得之人的心得着生命和安慰一样，祂的临在也会在不悔改的领餐之人身上施行审判。
[18]8. 我们同样相信、教导并宣认：不配的领餐者只有一种，就是那些不信的人。对于这样的人，约翰福音3章18节记着说：“不信的人已经被定罪了。”而且这个审判会变得更重更严厉，因为他们以不配和亵慢的方式使用圣餐礼（哥林多前书11：29）。
[19]9. 我们相信、教导并宣认：只要真信徒拥有活泼的信心——即使他可能软弱，那么他所领受的圣餐就不会成为他的审判。因为这圣餐乃是特别为信心软弱但已悔改的基督徒所设立的，为的是要安慰他们，并且坚固他们软弱的信心〔马太福音9：12；11：5，28〕。
[20]10. 我们相信、教导并宣认：领受这属天筵席的人，他们一切的配得，都是建立在基督最圣洁的顺服和完美的功劳上。我们能得到这些并为自己所用，乃是倚靠真实的信心，并且藉着圣餐礼，我们可以确信真的得到了。因此，我们配得领受，完全不在于我们的德行，或是我们内在和外在的预备。
否定说明
有关圣礼派的相悖且受谴责的教义
21另一方面，我们全体一致地弃绝并谴责以下所有谬误的条款。这些条款反对并与上述所提出的教义、单纯的信仰，以及有关圣餐的纯正认信相悖。
[22]1. 有关天主教的圣餐变质说，亦即在教宗制之下的教导：在圣餐施行时，饼和酒失去它们的质和天然的元素，且被彻底的抹掉。他们说这两种物质已经变为基督的身体，剩下的只是其外表的形状而已。
[23]2. 天主教的弥撒圣祭，是为活人和死人的罪所献上的祭礼。
[24]3. 圣礼中只有一种原质（饼）能分派给一般信徒。但这与基督立约的明确话语相违背，若平信徒不能领受杯，那就是剥夺他们领受基督宝血的福份了。
[25]4. 他们教导：基督立约的话，不能只照着他们所读的字面意思来理解和相信，事实上祂的话很难理解，其中的真意必须先在圣经其他的经文中寻找。
[26]5. 在圣餐中，基督的身体并未与饼一起被人用口领受，口所领受的只是饼和酒而已。所以基督的身体只是藉着信心属灵性的领受。
[27]6. 圣餐中的饼和酒不过就是基督徒用以互相识别身份和彼此认同的<记号或>凭证。
[28]7.饼和酒仅仅是缺席不在场的基督身体和宝血的象征、比喻，以及代表。
[29]8. 饼和酒不过就是一种纪念、象征，和信物。透过它们，我们可以确信，当信心上达高天时，就在那儿领受基督的身体和宝血。正如我们在圣餐中吃喝饼酒是真实的一样，我们可以确信这事（在天上）也发生了。
[30]9. 在圣餐中，关于我们救赎信心的保证和确据，唯有透过饼和酒这外在的记号获得，而不是透过基督确实<真正>临在的身体和宝血而获得。
[31]10. 在圣餐中所分递出去的，只是基督缺席不在场的身体和宝血的权能、所产生的效力，以及功劳。
[32]11. 因为基督的身体局限在天上，所以不可能同一时间在地上许多或所有举行圣餐的地方同步临在。
[33]12. 基督不曾应许，也不可能使祂的身体和血在圣餐中实质性的临在。因为祂所取的人性的本质与属性不容许这样的临在，也不允许这事发生。
[34]13. 上帝，凭祂一切权能，也不能（极为恐怖的说法）使祂的身体在同一时间真实地临在许多地方。
[35]14. 不是基督立约的全能圣道，而是信心造成基督的身体和血临在圣餐之中。
[36]15. 信徒不应在圣餐中的饼和酒里寻求基督的身体<和宝血>，应将他们的视线转离饼酒而朝向天上，并且在那儿寻找基督的身体。
[37]16. 不相信和不悔改的基督徒，在圣餐中并没有领受基督的真身体和真宝血，而只领受到饼和酒。
[38]17. 所有领受这属天盛宴的人之所以配得领受，不仅因为他们拥有在基督里的真信心，而且也靠其外在的预备。
[39]18. 即使是拥有并持守在基督里的真实、活泼和纯正信心的真信徒，领受这圣餐礼的时候也会受咒诅，这是因为他们在其外在的生活中仍不完全。
[40]19. 饼和酒这两种有形的外在原质应在圣餐礼中受到敬拜。
[41]20. 此外，我们也应将所有傲慢、轻佻、亵渎的问题（体面也禁止我们复述这些东西）以及其他言词，都交付上帝公正的审判。圣礼派以一种粗鲁的、属肉体的和迦百农式吃喝的方式，针对这圣礼的超乎自然的和属天的奥秘，在教会中做出最为亵渎和极大冒犯之类的事。
[42]21. 我们完全地<弃绝和>谴责迦百农式的吃喝基督的身体，就仿佛<我们教导说>要用牙齿撕开祂的肉体，还要像我们消化其他食物一样消化祂的肉体。但是圣礼派却违背他们良心的见证，而且在我们不断抗议之后，仍然蓄意地给我们贴上这样的标签。他们这样做，是为了使我们的教导在他们的会众面前变为可憎。但是，我们照着基督立约的明确话语，持守并相信，要以超然的方式吃喝基督的身体和宝血。虽然人的感官和理性不能领悟这事，但是就如同其他所有的信仰条款一样，我们的理性在此也被俘掳，为要顺服基督〔哥林多后书10：5〕。这个奥秘单单是在上帝的道中启示出来，惟独透过信心才能被领悟，没有其他途径。
第八条
论基督的位格
批注：许多反对信义宗圣餐教导的理由都是建立在错误的认知上，而且这些误解都涉及基督的神性和人性之间的关系。因此，〈协同式〉的作者需正视这项议题：基督的人性是否分享祂的神性，使得基督按着祂的神人二性，能够无所不在，甚至也在主圣餐中的饼和酒里？在此信条中所解释的圣经立场，清楚表明“是的”。因为道成肉身的道理，亦即上帝的儿子基督取了人的身体成为人的样式，这对基督徒来说是强而有力的安慰和宝藏，第八条款解释了为什么如此。这一信仰条款否决过往许多关于基督论的异端，也否决了改革宗神学有关基督论的谬误。此外，在许多《协同书》版本中都附加了一份圣经和古代教父的引述文集，证明信义宗有关基督神人二性的道理与早期教会的教导相同。有关这份文件的翻译版本，即见证集，也收录在本书之内（第？？？页）。（也请参考使徒信经；尼西亚信经；亚他那修信经；〈奥斯堡信条〉第三条；〈奥斯堡信条辩护论〉第三条；〈施马加登信条〉第一部分；〈施马加登信条〉第二部分第一条；〈路德小问答〉第二部分；〈路德大问答〉第二部分；〈协同式宣言全文〉第八条。）
1属〈奥斯堡信条〉的正统神学家和加尔文派的神学家之间，在有关圣餐的议题中，产生了分歧。加尔文派也使其他一些神学家对于基督的位格、基督的神人二性，及其二性的属性产生了混淆。
争论议题的内容
争论的主要问题
2主要争论的问题是：因为基督位格的联合，基督的神人二性连同其属性彼此是否真的有共融相通？也就是说，（在真理和实践上）基督的神人二性在祂的位格里真的是彼此相通吗？这种相通能达到多大的程度呢？
3圣礼派者声称，基督里的神人二性是在祂的位格中联合，但二者并没有真的彼此相通共融。意思就是：（在事实与真理上）二者彼此不共享任何一方的特性，只不过在名义上共享而已。他们直截了当地说：“基督位格上的联合，只是使这二性在名义上共通罢了。”换句话说，亦即上帝被称为人，人被称为上帝。这名义上的共通就是，神性不会真正分享人性（按照事实与真理都可以如此说）。同样的，人性也不会真正分享神性、神性之权威和属性。但是路德博士与那些和他意见一致的人，都反对圣礼派的这种错误教导，持守不同的立场。
肯定说明
基督教会论基督位格的纯正教义
4下面我们按照基督教信仰，以及我们的教义、信心、和宣认的指引<范式>，针对此争议给出说明和澄清：
[5]1. 在基督里的神性和人性是基督位格里的联合。所以，没有两个基督，亦即一位是神子，另一位则是人子；事实上，神子和人子是同一个人（路加福音1：35；罗马书9：5）。
[6]2. 我们相信、教导并宣认：基督的神性和人性，既没有混合为一体，也没有其中一性变为另外一性的情况。神人二性保有其各自的属性，且永不可能成为另一个属性。
[7]3. 基督神性的属性乃是：全能的、永存的、无限的、无所不在的（按照其本性、本质和属性），以及无所不知等。这些属性永远不会成为祂人性上的特质。
[8]4. 基督人性的属性是：有形体的受造者、有血肉之躯、有限，且受身体上的限制、受苦、受死、升上高天降到地上、从一个地方到另一个地方、挨饿、受饥渴、忍冻受热等。照样，这些亦永远不会成为祂神性上的特质。
[9]5. 因为基督的神人二性是位格的联合（在同一位格中），所以我们相信、教导并宣认：这个联合不是那种阻止神人二性彼此分享任何事物（即因位格的联合彼此分享）的结合和连结。这个联合不像两块木版黏在一起，以致两者不能互相给予或是分享对方。事实上，此位格联合却是在描述上帝真的与这人有着最高级的共融相通。这至高无以形容的相通，就是源自这位格的联合。由此，其人性的一切表现即被视为神的作为，其神性的一切表现即被视为那人基督的作为。古代教会的教师曾用铁在火中烧热发红，还用人的身体和灵魂的联合这些例子，说明这种联合和神人二性的共融相通。
[10]6. 我们相信、教导并宣认：上帝是人，而且人是上帝。然而若说神人二性（按照事实与真理）彼此完全没有共融相通，这样的论述就不可能是真的。
11因为若是基督的人性没有在位格上与上帝的儿子联合的话，我们怎能确实地称这个人，亦即马利亚的儿子为上帝，或祂如何能成为上帝、或成为至高上帝的儿子呢？再者，祂若与至高者没有真正的相通（按照事实与真理），又如何能够共享上帝的名字呢？
[12]7. 所以我们相信、教导并宣认：马利亚所怀孕生下的，不只是一个人，而且还是上帝真正的儿子。因此，她理所当然地并且真正地被称为“上帝之母”。
[13]8. 我们相信、教导并宣认：那一位为我们受苦、受死、埋葬、下到地狱、从死里复活、升天，并且被高举至上帝的威严和全能的，不单单只是个人而已，祂的人性与上帝的儿子有着如此深奥<密切>、无以形容的联合和相通，且与祂是一个位格。
[14]9. 上帝的儿子确实为我们受过苦，但这是按着祂的人性的特质所为，祂曾取了这人性到祂的神性位格联合里面，且使之成为自己的一部分。祂这么做为的是能受苦，并作我们与上帝和好的大祭司，如同哥林多前书2章8节所记：他们“把荣耀的主钉在十字架上了”；同样，使徒行传20章28节也这么说：我们因上帝的血已经得蒙救赎了。
[15]10. 我们相信、教导并宣认：人子确实是被高举了。根据祂的人性，祂是（按照事实与真理）被高举至上帝全能的威严和权柄的右边，因为当祂由圣灵成孕在母腹时，就被嫁接到上帝身上，且祂的人性与至高上帝儿子在位格上联合了。
[16]11. 根据基督位格的联合，祂一直都享有此威荣。然而在其卑微地位中，祂刻意不使用这威荣，正因为如此，基督的一切智慧，并上帝和人喜爱祂的心，确实都一同增长。所以，祂并没有经常使用这威荣，只有当基督认为合适时才使用它。然后，亦即在基督复活之后，祂才完全地放下奴仆的样式，但是并没有撇下祂的人性，这时祂得以重新确立自己对神性威荣的完全使用、彰显和宣告的地位。祂就是以这样的方式进入祂的荣耀〔腓立比书2：6-11〕。所以，如今基督不仅作为上帝，而且也作为人，祂知道万事，并且凡事都能行。祂与万物同在，而且天上地上和地底下的一切，都伏服在祂的脚下，并交在祂的手中，正如祂自己〔在马太福音28：18中〕所表明的：“天上地下所有的权柄都赐给我了”〔也请参考约翰福音13：3〕。同样的，圣保罗也在以弗所书4章10节中说：祂“高升远超越诸天之上的，为要充满万有。”祂既是无所不在，就能在遍地行使祂的权柄，因为祂凡事都能，无所不知。
[17]12. 基督可以在圣餐中将祂的身体和宝血赐给我们，因为祂是那位无所不在的，而且这对祂而言是轻而易举之事。但是祂不是按着人性的方式或能力，乃是照着坐在上帝右边的方式和能力行这事。路德博士表示，按照我们的基督徒信仰〔正如我们教导孩童的那样〕：<基督在圣餐中的>这种临在，不是<属肉体的或>属世的，亦非迦百农式的临在；然而祂的临在是千真万确且实质性的，正如基督立约的话所表明的：“这是、是、是我的身体”等。
[18]在我们的教义、信仰和信条中，论到基督的位格时，从未将其神人二性分开，好像涅斯多留（Nestorius）将基督的位格做切割一样。他否认在基督里神人二性的属性有真正的共融相通，所以他将基督的位格分割了，如同路德在他所著的《论大公议会》（Concerning Councils）〔路德文集41：95-106〕一书中对其所作的说明。此外，亦不能将基督的神人二性及其属性混合在一起成为一个本质（像是欧迪奇（Eutyches）的错误教导一样）。因为在基督位格中的人性，是不容否认和抹掉的。同样的，亦不能将任何一性改变成另一性。因为基督在其不可分割的独一位格里，永远都是真神和真人。所以，这基督论的教导是在圣三位一体教义之后的至高奥秘的道理，也是我们的安慰、生命和救赎所倚赖的，如同使徒在提摩太前书3章16节所证明。
否定说明
与基督位格教导相反的谬误教义
19我们弃绝并谴责下列所有违背上帝圣道以及我们单纯<纯正>的基督教信仰的条款，它们的教导是：
[20]1. 在基督里的神和人并不属于同一位格，神的儿子是一个位格，人子则是另一位格，就像涅斯多留极力所主张的。
[21]2. 神人二性已经彼此混合成为一个本质，人性已经变为了神性，如同欧迪奇盲目地坚称。
[22]3. 基督不是真正在本性上为永恒的上帝，就如亚流（Arius）所主张的<亵渎的>。
[23]4. 基督并不拥有身体和灵魂构成的真正人性，如同马吉安（Marcion）所幻想的。
[24]5. 位格联合只是在名字和称谓上为神人二性所共有。
[25]6. “上帝是人，人是上帝”的说法，只是一种措辞和表述形式，因为他们说，（按照事实与真理）神性没有分享人性的任何东西，同样，人性也没有分享神性的任何东西。
[26]7. 若有人说：“上帝的儿子为世人的罪而死”，或说：“人子已成为全能者”等话，这些只不过是言语上的说法（词句的沟通表述）。
[27]8. 在基督里的人性已经成为一种无限的本质，就如同神性一样。因为这种本质的能力和属性已传送到、并注入到基督的人性之中，且脱离了上帝，所以其人性亦如神性一般，能无所不在。
[28]9. 人性在其本体和本质上，或在其本质的属性上，已经等于并且就像是神性了。
[29]10. 基督的人性是空间性地扩展至天地间所有的地方。其实这种说法甚至不适用于基督的神性。
[30]11. 由于基督人性所具备的特性，祂不可能带着身体在同一时间出现在几个地方，更不要说无所不在了。
[31]12. 惟独基督单纯的人性为我们受苦并救赎我们，而上帝的儿子在受苦这件事上，与人性没有实际上的相通，所以这事与祂一点关系都没有。
[32]13. 基督在圣道、圣礼以及我们一切困境之中，惟独按其神性在这世上与我们同在。这种临在和同行一点都不能应用在祂的人性上。他们又认为：基督藉其受苦受死救赎了我们，之后，祂在这地上不再与我们有任何关系。
[33]14. 上帝的儿子虽然取了人性，但是在祂脱去奴仆的样式之后，就不以、不藉，亦不用祂的人性施行其全能的一切工作。祂只会在其人性所处的地方藉着祂的人性开展某些工作。
[34]15. 按照基督的人性，祂一点都不具有神性的全能和神性其他的属性。但这说法违背基督在马太福音28章18节中清楚的宣告：“天上地下所有的权柄都赐给我了”，以及圣保罗在歌罗西书2章9节中所表明的：“因为上帝本性一切的丰盛都有形有体地居住在基督里面。”
[35]16. 基督<按其人性>确实比所有的天使和其他的受造物得到的能力更大更多；但是祂完全不分享上帝的全能，而且也不领受过这等的能力。于是他们就虚构了一种“居间的能力”，也就是处于上帝的全能和其他受造物的能力之间，这能力乃是按着基督的人性被高举后赋予祂的。所以这能力要比上帝的全能要小，但是却又比其他受造物的能力更大。
[36]17. 基督按祂属人的头脑，能够知道的有限。因而祂只知道祂作为审判者按其职分所需要知道的东西。
[37]18. 基督还未拥有上帝及祂一切工作的完备知识。但是歌罗西书2章3节却记载有关基督的话说：“在他里面蕴藏着一切智慧和知识。”
[38]19. 按着基督属人的头脑，祂是不可能知道从永恒以来曾经发生的事、目前在各处正在发生的事，以及在永恒中必将成就的事。
[39]20. 他们错误地教导马太福音28章18节的话：“天上地下所有的权柄都赐给我了”，如同他们错误地教导其他类似的经文一般。这段经文被他们解释并亵渎地扭曲成：天上地下所有的权柄，在基督复活和升天时恢复给祂了（亦即按着基督的神性，再次交付给祂）。这种主张就好像说：当基督处于卑微地位时，祂（按着自己的神性）搁置并撇弃了这样的权柄。这教导不仅扭曲了基督立约的话，也为当受咒诅的亚流派异端开路。以致最后的结果就是，否定了基督永恒的神性。所以，倘若我们不以圣道和我们单纯的<普世大公的>基督信仰为永恒的根基，去坚定地对抗这错误的道理，那么，我们终必失去基督以及祂给我们的救恩。
第九条
论基督下到地狱
批注：此条款乃表明基督下到地狱去宣告并公布：祂已战胜了罪恶、死亡和魔鬼；并不是祂为世人赎罪所做之工的一部分。所以本条终止了信义宗关于如何解释基督下到地狱所产生的争议，而且它以路德的一篇讨论此议题的讲道为其结论。（也请参考使徒信经；尼西亚信经；亚他那修信经；〈施马加登信条〉第一部分；〈路德小问答〉第二部分；〈路德大问答〉第二部分；〈协同式宣言全文〉第九条。）
争论议题的内容
此条款最主要的争论
1一些曾参与签署〈奥斯堡信条〉的神学家们，也曾对此条款有所争论，亦即：按着我们基督教单纯的信仰，主基督是何时并以何种方式下到地狱？这事是在祂死前还是死后完成的？这事只涉及祂的灵魂，还是只涉及祂的神性，或是涉及祂的身体和灵魂，又或以属灵的方式还是以属肉体的方式发生的呢？这道理属于基督受苦受难，还是属于祂荣耀的胜利与凯旋呢？
2就像先前的条款一样，此条款也不能靠着我们的感觉和理性来理解，必须惟独藉着信心领悟此道理。因此，我们全体一致的意见是：我们不应为此条款争论，而应以最单
纯的方式相信和教导它；就像已故的路德博士于1533年在托尔高市的讲道〔路德文集37：62-67〕中所教导的一样。3路德博士以一种完全符合基督信仰的方式来解释这一条款，并把一切无益且不必要的问题都从这条款中除去，又劝勉所有敬虔的基督徒，要以单纯的基督信仰相信它。
4若是我们知道基督下到地狱去，是为所有的信徒摧毁了地狱，且救赎他们脱离了死亡和魔鬼的权势，又救他们脱离了永恒咒诅和地狱的深坑，就已足够了。至于这事是如何成就的，我们可以保留这些问题<而不是好奇的探究>，到来世再问。到那时，不单单是这事<奥秘>，而且还有许多我们只能在今生相信、且为我们盲目的理性所不能理解的其他事情，都将一一揭晓。
第十条
论教会的惯例
亦即称为中立事物或非关键的事项
批注：此条款探讨圣经中既没有命令亦没有禁止的事项。中立事物（adiaphora）这个字是希腊文，它的意思并不是说：某些事情影响不大，或毫不重要。在某些情况下，保持惯例，或是移除它们，会对福音造成一种严重的阻碍和冒犯，甚至也可能否定和诋毁福音。此条款包含了一个重要洞见：在教义及其一切信仰条款上达成一致的认同，对教会团契是必须的，但教会团契并不需要在外表的实践上达到完全的一致。就着教会教导或团契相交来说，没有“最低标准”的说法。这条款也解释并说明〈奥斯堡信条〉中第七条款的内容：按着福音纯正的理解，去正确且一致地宣讲福音。当此条款论及在教会礼仪上做出改变时，它就涉及到各地的区域教会整体的需要，而不仅是各间堂会的需要而已。在撰写〈协同式〉时，就有牧师和各间教会联合组成的众多团体，这些团体也叫作教会议会。教会议会对一个特定的崇拜仪式、礼仪以及其他的惯例，达成一致的协议。而教会议会的总监督，除了别的职责外，还需负责确保议会下面的牧师和堂会使用那些已达成共识的教会仪式规范。（例如马丁成尼慈曾是布朗施维格地区的教会议会总监督。）（也请参考〈奥斯堡信条〉第十四条；〈奥斯堡信条〉第二十四条；〈奥斯堡信条〉第二十六条；〈奥斯堡信条〉第二十八条；〈奥斯堡信条辩护论〉第十四条；〈奥斯堡信条辩护论〉第十五条；〈奥斯堡信条辩护论〉第二十四条；〈奥斯堡信条辩护论〉第二十八条；〈施马加登信条〉第三部分第十五条；〈协同式宣言全文〉第十条。）
1属于〈奥斯堡信条〉的众神学家当中，对于上帝圣道既没有命令亦没有禁止，但是在促进教会良好秩序且适合使用而引进教会的仪式或是教会礼仪上，产生了分歧。
争论议题的内容
主要的争论
2主要的问题一直在于：当教会受到逼迫，与信仰宣认有关，甚至福音的敌人与我们在教义上未达成一致时，是否可以因为敌对者的施压和要求，将一些已经废除的仪式（这些仪式本身并非关键之事，而且也不是上帝所命令或禁止的事项）重新建立起来，却不会对我们的良心造成伤害？我们能在这样的仪式和中立事物上与他们妥协吗？对于这个问题，有一派的人说：可以；另一派则说：不行。
肯定说明
有关此条款的正确与纯真之教导和宣认
[3]1. 为了解决这一争论，我们全体一致地相信、教导并宣认：有一些教会礼仪或惯例，不是上帝圣道所命令或禁止的，但是为了教会合宜且良好秩序之故而引入教会。这类礼仪本身不是神圣的崇拜，或崇拜的一部分。因为马太福音15章9节这么说：“他们把人的规条当作教义教导人；他们拜我也是枉然。”
[4]2. 我们相信、教导并宣认：上帝的百姓群体<上帝的教会>（即在各处<在各领地>可随时按其情况）有权更改这类的崇拜礼仪，使其最有益于、最造就上帝的百姓群体<上帝的教会>。
[5]3. 然而此事应当避免一切轻率和引人反感的举动。对于信心软弱的人，则要带着耐心给予特别的关照（哥林多前书8：9；罗马书14：13）。
[6]4. 我们同时也相信、教导并宣认：当我们遭受迫害，需要清楚坚定地承认自己的信仰立场之时，我们绝不在中立事物上向我们的敌人让步。因为使徒保罗曾在加拉太书5章1节中写道：“基督释放了我们，为使我们得自由。所以要站稳了，不要再被奴隶的轭挟制。”同样的，他在哥林多后书6章14节中也写着：“你们不要和不信的人同负一轭。义和不义有什么相关？光明和黑暗有什么相连？”他又提到说：“为要使福音的真理仍存在你们中间，我们一点也没有让步顺服他们。”（加拉太书2：5）因为在这种情况下，不再是关于中立事物的问题，而是关系到福音的真理、〔维护〕基督徒的自由，以及涉及公开的偶像崇拜等事。再者，这事也和防止信心软弱者被冒犯绊倒有关。在这样的情况之下，我们没有什么可以让步的。我们应当明确地表明我们的信仰立场，并因这份信仰认信，承受上帝所加添给我们的，以及忍受祂所允许的圣道敌人对我们的一切打击。
[7]5. 我们也相信、教导并宣认：任何教会都不可因为自己外在的礼仪比其他教会多或者少，而去谴责那些教会。只要他们在道理上、在一切的信仰条款上，并且在圣礼的正确使用上能彼此合一就好。而此作法也呼应了众所周知的古话：“在禁食上的意见分歧，并不会摧毁在信仰上的合一。”
否定说明
有关此条款的错误教导
8我们弃绝并谴责以下的教导和实践，因为这些是错误的并违背了上帝的圣道：
[9]1. 教会内，人所制订的法令和习俗，其本身应视为是一种神圣崇拜，或是崇拜的一部分。
[10]2. 上帝的百姓群体<上帝的教会>粗暴地被迫遵守这些礼仪、法令和习俗为必须之事。基督徒的自由就遭到了破坏，事实上基督徒在外在的礼仪之事上享有自由。
[11]3. 在受逼迫并需公开宣认信仰时，<当要求在信仰立场上做出明确的告白时>我们可以在这样的中立事物和礼仪的事上，屈服于福音的敌人，或是与他们妥协<这么做其实是损害了真理>。
[12]4. 废除一些外表的礼仪和中立事物，就仿佛上帝的百姓群体<上帝的教会>不能基于基督徒的自由，按其教会本身的情况，使用对教会最有益的仪式。
第十一条
论上帝永恒的预知<预定 >和拣选
批注：虽然此条款并非回应信义宗内的某个特定的争论，但是将其放在这里是明智的作法。约翰加尔文及其跟随者发展出了一种教导，即大家所熟知的“双重预定论”。这一粗鄙且恐怖的道理宣称：上帝已经预定并安排好了有些人不管怎样就是要下地狱，而其余的人祂则已预定和安排他们上天堂。因此，第十一条款明确地推翻这个可怕且没有圣经依据的教导，同时公开揭露这教导是极大的谬误。圣经中有关拣选的教导，是惟独为基督徒而预备的，此拣选的教义是为了安慰处在艰难困苦和试炼境况中的基督徒。我们知道，我们在基督里的救赎是如此的肯定和确切，因为在这世界被造之前，上帝就已经知道我们与祂的关系了。事实上，也只有那些相信基督的人才会忧虑自己是否蒙了拣选。而那些完全不信的人，或是那些离弃基督教信仰的人，不会去关心这样的事情。因此，当我们在今生受到此困扰的试探时，这一拣选教义条款把上帝恩典的福音应许指给我们看，而这福音应许乃在圣道和圣礼中被担保确实无疑地赐给了我们。（也请参考〈路德小问答〉第二部分；〈协同式宣言全文〉第十一条。）
1在属〈奥斯堡信条〉的众神学家当中，并未对此条款有过公开的争论。但是，既然拣选是一个安慰人的信仰条款－如果我们正确地处理的话，也为了防止这条款在未来出现一些让人受冒犯跌倒的争论，所以我们也在此提出解释。
肯定说明
有关此条款的纯正与确实之教导
[2]1. 首先，应当正确地持守上帝的预知和祂永恒的预定之间的区别。
[3]2. 上帝的预知没有任何其他意思，就是：上帝在万事发生之前，就已经知道一切了，正如但以理书2章28节所记：“只有那在天上的上帝能显明奥秘。祂已把日后将要发生的事指示尼布甲尼撒王。”
[4]3. 这个预知不仅涉及到敬虔者，同样也涉及到恶者；但它并不是造成邪恶或罪过的原因。也就是说，它并不是导致人们犯罪的原因（最初致使人犯罪的原因，乃是由魔鬼和人的败坏与邪恶意志所引起的）。再者，它也并非是造成他们堕落的原因，所以他们自己该为自身的堕落负责。上帝的预知只是管制他们堕落的程度，<这邪恶的堕落要到什么地步>，以及控制它会持续多久。即使这样的堕落本身是邪恶的，但这一切事情的发生，仍然是为了服务上帝的选民得着他们的救恩。
[5]4. 预定，或是上帝的永恒拣选，仅只适用于敬虔者，亦即上帝所爱的儿女身上。这乃是他们得救的因，也是上帝为他们所预备的；同样的，祂也计划与拣选得救有关的一切。我们的救赎是如此坚定地建立在这拣选教义之上，以至于阴间的权势都不能胜过它（约翰福音10：28；马太福音16：18）。
[6]5. 我们不应当在上帝的隐秘旨意中探究此事，而当在祂启示这事的地方，即祂的圣道话语中寻求。
[7]6. 上帝的话语引导我们到基督面前，基督就是“生命册”，所有将要在永恒中得救的人都蒙拣选且写在上面了。因为以弗所书1章4节写道：“因为祂从创世以前，在基督里拣选了我们。”
[8]7. 基督呼召所有的罪人到祂那里去，并应许他们必要得着安息。祂渴望<极其愿意>所有的人都到祂跟前，而且允许每个人都能得到祂的帮助。祂在祂的话语中将自己赐给他们，并渴望他们聆听这道，而不是让把耳朵塞住或是<忽视和>藐视这圣道。再者，为使我们能坚持这永恒的救赎到底，祂应许赐下圣灵的能力与工作，以及上帝的帮助<这样我们就能坚定地持守信心，并得着永远的救赎>。
[9]8. 我们不应以理性或上帝的律法为根基，去思想我们是否已经蒙拣选得永生。因为那样做的话，我们要么跌入粗鄙、放荡、爱奢华享乐的生活方式，要么陷入绝望之中。而且还会在人们心中挑起一些摧毁性的想法。因为人们若跟随自己的理性，他们就不能成功阻止自己有这样的想法：“倘若上帝已经拣选我得救，那么无论我做什么，我都不会被定罪”，或者“倘若上帝不拣选我使我得永生，那么我所行的善事也就无关紧要了，因为这一切都是徒劳无益的！”
[10]9. 有关预定论的真正判断，只能从基督的圣福音中获得，因为其中清楚地证明：“因为上帝把众人都圈在不顺服中，为的是要怜悯众人。”〔罗马书11：32〕因为祂“不愿一人沉沦，而是人人都来悔改”〔彼得后书3：9〕，且都来相信主基督（也请参考以西结书18：23；33：11，18；约翰一书2：2）。
[11]10. 任何人若在乎上帝已启示的旨意，就请他们按照圣保罗写给罗马教会基督徒的书信中所叙述的次序去思想！在此书信中，保罗首先指示众人应悔改〔罗马书1-2〕，认识自己的罪〔罗马书3：1-20〕，信靠基督〔罗马书3：21-5：21〕，并要顺服上帝〔罗马书6-8〕。然后他才说明上帝永恒拣选的奥秘〔罗马书9-11〕。对于按照此方式思想的人，此拣选教义才有益且能提供安慰。
[12]11. “被召的人多，选上的人少。”〔马太福音22：14〕这经文并不是说上帝不愿意人人得救。至于有些人未能得救，其原因如下：他们不仅完全不听上帝的道，还任性固执地鄙视这道，塞住自己的耳朵，且硬着心肠。如此，他们便阻挡了圣灵正常作工的渠道﹝路加福音16：29-31﹞，使祂不能在他们心里运行作工。或者，他们听了到上帝的道，却轻视并忽略这道。因此，他们未能得救<他们灭亡>，是因他们的罪恶，而非上帝或是祂的拣选所造成的（彼得后书2：1-3；路加福音11：49-52；希伯来书12：25-26）。
[13]12. 基督徒应当只在上帝圣道所启示的范围内，<默想>思考与上帝永恒拣选有关的信仰条款。因为祂的道将基督当作“生命册”呈递给我们，而藉着宣扬圣福音，祂将生命册向我们袒露敞开，正如罗马书8章30节所写道：“祂所预定的人，祂又召他们来。”所以我们应当在基督里面寻求天父那永恒的拣选，因为天父已在其永恒神圣的旨意中〔以弗所书1：11-12〕命定：祂只拯救那些认得祂儿子基督并真正相信祂的人。因此其他一切的想法都当“从敬虔者的头脑”中“完全”剔除出去，因为这些想法绝不是从上帝而来，而是来自那恶者仇敌魔鬼的暗示。我们的仇敌企图藉着这些想法，要削弱或完全除去我们从这有益的道理中所拥有的荣耀安慰。换句话说，我们确实知道：完全出于恩典，没有我们自己所付出的任何功劳，我们已在基督里蒙拣选得永生；所以没有任何人可以将我们从祂的手中夺走〔约翰福音10：29〕。再者，祂不仅单单用言语应许了这恩典的拣选，而且也用誓约证明，并以圣礼作为印记。而当我们受到最严峻的试探时，我们<应当>重新思想这些教导，并从其中得到安慰，藉着它们，我们就能扑灭魔鬼那燃烧的火箭〔以弗所书6：16〕。
[14]13. 此外，我们应该按照上帝的旨意生活，并且带着最大的热忱和努力去作工。正如圣彼得在彼得后书1章10节中的勉励：“使你们的蒙召和被选坚定不移。”我们也当特别坚守上帝所启示的道<不做丝毫退让>，因这道不能也不会辜负我们。
[15]14. 藉此对上帝永恒拣选教义的简要解释，我们将荣耀完完全全地归给上帝。因为祂按着自己的意旨救赎我们，惟独出于祂纯全的怜悯，而不是因为我们有任何功劳。再者，此道理并没有给予任何人绝望的理由，或是给人借口去过一个粗俗和无法无天的生活。<那些严重焦虑不安、心灵软弱的信徒，或是那些享乐主义者，都可以扔掉他们的借口了（都可以被此拣选教义所光照苏醒）。>
相反或否定说明
有关此条款的错误教导
16我们相信并坚持这一观点：若任何人在教导上帝恩典拣选得永生的道理时，不但不能使忧虑苦恼的基督徒从中得着安慰，反而使他们更加陷入沮丧或绝望之中，或者是让不知悔改者在其荒唐的生活方式中变得更加刚硬，那么这个拣选的教义，就不是按照上帝的道和旨意处理的<而是邪恶和错误地处理的>。他们的教导乃是追随了理性，是被那受咒诅的撒但蛊惑的结果。正如使徒在罗马书15章4节中所证明的：“从前所写的圣经都是为教导我们写的，要使我们藉着忍耐和因圣经所生的安慰，得着盼望。”因此，我们弃绝以下的谬误：
[17]1. 上帝不愿意人人都悔改信福音。
[18]2. 当上帝呼召我们归回祂自己的时候，祂并不热切期望世人都来亲近祂。
[19]3. 上帝不愿所有的人都得救，所以选择一些人受咒诅沉沦，以致他们无法得救，而且上帝这样做也不在乎他们所犯的罪，纯粹是出于祂的计划、目的和旨意。
[20]4. 上帝之所以拣选我们是因为我们里面所拥有的（美善之事）——并不单单是出于祂的怜悯与基督至圣的功劳，为我们身上的这些美善，上帝拣选我们得永生。
[21]5. 这些所有的观点都是亵渎、可怕和错误的教义，因为它们剥夺了基督徒在圣福音和圣礼使用中所拥有的一切安慰。因此，上帝的教会不应容许这些道理存在其中。
22以上是针对那些有争议性的条款所做出概要性的简短解释。关于这些信仰条款和议题，属于〈奥斯堡信条〉的神学家们也曾有一段时间带着分歧去教导和辩论。也因此，每一位单纯的基督徒才能遵照上帝的圣道和简要的信仰问答，分辨什么才是正确或是错误的。因为在以上的教义陈述当中，不但纯正的道理被表明出来，那些错误和对立的道理也被反驳和弃绝了。正因如此，那些曾经发生过的、会引人跌倒的分歧，也完全获得了解决<和裁定>。
23愿全能的上帝我们主耶稣的父，赐下祂圣灵的恩典，使我们都能在祂里面合而为一，并且坚定不移地持守在这基督信仰的合一中，这是上帝所喜悦的！阿们。
第十二条
论其他异端和派别
他们也从未接受〈奥斯堡信条〉的认信
批注：本条款将众多具有潜在毁灭性的假道理，及推动它们的团体，一一列举并谴责。请读者们详细审视〈协同式〉众作者所提出的论点，并将之与今日各种宗教派别的教导作比较。透过这样的比较，相信人们会同意：“日光之下并无新事”（传道书1：9）。近代所产生的错误思想、虚妄的道理，以及异端等，都只是回收过去早已存在的，再用吸引人的花招将其重新包装，然后出售给那些既无经验又毫无戒心的“客户”。（也请参考〈协同式宣言全文〉第十二条。）
1为了避免<异端和不同教派等思想>悄悄地袭击我们（因为在之前的讨论和解释中，并未提到），所以我们打算在<此文件>结尾，简明地将其一一列举。其中，将澄清<当代的诸多异端>的教导和所犯的错误，以及他们是如何违背我们的基督教信仰和认信（这是我们经常提及的）。
有关重洗派的错误条款
2在重洗派内部也分裂为许多不同的派别，因为有的人坚持的错误教训多些，有的则持有较少的错误论点。无论如何，他们共同一致所承认的道理，无论在教会、国家和属世的政府内，或是在家庭生活中，都绝不能容忍和允许。
论在教会内不能容忍的条款
[3]1. 基督不曾从童贞女马利亚那儿得到祂的身体和血，其身体和血乃是从天上随着祂而来的。
[4]2. 基督不是真上帝，而是<只比其他的圣徒更崇高些，因为祂>比任何其他的圣人拥有更多的圣灵恩赐。
[5]3. 我们在上帝面前的义，并不是只依靠基督的功劳，还需要靠着我们的生命更新和生活中属于自己的敬虔。而这其中有极大一部分是依据个人本身独特的和自选的属灵操练。事实上，这不过就是一种新形态的修道主义罢了。
[6]4. 未受洗礼的孩童，在上帝面前并非是罪人，他们不但是义的，也是无辜的。因为孩童在这清白无辜时期，尚未到达使用理性的年纪，所以他们不需要洗礼就能得救。若照着他们的主张来看，孩童无需洗礼。因此，他们的主张是弃绝原罪及相关的教导。
[7]5. 在孩童尚未到达使用理性的年纪，并且未能承认他们自己的信仰时，不应对他们施行洗礼。
[8]6. 若孩童的父母为基督徒，也正因他们为基督徒父母所生，且其父母均为信徒，所以即便他们没有受洗，或者在他们接受洗礼之前，他们都是圣洁且是上帝的儿女。因这缘故，他们并不是非常地重视孩童的洗礼，亦不鼓励孩童接受洗礼，但是这样的作法明显违背了上帝应许的道，而这应许只给那些遵守祂的约且不藐视这约的人（参考创世记17：7-14〔；也请参考使徒行传2：38-39以及歌罗西书2：11-15〕）。
[9]7. 若在基督教会中，仍发现有罪人存在的话，它就不是真基督教会。
[10]8. 信徒不应在先前曾举行和念诵教皇派弥撒的教堂中听道，或参加崇拜。
[11]9.照着〈奥斯堡信条〉宣讲福音又指责重洗派的讲道和错误的教会牧师，<敬虔者>不应与他们有任何的来往。同时，也不应服事或以任何方式为他们工作，应远避他们，并视其为上帝圣道的曲解者。
论在政府治理下所不能容忍的条款
[12]1. 根据新约的教导，政府公职不是上帝所喜悦的职分。
[13]2. 基督徒不能担任或履行公职，这会破坏他们的诚实无愧的良心。
[14]3. 即使在需要采取行动的情况之下，基督徒（政府官员）若运用其行政权柄对付恶人，一定会伤害自己的良心。事实上，老百姓为了寻求保护和防卫的缘故，会求助于政府官员所拥有的、也是从上帝所领受的权柄。
[15]4. 基督徒不能带着诚实的良心发誓。基督徒亦不能宣誓，<承诺忠于>他所在国家或领地的世袭王侯。
[16]5. 根据新约的教导，公职人员若对邪恶罪犯执行死刑，不可能不伤害自己的良心。
论在社会中所不能容忍的条款
[17]1.基督徒不能带着清洁无愧的良心自己持有财产，他们有义务必须将其财产捐给公库。
[18]2.基督徒不能带着清洁无愧的良心去作旅店老板、商人，或是武器制造者。
[19]3. 已婚者可以因信仰上<的差异>而离婚。一方可以离弃另一方，与有共同信仰者结婚。
有关史文克斐派（the Schwenkfeldians）的错误条款
[20]1. 若有人因肉身的基督而视其为受造者，他就不是真的认识基督，基督乃是掌管天（地）的大君王。
[21]2. 因着基督被高举，祂的肉身已取了一切属神的特性，结果就是：作为人的基督，其权势、能力、威严和荣耀（就着地位和程度来说），全然与天父和圣道的本质同等。所以，在基督里的神人二性，如今只有一种本质、属性、旨意和荣耀。而且，基督的肉身如今也属于圣三位一体的本质。
[22]3. 教会圣道（传讲和聆听）的圣工，并不是圣灵上帝用来教导人，在他们里面产生认识基督使人得救的知识、归正、悔改、信心，和新顺服的媒介。
[23]4. 洗礼的水，不是主上帝用来保证人得着上帝儿女名分和使人重生的印记。
[24]5. 在圣餐中的饼和酒，并非是基督藉着将祂的身体和宝血赐给我们的媒介。
[25]6. 凡靠着上帝的灵真正重生的基督徒，可以在今生完全遵守和实践上帝的律法。
[26]7. 堂会<教会>若不施行革除教籍或定期将人逐出教会，就不是真的基督教会。
[27]8. 教会牧师自己的生命若不是真的更新了，真的重生、公义和敬虔的，就不能有效有益地教导他人或施行纯全、真正的圣礼。
有关新亚流派的错误
28基督并非真正的、本质上、原本就是上帝，也不是与天父上帝和圣灵分享同一神性。祂只是以属神的威荣装饰自己，其地位次于父上帝，在父上帝的旁边。
有关反三位一体派的错误
29这是一个全新的异端，先前在基督教界不曾听说过。他们相信、教导和承认的是：圣父、圣子和圣灵并非只拥有一个属神的永恒本质，〔他们教导说〕天父上帝、圣子和圣灵是三个不同的位格，且每个位格都各有其本质，是与神性内的其他位格不同且有分别。在此教派中，一些人认为，这三个位格都享有同等的权力、智慧、威严，和荣耀（就像三个不同的人一样，其本质彼此有不同的差别）。其他的人则认为：这三个位格和本体，就其本质和属性而言，彼此是不同等的，因此惟独天父是完全真正的上帝。
30所有这类及类似条款中的谬误，无论是之前有的，还是之后延伸出来的，我们都拒绝并谴责为邪恶、错误和异端。因为它们与上帝的道、三大公信经、〈奥斯堡信条〉与〈奥斯堡信条辩护论〉、〈施马加登信条〉，以及〈路德大小问答〉等相悖。因此，所有敬虔的基督徒，无论地位尊卑，若真的珍爱自己灵魂的福祉与救恩，都当提高警觉。
31这就是我们众人所持守的道理、信仰，和认信。我们必会在末日时，在我们主耶稣基督这位公正的审判者面前陈明。我们既不会在背地里、也不会公开地发表或书写任何抨击此道理的言论；我们要靠着上帝的恩典来持守它。因此经过深思熟虑后，我等就以真实敬畏上帝的心并奉祂的名祈求，亲手<在此摘要上>签名，以资证明。
Comprehensive Summary, Rule and Norm
Comprehensive Summary, Rule and Norm According to which all dogmas should be judged, and the erroneous teachings [controversies]that have occurred should be decided and explained in a Christian way.
1 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.
2 Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.
3 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.
4 3. As to the schisms in matters of faith, however, which have occurred in our time, we regard as the unanimous consensus and declaration of our Christian faith and confession, especially against the Papacy and its false worship, idolatry, superstition, and against other sects, as the symbol of our time, the First, Unaltered Augsburg Confession, delivered to the Emperor Charles V at Augsburg in the year 1530, in the great Diet, together with its Apology, and the Articles composed at Smalcald in the year 1537, and subscribed at that time by the chief theologians.
5 And because such matters concern also the laity and the salvation of their souls, we also confess the Small and Large Catechisms of Dr. Luther, as they are included in Luther’s works, as the Bible of the laity, wherein everything is comprised which is treated at greater length in Holy Scripture, and is necessary for a Christian man to know for his salvation.
6 To this direction, as above announced, all doctrines are to be conformed, and what is, contrary thereto is to be rejected and condemned, as opposed to the unanimous declaration of our faith.
7 In this way the distinction between the Holy Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament and all other writings is preserved, and the Holy Scriptures alone remain the only judge, rule, and standard, according to which, as the only test-stone, all dogmas shall and must be discerned and judged, as to whether they are good or evil, right or wrong.
8 But the other symbols and writings cited are not judges, as are the Holy Scriptures, but only a testimony and declaration of the faith, as to how at any time the Holy Scriptures have been understood and explained in the articles in controversy in the Church of God by those then living, and how the opposite dogma was rejected and condemned [by what arguments the dogmas conflicting with the Holy Scripture were rejected and condemned].
I. Original Sin.
STATUS CONTROVERSIAE: The Principal Question in This Controversy.
1 Whether original sin is properly and without any distinction man’s corrupt nature, substance, and essence, or at any rate the principal and best part of his essence [substance], namely, the rational soul itself in its highest state and powers; or whether, even after the Fall, there is a distinction between man’s substance, nature, essence, body, soul, and original sin, so that the nature [itself] is one thing, and original sin, which inheres in the corrupt nature and corrupts the nature, another.
AFFIRMATIVE THESES: The Pure Doctrine, Faith, and Confession according to the Aforesaid Standard and Summary Declaration.
2 1. We believe, teach, and confess that there is a distinction between man’s nature, not only as he was originally created by God pure and holy and without sin, but also as we have it [that nature] now after the Fall, namely, between the nature [itself], which even after the Fall is and remains a creature of God, and original sin, and that this distinction is as great as the distinction between a work of God and a work of the devil.
3 2. We believe, teach, and confess also that this distinction should be maintained with the greatest care, because this doctrine, that no distinction is to be made between our corrupt human nature and original sin, conflicts with the chief articles of our Christian faith concerning creation, redemption, sanctification, and the resurrection of our body, and cannot coexist therewith.
4 For God created not only the body and soul of Adam and Eve before the Fall, but also our bodies and souls after the Fall, notwithstanding that they are corrupt, which God also still acknowledges as His work, as it is written Job 10:8: Thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round about. Deut. 32:18; Is. 45:9ff; 54:5; 64:8; Acts 17:28; Job 10:8; Ps. 100:3; 139:14; Eccl. 12:1.
5 Moreover, the Son of God has assumed this human nature, however, without sin, and therefore not a foreign, but our own flesh, into the unity of His person, and according to it is become our true Brother. Heb. 2:14: Forasmuch, then, as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same. Again, 16; 4:15: He took not on Him the nature of angels, but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, yet without sin. 6 In like manner Christ has also redeemed it as His work, sanctifies it as His work, raises it from the dead, and gloriously adorns it as His work. But original sin He has not created, assumed, redeemed, sanctified; nor will He raise it, will neither adorn nor save it in the elect, but in the [blessed] resurrection it will be entirely destroyed.
7 Hence the distinction between the corrupt nature and the corruption which infects the nature and by which the nature became corrupt, can easily be discerned.
8 3. 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.
9 This damage is unspeakable, and cannot be discerned by reason, but only from God’s Word. 10 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.
NEGATIVE THESES: Rejection of the False Opposite Dogmas.
11 1. Therefore we reject and condemn the teaching that original sin is only a reatus or debt on account of what has been committed by another [diverted to us] without any corruption of our nature.
12 2. Also, that evil lusts are not sin, but con-created, essential properties of the nature, or, as though the above-mentioned defect and damage were not truly sin, because of which man without Christ [not ingrafted into Christ] would be a child of wrath.
13 3. We likewise reject the Pelagian error, by which it is alleged that man’s nature even after the Fall is incorrupt, and especially with respect to spiritual things has remained entirely good and pure in naturalibus, i. e., in its natural powers.
14 4. Also, that original sin is only a slight, insignificant spot on the outside, dashed upon the nature, or a blemish that has been blown upon it, beneath which [nevertheless] the nature has retained its good powers even in spiritual things.
15 5. Also, that original sin is only an external impediment to the good spiritual powers, and not a despoliation or want of the same, as when a magnet is smeared with garlic-juice, its natural power is not thereby removed, but only impeded; or that this stain can be easily wiped away like a spot from the face or pigment from the wall.
16 6. Also, that in man the human nature and essence are not entirely corrupt, but that man still has something good in him, even in spiritual things, namely, capacity, skill, aptness, or ability in spiritual things to begin, to work, or to help working for something [good].
17 7. On the other hand, we also reject the false dogma of the Manicheans, when it is taught that original sin, as something essential and self-subsisting, has been infused by Satan into the nature, and intermingled with it, as poison and wine are mixed.
18 8. Also, that not the natural man, but something else and extraneous to man, sins, on account of which not the nature, but only original sin in the nature, is accused.
19 9. We reject and condemn also as a Manichean error the doctrine that original sin is properly and without any distinction the substance, nature, and essence itself of the corrupt man, so that a distinction between the corrupt nature, as such, after the Fall and original sin should not even be conceived of, nor that they could be distinguished from one another [even] in thought.
20 10. Now, this original sin is called by Dr. Luther nature-sin, person-sin, essential sin, not because the nature, person, or essence of man is, without any distinction, itself original sin, but in order to indicate by such words the distinction between original sin, which inheres in human nature, and other sins, which are called actual sins.
21 11. For original sin is not a sin which is committed, but it inheres in the nature, substance, and essence of man, so that, though no wicked thought ever should arise in the heart of corrupt man, no idle word were spoken, no wicked deed were done, yet the nature is nevertheless corrupted through original sin, which is born in us by reason of the sinful seed, and is a fountainhead of all other actual sins, as wicked thoughts, words, and works, as it is written Matt. 15:19: Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts. Also Gen. 6:5; 8:21: The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.
22 12. Thus there is also to be noted well the diverse signification of the word nature, whereby the Manicheans cover their error and lead astray many simple men. For sometimes it means the essence [the very substance] of man, as when it is said: God created human nature. But at other times it means the disposition and the vicious quality [disposition, condition, defect, or vice] of a thing, which inheres in the nature or essence, as when it is said: The nature of the serpent is to bite, and the nature and disposition of man is to sin, and is sin; here the word nature does not mean the substance of man, but something that inheres in the nature or substance.
23 13. But as to the Latin terms substantia and accidens, because they are not words of Holy Scripture, and besides unknown to the ordinary man, they should not be used in sermons before ordinary, uninstructed people, but simple people should be spared them.
24 But in the schools, among the learned, these words are rightly retained in disputations concerning original sin, because they are well known and used without any misunderstanding, to distinguish exactly between the essence of a thing and what attaches to it in an accidental way.
25 For the distinction between God’s work and that of the devil is thereby designated in the clearest way, because the devil can create no substance, but can only, in an accidental way, by the providence of God [God permitting], corrupt the substance created by God.
II. Free Will.
STATUS CONTROVERSIAE. The Principal Question in This Controversy.
1 Since the will of man is found in four unlike states, namely: 1. before the Fall; 2. since the Fall; 3. after regeneration; 4. after the resurrection of the body, the chief question is only concerning the will and ability of man in the second state, namely, what powers in spiritual things he has of himself after the fall of our first parents and before regeneration, and whether he is able by his own powers, prior to and before his regeneration by God’s Spirit, to dispose and prepare himself for God’s grace, and to accept [and apprehend], or not, the grace offered through the Holy Ghost in the Word and holy [divinely instituted] Sacraments.
AFFIRMATIVE THESES: The Pure Doctrine concerning This Article, according to God’s Word.
2 1. Concerning this subject, our doctrine, faith, and confession is, that in spiritual things the understanding and reason of man are [altogether] blind, and by their own powers understand nothing, as it is written 1 Cor. 2:14: The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them when he is examined concerning spiritual things.
3 2. 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.
4 3. 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 5 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 6 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.
NEGATIVE THESES: Contrary False Doctrine.
7 Accordingly, we reject and condemn all the following errors as contrary to the standard of God’s Word:
8 1. The delirium [insane dogma] of philosophers who are called Stoics, as also of the Manicheans, who taught that everything that happens must so happen, and cannot happen otherwise, and that everything that man does, even in outward things, he does by compulsion, and that he is coerced to evil works and deeds, as inchastity, robbery, murder, theft, and the like.
9 2. We reject also the error of the gross Pelagians, who taught that man by his own powers, without the grace of the Holy Ghost, can turn himself to God, believe the Gospel, be obedient from the heart to God’s Law, and thus merit the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.
10 3. We reject also the error of the Semi-Pelagians, who teach that man by his own powers can make a beginning of his conversion, but without the grace of the Holy Ghost cannot complete it.
11 4. Also, when it is taught that, although man by his free will before regeneration is too weak to make a beginning, and by his own powers to turn himself to God, and from the heart to be obedient to God, yet, if the Holy Ghost by the preaching of the Word has made a beginning, and therein offered His grace, then the will of man from its own natural powers can add something, though little and feebly, to this end, can help and cooperate, qualify and prepare itself for grace, and embrace and accept it, and believe the Gospel.
12 5. Also, that man, after he has been born again, can perfectly observe and completely fulfil God’s Law, and that this fulfilling is our righteousness before God, by which we merit eternal life.
13 6. Also, we reject and condemn the error of the Enthusiasts, who imagine that God without means, without the hearing of God’s Word, also without the use of the holy Sacraments, draws men to Himself, and enlightens, justifies, and saves them. (Enthusiasts we call those who expect the heavenly illumination of the Spirit [celestial revelations] without the preaching of God’s Word.)
14 7. Also, that in conversion and regeneration God entirely exterminates the substance and essence of the old Adam, and especially the rational soul, and in conversion and regeneration creates a new essence of the soul out of nothing.
15 8. Also, when the following expressions are employed without explanation, namely, that the will of man before, in, and after conversion resists the Holy Ghost, and that the Holy Ghost is given to those who resist Him intentionally and persistently; for, as Augustine says, in conversion God makes willing persons out of the unwilling and dwells in the willing.
16 As to the expressions of ancient and modern teachers of the Church, when it is said: Deus trahit, sed volentem trahit, i. e., God draws, but He draws the willing; likewise, Hominis voluntas in conversione non est otiosa, sed agit aliquid, i. e., In conversion the will of man is not idle, but also effects something, we maintain that, inasmuch as these expressions have been introduced for confirming [the false opinion concerning] the powers of the natural free will in man’s conversion, against the doctrine of God’s grace, they do not conform to the form of sound doctrine, and therefore, when we speak of conversion to God, justly ought to be avoided.
17 But, on the other hand, it is correctly said that in conversion God, through the drawing of the Holy Ghost, makes out of stubborn and unwilling men willing ones, and that after such conversion in the daily exercise of repentance the regenerate will of man is not idle, but also cooperates in all the works of the Holy Ghost, which He performs through us.
18 9. Also what Dr. Luther has written, namely, that man’s will in his conversion is pure passive, that is, that it does nothing whatever, is to be understood respectu divinae gratiae in accendendis novis motibus, that is, when God’s Spirit, through the Word heard or the use of the holy Sacraments, lays hold upon man’s will, and works [in man] the new birth and conversion. For when [after] the Holy Ghost has wrought and accomplished this, and man’s will has been changed and renewed by His divine power and working alone, then the new will of man is an instrument and organ of God the Holy Ghost, so that he not only accepts grace, but also cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the works which follow.
19 Therefore, before the conversion of man there are only two efficient causes, namely, the Holy Ghost and the Word of God, as the instrument of the Holy Ghost, by which He works conversion. This Word man is [indeed] to hear; however, it is not by his own powers, but only through the grace and working of the Holy Ghost that he can yield faith to it and accept it.
III. The Righteousness of Faith Before God.
STATUS CONTROVERSIAE: The Principal Question In This Controversy.
1 Since it is unanimously confessed in our churches, in accordance with God’s Word and the sense of the Augsburg Confession, that we poor sinners are justified before God and saved alone by faith in Christ, and thus Christ alone is our Righteousness, who is true God and man, because in Him the divine and human natures are personally united with one another, Jer. 23:6; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21, the question has arisen: According to which nature is Christ our Righteousness? and thus two contrary errors have arisen in some churches.
2 For the one side has held that Christ according to His divinity alone is our Righteousness, if He dwell in us by faith; contrasted with this divinity, dwelling in us by faith, the sins of all men must be regarded as a drop of water compared to the great ocean. Others, on the contrary, have held that Christ is our Righteousness before God according to the human nature alone.
AFFIRMATIVE THESES: Pure Doctrine of the Christian Churches against Both Errors Just Mentioned.
3 1. Against both the errors just recounted, we unanimously believe, teach, and confess that Christ is our Righteousness neither according to the divine nature alone nor according to the human nature alone, but that it is the entire Christ according to both natures, in His obedience alone, which as God and man He rendered to the Father even unto death, and thereby merited for us the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, as it is written: As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous, Rom. 5:19.
4 2. Accordingly, we believe, teach, and confess that our righteousness before God is (this very thing], that God forgives us our sins out of pure grace, without any work, merit, or worthiness of ours preceding, present, or following, that He presents and imputes to us the righteousness of Christ’s obedience, on account of which righteousness we are received into grace by God, and regarded as righteous.
5 3. We believe, teach, and confess that faith alone is the means and instrument whereby we lay hold of Christ, and thus in Christ of that righteousness which avails before God, for whose sake this faith is imputed to us for righteousness, Rom. 4:5.
6 4. We believe, teach, and confess that this faith is not a bare knowledge of the history of Christ, but such a gift of God by which we come to the right knowledge of Christ as our Redeemer in the Word of the Gospel, and trust in Him that for the sake of His obedience alone we have, by grace, the forgiveness of sins, are regarded as holy and righteous before God the Father, and eternally saved.
7 5. We believe, teach, and confess that according to the usage of Holy Scripture the word justify means in this article, to absolve, that is, to declare free from sins. Prov. 17:15: He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous, even they both are abomination to the Lord. Also Rom. 8:33: Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.
8 And when, in place of this, the words regeneratio and vivificatio, that is, regeneration and vivification, are employed, as in the Apology, this is done in the same sense. By these terms, in other places, the renewal of man is understood, and distinguished from justification by faith.
9 6. We believe, teach, and confess also that notwithstanding the fact that many weaknesses and defects cling to the true believers and truly regenerate, even to the grave, still they must not on that account doubt either their righteousness which has been imputed to them by faith, or the salvation of their souls, but must regard it as certain that for Christ’s sake, according to the promise and [immovable] Word of the holy Gospel, they have a gracious God.
10 7. We believe, teach, and confess that for the preservation of the pure doctrine concerning the righteousness of faith before God it is necessary to urge with special diligence the particulae exclusivae, that is, the exclusive particles, i. e., the following words of the holy Apostle Paul, by which the merit of Christ is entirely separated from our works, and the honor given to Christ alone, when the holy Apostle Paul writes: Of grace, without merit, without Law, without works, not of works. All these words together mean as much as that we are justified and saved alone by faith in Christ. Eph. 2:8; Rom. 1:17; 3:24; 4:3ff.; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 11.
11 8. We believe, teach, and confess that, although the contrition that precedes, and the good works that follow, do not belong to the article of justification before God, yet one is not to imagine a faith of such a kind as can exist and abide with, and alongside of, a wicked intention to sin and to act against the conscience. But after man has been justified by faith, then a true living faith worketh by love, Gal. 5:6, so that thus good works always follow justifying faith, and are surely found with it, if it be true and living; for it never is alone, but always has with it love and hope.
NEGATIVE THESES: Rejection of the False Opposite Dogmas.
12 Therefore we reject and condemn all the following errors:
13 1. That Christ is our Righteousness according to His divine nature alone.
14 2. That Christ is our Righteousness according to His human nature alone.
15 3. That in the sayings of the prophets and apostles where the righteousness of faith is spoken of the words justify and to be justified are not to signify declaring or being declared free from sins, and obtaining the forgiveness of sins, but actually being made righteous before God, because of love infused by the Holy Ghost, virtues, and the works following them.
16 4. That faith looks not only to the obedience of Christ, but to His divine nature, as it dwells and works in us, and that by this indwelling our sins are covered.
17 5. That faith is such a trust in the obedience of Christ as can exist and remain in a man even when he has no genuine repentance, in whom also no love follows, but who persists in sins against his conscience.
18 6. That not God Himself, but only the gifts of God, dwell in believers.
19 7. That faith saves on this account, because by faith the renewal, which consists in love to God and one’s neighbor, is begun in us.
20 8. That faith has the first place in justification, nevertheless also renewal and love belong to our righteousness before God in such a manner that they [renewal and love] are indeed not the chief cause of our righteousness, but that nevertheless our righteousness before God is not entire or perfect without this love and renewal.
21 9. That believers are justified before God and saved jointly by the imputed righteousness of Christ and by the new obedience begun in them, or in part by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, but in part also by the new obedience begun in them.
22 10. That the promise of grace is made our own by faith in the heart, and by the confession which is made with the mouth, and by other virtues.
23 11. That faith does not justify without good works; so that good works are necessarily required for righteousness, and without their presence man cannot be justified.
IV. Good Works.
STATUS CONTROVERSIAE: The Principal Question In the Controversy concerning Good Works.
1 Concerning the doctrine of good works two divisions have arisen in some churches:
2 1. First, some theologians have become divided because of the following expressions, where the one side wrote: Good works are necessary for salvation. It is impossible to be saved without good works. Also: No one has ever been saved without good works. But the other side, on the contrary, wrote: Good works are injurious to salvation.
3 2. Afterwards a schism arose also between some theologians with respect to the two words necessary and free, since the one side contended that the word necessary should not be employed concerning the new obedience, which, they say, does not flow from necessity and coercion, but from a voluntary spirit. The other side insisted on the word necessary, because, they say, this obedience is not at our option, but regenerate men are obliged to render this obedience.
4 From this disputation concerning the terms a controversy afterwards occurred concerning the subject itself; for the one side contended that among Christians the Law should not be urged at all, but men should be exhorted to good works from the Holy Gospel alone; the other side contradicted this.
AFFIRMITIVE THESES: Pure Doctrine of the Christian Churches concerning This Controversy.
5 For the thorough statement and decision of this controversy our doctrine, faith, and confession is:
6 1. That good works certainly and without doubt follow true faith, if it is not a dead, but a living faith, as fruits of a good tree.
7 2. We believe, teach, and confess also that good works should be entirely excluded, just as well in the question concerning salvation as in the article of justification before God, as the apostle testifies with clear words, when he writes as follows: Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin, Rom. 4:6ff And again: By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast, Eph. 2:8-9.
8 3. We believe, teach, and confess also that all men, but those especially who are born again and renewed by the Holy Ghost, are bound to do good works.
9 4. In this sense the words necessary, shall, and must are employed correctly and in a Christian manner also with respect to the regenerate, and in no way are contrary to the form of sound words and speech.
10 5. Nevertheless, by the words mentioned, necessitas, necessarium, necessity and necessary, if they be employed concerning the regenerate, not coercion, but only due obedience is to be understood, which the truly believing, so far as they are regenerate, render not from coercion or the driving of the Law, but from a voluntary spirit; because they are no more under the Law, but under grace, Rom. 6:14; 7:6; 8:14.
11 6. Accordingly, we also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said: The regenerate do good works from a free spirit, this is not to be understood as though it is at the option of the regenerate man to do or to forbear doing good when he wishes, and that he can nevertheless retain faith if he intentionally perseveres in sins.
12 7. Yet this is not to be understood otherwise than as the Lord Christ and His apostles themselves declare, namely, regarding the liberated spirit, that it does not do this from fear of punishment, like a servant, but from love of righteousness, like children, Rom. 8:15.
13 8. Although this voluntariness [liberty of spirit] in the elect children of God is not perfect, but burdened with great weakness, as St. Paul complains concerning himself, Rom. 7:14-25; Gal. 5:17;
14 9. Nevertheless, for the sake of the Lord Christ, the Lord does not impute this weakness to His elect, as it is written: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8:1.
15 10. We believe, teach, and confess also that not works maintain faith and salvation in us, but the Spirit of God alone, through faith, of whose presence and indwelling good works are evidences.
NEGATIVE THESES: Rejection of the False Opposite Dogmas.
16 1. Accordingly, we reject and condemn the following modes of speaking: when it is taught and written that good works are necessary to salvation; also, that no one ever has been saved without good works; also, that it is impossible to be saved without good works.
17 2. We reject and condemn as offensive and detrimental to Christian discipline the bare expression, when it is said: Good works are injurious to salvation.
18 For especially in these last times it is no less needful to admonish men to Christian discipline [to the way of living aright and godly] and good works, and remind them how necessary it is that they exercise themselves in good works as a declaration of their faith and gratitude to God, than that the works be not mingled in the article of justification; because men may be damned by an Epicurean delusion concerning faith, as well as by papistic and Pharisaic confidence in their own works and merits.
19 3. We also reject and condemn the dogma that faith and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost are not lost by wilful sin, but that the saints and elect retain the Holy Ghost even though they fall into adultery and other sins and persist therein.
V. Law and Gospel.
STATUS CONTROVERSIAE: The Principal Question In This Controversy.
1 Whether the preaching of the Holy Gospel is properly not only a preaching of grace, which announces the forgiveness of sins, but also a preaching of repentance and reproof, rebuking unbelief, which, they say, is rebuked not in the Law, but alone through the Gospel.
**AFFIRMATIVE THESES: Pure Doctrine of God’s Word.
2 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is to be maintained in the Church with great diligence as an especially brilliant light, by which, according to the admonition of St. Paul, the Word of God is rightly divided.
3 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the Law is properly a divine doctrine, which teaches what is right and pleasing to God, and reproves everything that is sin and contrary to God’s will.
4 3. For this reason, then, everything that reproves sin is, and belongs to, the preaching of the Law.
5 4. But the Gospel is properly such a doctrine as teaches what man who has not observed the Law, and therefore is condemned by it, is to believe, namely, that Christ has expiated and made satisfaction for all sins, and has obtained and acquired for him, without any merit of his [no merit of the sinner intervening], forgiveness of sins, righteousness that avails before God, and eternal life.
6 5. But since the term Gospel is not used in one and the same sense in the Holy Scriptures, on account of which this dissension originally arose, we believe, teach, and confess that if by the term Gospel is understood the entire doctrine of Christ which He proposed in His ministry, as also did His apostles (in which sense it is employed, Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21), it is correctly said and written that the Gospel is a preaching of repentance and of the forgiveness of sins.
7 6. But if the Law and the Gospel, likewise also Moses himself [as] a teacher of the Law and Christ as a preacher of the Gospel are contrasted with one another, we believe, teach, and confess that the Gospel is not a preaching of repentance or reproof, but properly nothing else than a preaching of consolation, and a joyful message which does not reprove or terrify, but comforts consciences against the terrors of the Law, points alone to the merit of Christ, and raises them up again by the lovely preaching of the grace and favor of God, obtained through Christ’s merit.
8 7. As to the revelation of sin, because the veil of Moses hangs before the eyes of all men as long as they hear the bare preaching of the Law, and nothing concerning Christ, and therefore do not learn from the Law to perceive their sins aright, but either become presumptuous hypocrites [who swell with the opinion of their own righteousness] as the Pharisees, or despair like Judas, Christ takes the Law into His hands, and explains it spiritually, Matt. 5:21ff ; Rom. 7:14. And thus the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all sinners [ Rom. 1:18 ], how great it is; by this means they are directed [sent back] to the Law, and then first learn from it to know aright their sins-a knowledge which Moses never could have forced out of them.
9 Accordingly, although the preaching of the suffering and death of Christ, the Son of God, is an earnest and terrible proclamation and declaration of God’s wrath, whereby men are first led into the Law aright, after the veil of Moses has been removed from them, so that they first know aright how great things God in His Law requires of us, none of which we can observe, and therefore are to seek all our righteousness in Christ:
10 8. Yet as long as all this (namely, Christ’s suffering and death) proclaims God’s wrath and terrifies man, it is still not properly the preaching of the Gospel, but the preaching of Moses and the Law, and therefore a foreign work of Christ, by which He arrives at His proper office, that is, to preach grace, console, and quicken, which is properly the preaching of the Gospel.
NEGATIVE THESES: Contrary Doctrine which is Rejected.**
11 Accordingly we reject and regard as incorrect and injurious the dogma that the Gospel is properly a preaching of repentance or reproof, and not alone a preaching of grace; for thereby the Gospel is again converted into a doctrine of the Law, the merit of Christ and Holy Scripture are obscured, Christians robbed of true consolation, and the door is opened again to [the errors and superstitions of] the Papacy.
VI. The Third Use of the Law.
STATUS CONTROVERSIAE: The Principal Question In This Controversy.
1 Since the Law was given to men for three reasons: first, that thereby outward discipline might be maintained against wild, disobedient men [and that wild and intractable men might be restrained, as though by certain bars]; secondly, that men thereby may be led to the knowledge of their sins; thirdly, that after they are regenerate and [much of] the flesh notwithstanding cleaves to them, they might on this account have a fixed rule according to which they are to regulate and direct their whole life, a dissension has occurred between some few theologians concerning the third use of the Law, namely, whether it is to be urged or not upon regenerate Christians. The one side has said, Yea; the other, Nay.
Affirmative Theses: The True Christian Doctrine concerning This Controversy.
2 1. We believe, teach, and confess that, although men truly believing [in Christ] and truly converted to God have been freed and exempted from the curse and coercion of the Law, they nevertheless are not on this account without Law, but have been redeemed by the Son of God in order that they should exercise themselves in it day and night [that they should meditate upon God’s Law day and night, and constantly exercise themselves in its observance, Ps. 1:2 ], Ps. 119. For even our first parents before the Fall did not live without Law, who had the Law of God written also into their hearts, because they were created in the image of God, Gen. 1:26f.; 2:16ff; 3:3.
3 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the preaching of the Law is to be urged with diligence, not only upon the unbelieving and impenitent, but also upon true believers, who are truly converted, regenerate, and justified by faith.
4 3. For although they are regenerate and renewed in the spirit of their mind, yet in the present life this regeneration and renewal is not complete, but only begun, and believers are, by the spirit of their mind, in a constant struggle against the flesh, that is, against the corrupt nature and disposition which cleaves to us unto death. On account of this old Adam, which still inheres in the understanding, the will, and all the powers of man, it is needful that the Law of the Lord always shine before them, in order that they may not from human devotion institute wanton and self-elected cults [that they may frame nothing in a matter of religion from the desire of private devotion, and may not choose divine services not instituted by God’s Word]; likewise, that the old Adam also may not employ his own will, but may be subdued against his will, not only by the admonition and threatening of the Law, but also by punishments and blows, so that he may follow and surrender himself captive to the Spirit, 1 Cor. 9:27; Rom. 6:12, Gal. 6:14; Ps. 119:1ff ; Heb. 13:21 (Heb. 12:1).
5 4. Now, as regards the distinction between the works of the Law and the fruits of the Spirit, we believe, teach, and confess that the works which are done according to the Law are and are called works of the Law as long as they are only extorted from man by urging the punishment and threatening of God’s wrath.
6 5. Fruits of the Spirit, however, are the works which the Spirit of God who dwells in believers works through the regenerate, and which are done by believers so far as they are regenerate [spontaneously and freely], as though they knew of no command, threat, or reward; for in this manner the children of God live in the Law and walk according to the Law of God, which [mode of living] St. Paul in his epistles calls the Law of Christ and the Law of the mind, Rom. 7:25; 8:7; Rom. 8:2; Gal. 6:2.
7 6. Thus the Law is and remains both to the penitent and impenitent, both to regenerate and unregenerate men, one [and the same] Law, namely, the immutable will of God; and the difference, so far as concerns obedience, is alone in man, inasmuch as one who is not yet regenerate does for the Law out of constraint and unwillingly what it requires of him (as also the regenerate do according to the flesh); but the believer, so far as he is regenerate, does without constraint and with a willing spirit that which no threatenings [however severe] of the Law could ever extort from him.
Negative Theses. False Contrary Doctrine.
8 Accordingly, we reject as a dogma and error injurious to, and conflicting with, Christian discipline and true godliness the teaching that the Law in the above-mentioned way and degree is not to be urged upon Christians and true believers, but only upon unbelievers, non-Christians, and the impenitent.
VII. The Lord's Supper.
1 Although the Zwinglian teachers are not to be reckoned among the theologians who affiliate with [acknowledge and profess] the Augsburg Confession, as they separated from them at the very time when this Confession was presented, nevertheless, since they are intruding themselves [into their assembly] and are attempting, under the name of this Christian Confession, to spread their error, we intend also to make a needful statement [we have judged that the Church of Christ should be instructed also] concerning this controversy.
STATUS CONTROVERSIAE: Chief Controversy between Our Doctrine and That of the Sacramentarians regarding This Article.
2 Whether in the Holy Supper the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are truly and essentially present, are distributed with the bread and wine, and received with the mouth by all those who use this Sacrament, whether they be worthy or unworthy, godly or ungodly, believing or unbelieving; by the believing for consolation and life, by the unbelieving for judgment? The Sacramentarians say, No; we say, Yes.
3 For the explanation of this controversy it is to be noted in the beginning that there are two kinds of Sacramentarians. Some are gross Sacramentarians, who declare in plain (deutschen), clear words as they believe in their hearts, that in the Holy Supper nothing but bread and wine is present, and distributed and received with the mouth. 4 Others, however, are subtle Sacramentarians, and the most injurious of all, who partly speak very speciously in our own words, and pretend that they also believe a true presence of the true, essential, living body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, however, that 5 this occurs spiritually through faith. Nevertheless they retain under these specious words precisely the former gross opinion, namely, that in the Holy Supper nothing is present and received with the mouth except bread and wine. For with them the word spiritually means nothing else than the Spirit of Christ or the power of the absent body of Christ and His merit, which is present; but the body of Christ is in no mode or way present, except only above in the highest heaven, to which we should elevate ourselves into heaven by the thoughts of our faith, and there, not at all, however, in the bread and wine of the Holy Supper, should seek this body and blood [of Christ].
AFFIRMATIVE THESES: Confession of the Pure Doctrine concerning the Holy Supper against the Sacramentarians.
6 1. We believe, teach, and confess that in the Holy Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, and are truly distributed and received with the bread and wine.
7 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the words of the testament of Christ are not to be understood otherwise than as they read, according to the letter, so that the bread does not signify the absent body and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but that, on account of the sacramental union, they [the bread and wine] are truly the body and blood of Christ.
8 3. Now, as to the consecration, we believe, teach, and confess that no work of man or recitation of the minister [of the church] produces this presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but that this is to be ascribed only and alone to the almighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 4. But at the same time we also believe, teach, and confess unanimously that in the use of the Holy Supper the words of the institution of Christ should in no way be omitted, but should be publicly recited, as it is written 1 Cor. 10:16: The cup of blessing which we bless, etc. This blessing occurs through the recitation of the words of Christ.
10 5. The grounds, however, on which we stand against the Sacramentarians in this matter are those which Dr. Luther has laid down in his Large Confession concerning the Lord’s Supper.
The first is this article 11 of our Christian faith: Jesus Christ is true, essential, natural, perfect God and man in one person, undivided and inseparable.
12 The second: That God’s right hand is everywhere; at which Christ is placed in deed and in truth according to His human nature, [and therefore] being present, rules, and has in His hands and beneath His feet everything that is in heaven and on earth [as Scripture says, Eph. 1:22 ], where no man else, nor angel, but only the Son of Mary is placed; hence He can do this [those things which we have said].
13 The third: That God’s Word is not false, and does not deceive.
14 The fourth: That God has and knows of various modes of being in any place, and not only the one [is not bound to the one] which philosophers call localis (local) for circumscribed].
15 6. We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually by faith, but also orally; yet not in a Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, heavenly mode, because of the sacramental union; as the words of Christ clearly show, when Christ gives direction to take, eat, and drink, as was also done by the apostles; for it is written Mark 14:23: And they all drank of it. St. Paul likewise says, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? that is: He who eats this bread eats the body of Christ, which also the chief ancient teachers of the Church, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo I, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, unanimously testify.
16 7. We believe, teach, and confess that not only the true believers [in Christ] and the worthy, but also the unworthy and unbelievers, receive the true body and blood of Christ; however, not for life and consolation, but for judgment and condemnation, if they are not converted and do not repent, 1 Cor. 11:27-29.
17 For although they thrust Christ from themselves as a Savior, yet they must admit Him even against their will as a strict Judge, who is just as present also to exercise and render judgment upon impenitent guests as He is present to work life and consolation in the hearts of the true believers and worthy guests.
18 8. We believe, teach, and confess also that there is only one kind of unworthy guests, namely, those who do not believe, concerning whom it is written John 3:18: He that believeth not is condemned already. And this judgment becomes greater and more grievous, being aggravated, by the unworthy use of the Holy Supper, 1 Cor. 11:29.
19 9. We believe, teach, and confess that no true believer, as long as he retains living faith, however weak he may be, receives the Holy Supper to his judgment, which was instituted especially for Christians weak in faith, yet penitent, for the consolation and strengthening of their weak faith [Matt. 9:12; 11:5. 28.
20 10. We believe, teach, and confess that all the worthiness of the guests of this heavenly feast is and consists in the most holy obedience and perfect merit of Christ alone, which we appropriate to ourselves by true faith, and whereof [of the application of this merit] we are assured by the Sacrament, and not at all in [but in nowise does this worthiness depend upon] our virtues or inward and outward preparations.
Negative Theses: Contrary, Condemned Doctrines of the Sacramentarians.
21 On the other hand, we unanimously reject and condemn all the following erroneous articles, which are opposed and contrary to the doctrine presented above, the simple faith, and the [pure] confession concerning the Lord’s Supper;
22 1. The papistic transubstantiation, when it is taught in the Papacy that in the Holy Supper the bread and wine lose their substance and natural essence, and are thus annihilated; that they are changed into the body of Christ, and the outward form alone remains.
23 2. The papistic sacrifice of the Mass for the sins of the living and the dead.
24 3. That [the sacrilege whereby] to laymen one form only of the Sacrament is given, and, contrary to the plain words of the testament of Christ, the cup is withheld from them, and they are [thus] deprived of His blood.
25 4. When it is taught that the words of the testament of Christ must not be understood or believed simply as they read, but that they are obscure expressions, whose meaning must be sought first in other passages of Scripture.
26 5. That in the Holy Supper the body of Christ is not received orally with the bread; but that with the mouth only bread and wine are received, the body of Christ, however, only spiritually by faith.
27 6. That the bread and wine in the Holy Supper are nothing more than [symbols or] tokens by which Christians recognize one another.
28 7. That the bread and wine are only figures, similitudes, and representations of the far absent body and blood of Christ.
29 8. That the bread and wine are no more than a memorial, seal, and pledge, through which we are assured that when faith elevates itself to heaven, it there becomes partaker of the body and blood of Christ as truly as we eat bread and drink wine in the Supper.
30 9. That the assurance and confirmation of our faith [concerning salvation] in the Holy Supper occur through the external signs of bread and wine alone, and not through the true, [verily] present body and blood of Christ.
31 10. That in the Holy Supper only the power, efficacy, and merit of the absent body and blood of Christ are distributed.
32 11. That the body of Christ is so enclosed in heaven that it can in no way be at once and at one time in many or all places upon earth where His Holy Supper is celebrated.
33 12. That Christ has not promised, neither could have effected, the essential presence of His body and blood in the Holy Supper, because the nature and property of His assumed human nature cannot suffer nor permit it.
34 13. That God, according to [even by] all His omnipotence (which is dreadful to hear), is not able to cause His body to be essentially present in more than one place at one time.
35 14. That not the omnipotent words of Christ’s testament, but faith, produces and makes [is the cause of] the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper.
36 15. That believers must not seek the body [and blood] of Christ in the bread and wine of the Holy Supper, but raise their eyes from the bread to heaven and there seek the body of Christ.
37 16. That unbelieving, impenitent Christians do not receive the true body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but only bread and wine.
38 17. That the worthiness of the guests at this heavenly meal consists not alone in true faith in Christ, but also in the external preparation of men.
39 18. That even the true believers, who have and retain a true, living, pure faith in Christ, can receive this Sacrament to their judgment, because they are still imperfect in their outward life.
40 19. That the external visible elements of the bread and wine should be adored in the Holy Sacrament.
41 20. Likewise, we consign also to the just judgment of God all presumptuous, frivolous, blasphemous questions (which decency forbids to mention) and [other] expressions, which most blasphemously and with great offense [to the Church] are proposed by the Sacramentarians in a gross, carnal, Capernaitic way concerning the supernatural, heavenly mysteries of this Sacrament.
42 21. Hence we hereby utterly [reject and] condemn the Capernaitic eating of the body of Christ, as though [we taught that] His flesh were rent with the teeth, and digested like other food, which the Sacramentarians, against the testimony of their conscience, after all our frequent protests, wilfully force upon us, and in this way make our doctrine odious to their hearers; and on the other hand, we maintain and believe, according to the simple words of the testament of Christ, the true, yet supernatural eating of the body of Christ, as also the drinking of His blood, which human senses and reason do not comprehend, but as in all other articles of faith our reason is brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and this mystery is not apprehended otherwise than by faith alone, and revealed in the Word alone.
VIII. The Person of Christ.
1 From the controversy concerning the Holy Supper a disagreement has arisen between the pure theologians of the Augsburg Confession and the Calvinists, who also have confused some other theologians, concerning the person of Christ and the two natures in Christ and their properties.
STATUS CONTROVERSIAE: Chief Controversy In This Dissension.
2 The chief question, however, has been whether, because of the personal union, the divine and human natures, as also their properties, have realiter, that is, in deed and truth, a communion with one another in the person of Christ, and how far this communion extends.
3 The Sacramentarians have asserted that the divine and human natures in Christ are united personally in such a way that neither has realiter, that is, in deed and truth, in common with the other that which is peculiar to either nature, but that they have in common nothing more than the name alone. For unio, they plainly say, facit communia nomina, i. e., the personal union makes nothing more than the names common, namely, that God is called man, and man God, yet in such a way that God has nothing realiter, that is, in deed and truth, in common with humanity, and humanity nothing in common with divinity, its majesty and properties. Dr. Luther, and those who held with him, have contended for the contrary against the Sacramentarians.
Affirmative Theses: Pure Doctrine of the Christian Church concerning the Person of Christ.
4 To explain this controversy, and settle it according to the guidance [analogy] of our Christian faith, our doctrine, faith, and confession is as follows:
5 1. That the divine and human natures in Christ are personally united, so that there are not two Christs, one the Son of God, the other the Son of man, but that one and the same is the Son of God and Son of man, Luke 1:35; Rom. 9:5.
6 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the divine and human natures are not mingled into one substance, nor the one changed into the other, but that each retains its own essential properties, which [can] never become the properties of the other nature.
7 3. The properties of the divine nature are: to be almighty, eternal, infinite, and to be, according to the property of its nature and its natural essence, of itself, everywhere present, to know everything, etc.; which never become properties of the human nature.
8 4. The properties of the human nature are: to be a corporeal creature, to be flesh and blood, to be finite and circumscribed, to suffer, to die, to ascend and descend, to move from one place to another, to suffer hunger, thirst, cold, heat, and the like; which never become properties of the divine nature.
9 5. As the two natures are united personally, i. e., in one person, we believe, teach, and confess that this union is not such a copulation and connection that neither nature has anything in common with the other personally, i.e . because of the personal union, as when two boards are glued together, where neither gives anything to the other or takes anything from the other. But here is the highest communion, which God truly has with the [assumed] man, from which personal union, and the highest and ineffable communion resulting therefrom, there flows everything human that is said and believed concerning God, and everything divine that is said and believed concerning the man Christ; as the ancient teachers of the Church explained this union and communion of the natures by the illustration of iron glowing with fire, and also by the union of body and soul in man.
10 6. Hence we believe, teach, and confess that God is man and man is God, which could not be if the divine and human natures had in deed and truth absolutely no communion with one another.
11 For how could the man, the son of Mary, in truth be called or be God, or the Son of God the Most High, if His humanity were not personally united with the Son of God, and He thus had realiter, that is, in deed and truth, nothing in common with Him except only the name of God?
12 7. Hence we believe, teach, and confess that Mary conceived and bore not a mere man and no more, but the true Son of God; therefore she also is rightly called and truly is the mother of God.
13 8. Hence we also believe, teach, and confess that it was not a mere man who suffered, died, was buried, descended to hell, arose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and was raised to the majesty and almighty power of God for us, but a man whose human nature has such a profound [close], ineffable union and communion with the Son of God that it is [has become] one person with Him.
14 9. Therefore the Son of God truly suffered for us, however, according to the property of the human nature which He assumed into the unity of His divine person and made His own, so that He might be able to suffer and be our High Priest for our reconciliation with God, as it is written 1 Cor. 2:8: They have crucfied the Lord of glory. And Acts 20:28: We are purchased with God’s blood.
15 10. Hence we believe, teach, and confess that the Son of Man is realiter, that is, in deed and truth, exalted according to His human nature to the right hand of the almighty majesty and power of God, because He [that man] was assumed into God when He was conceived of the Holy Ghost in His mother’s womb, and His human nature was personally united with the Son of the Highest.
16 11. This majesty He [Christ] always had according to the personal union, and yet He abstained from it in the state of His humiliation, and on this account truly increased in all wisdom and favor with God and men; therefore He exercised this majesty, not always, but when [as often as] it pleased Him, until after His resurrection He entirely laid aside the form of a servant, but not the [human] nature, and was established in the full use, manifestation, and declaration of the divine majesty, and thus entered into His glory, Phil. 2:6ff , so that now not only as God, but also as man He knows all things, can do all things, is present with all creatures, and has under His feet and in His hands everything that is in heaven and on earth and under the earth, as He Himself testifies Matt. 28:18; John 13:3: All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. And St. Paul says Eph. 4:10: He ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things. And this His power, He, being present, can exercise everywhere, and to Him everything is possible and everything is known.
17 12. Hence He also is able and it is very easy for Him to impart, as one who is present, His true body and blood in the Holy Supper, not according to the mode or property of the human nature, but according to the mode and property of the right hand of God, as Dr. Luther says in accordance with our Christian faith for children, which presence (of Christ in the Holy Supper] is not [physical or] earthly, nor Capernaitic; nevertheless it is true and substantial, as the words of His testament read: This is, is, is My body, etc.
18 By this our doctrine, faith, and confession the person of Christ is not divided, as it was by Nestorius, who denied the communicatio idiomatum, that is, the true communion of the properties of both natures in Christ, and thus divided the person, as Luther has explained in his book Concerning Councils. Neither are the natures together with their properties confounded with one another [or mingled] into one essence (as Eutyches erred); nor is the human nature in the person of Christ denied or annihilated; nor is either nature changed into the other; but Christ is and remains to all eternity God and man in one undivided person, which, next to the Holy Trinity, is, as the Apostle testifies, 1 Tim. 3:16, the highest mystery, upon which our only consolation, life, and salvation depends.
NEGATIVE THESES: Contrary False Doctrine concerning the Person of Christ.
19 Accordingly, we reject and condemn as contrary to God’s Word and our simple [pure] Christian faith all the following erroneous articles, when it is taught:
20 1. That God and man in Christ are not one person, but that the Son of God is one, and the Son of Man another, as Nestorius raved.
21 2. That the divine and human natures have been mingled with one another into one essence, and the human nature has been changed into the Deity, as Eutyches fanatically asserted.
22 3. That Christ is not true, natural, and eternal God, as Arius held [blasphemed].
23 4. That Christ did not have a true human nature [consisting] of body and soul, as Marcion imagined.
24 5. Quod unio personalis faciat tantum communia nomina, that is, that the personal union renders only the names and titles common.
25 6. That it is only phrasis et modus loquendi, that is, a phrase and mode of speaking, when it is said: God is man, man is God; since Divinity, as they say, has realiter, that is, in deed [and truth], nothing in common with the humanity, nor the humanity with the Deity.
26 7. That there is merely communicatio [idiomatum] verbalis [without reality], that is, that it is nothing but words when it is said the Son of God died for the sins of the world; the Son of Man has become almighty.
27 8. That the human nature in Christ has become an infinite essence in the same manner as the Divinity, and that it is everywhere present in the same manner as the divine nature because of this essential power and property, communicated to, and poured out into, the human nature and separated from God.
28 9. That the human nature has become equal to and like the divine nature in its substance and essence, or in its essential properties.
29 10. That the human nature of Christ is locally extended to all places of heaven and earth, which should not be ascribed even to the divine nature.
30 11. That because of the property of the human nature it is impossible for Christ to be able to be at the same time in more than one place, much less everywhere, with His body.
31 12. That only the mere humanity has suffered for us and redeemed us, and that the Son of God in the suffering had actually no communion with the humanity, as though it did not concern Him.
32 13. That Christ is present with us on earth in the Word, the Sacraments, and in all our troubles, only according to His divinity, and that this presence does not at all pertain to His human nature, according to which also, as they say, He, after having redeemed us by His suffering and death, has nothing to do with us any longer upon earth.
33 14. That the Son of God who assumed the human nature, after He has laid aside the form of a servant, does not perform all the works of His omnipotence in, through, and with His human nature, but only some, and only in the place where His human nature is locally.
34 15. That according to His human nature He is not at all capable of omnipotence and other attributes of the divine nature, against the express declaration of Christ, Matt. 28:18: All power is given unto He in heaven and in earth, and of St. Paul, Col. 2:9: In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
35 16. That to Him [to Christ according to His humanity] greater power is given in heaven and upon earth, namely, greater and more than to all angels and other creatures, but that He has no communion with the omnipotence of God, nor that this has been given Him. Hence they devise mediam potentiam, that is, a power between the almighty power of God and the power of other creatures given to Christ according to His humanity by the exaltation, such as would be less than God’s almighty power and greater than that of other creatures.
36 17. That Christ according to His human mind has a certain limit as to how much He is to know, and that He knows no more than is becoming and needful for Him to know for [the execution of] His office as Judge.
37 18. That Christ does not yet have a perfect knowledge of God and all His works; of whom nevertheless it is written Col. 2:3: In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
38 19. That it is impossible for Christ according to His human mind to know what has been from eternity, what at present is occurring everywhere, and what will be in eternity.
39 20. When it is taught, and the passage Matt. 28:18: All power is given unto Me, etc., is thus interpreted and blasphemously perverted, namely, that all power in heaven and on earth was restored, that is, delivered again to Christ according to the divine nature, at the resurrection and His ascension to heaven, as though He had also according to His divinity laid this aside and abandoned it in His state of humiliation. By this doctrine not only the words of the testament of Christ are perverted, but also the way is prepared for the accursed Arian heresy, so that finally the eternal deity of Christ is denied, and thus Christ, and with Him our salvation, are entirely lost if this false doctrine were not firmly contradicted from the immovable foundation of the divine Word and our simple Christian [catholic] faith.
IX. The Descent of Christ into Hell.
STATUS CONTROVERSIAE: Chief Controversy concerning This Article.**
1 It has also been disputed among some theologians who have subscribed to the Augsburg Confession concerning this article: When and in what manner the Lord Christ, according to our simple Christian faith, descended to hell: whether this was done before or after His death; also, whether it occurred according to the soul alone, or according to the divinity alone, or with body and soul, spiritually or bodily; also, whether this article belongs to the passion or to the glorious victory and triumph of Christ.
2 But since this article, as also the preceding, cannot be comprehended by the senses or by our reason, but must be grasped by faith alone, it is our unanimous opinion that there should be no disputation concerning it, but that it should be believed 3 and taught only in the simplest manner; according as Dr. Luther, of blessed memory, in his sermon at Torgau in the year 1533 has explained this article in an altogether Christian manner, separated from it all useless, unnecessary questions, and admonished all godly Christians to Christian simplicity of faith.
4 For it is sufficient that we know that Christ descended into hell, destroyed hell for all believers, and delivered them from the power of death and of the devil, from eternal condemnation and the jaws of hell. But how this occurred we should [not curiously investigate, but] reserve until the other world, where not only this point [mystery], but also still others will be revealed, which we here simply believe, and cannot comprehend with our blind reason.
X. Church Rites.
Which are [Commonly] Called Adiaphora or Matters of Indifference.
1 Concerning ceremonies or church rites which are neither commanded nor forbidden in God’s Word, but have been introduced into the Church for the sake of good order and propriety, a dissension has also occurred among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession.
STATUS CONTROVERSIAE: Chief Controversy concerning This Article.
2 The chief question, however, has been, whether, in time of persecution and in case of confession, even if the enemies of the Gospel have not reached an agreement with us in doctrine, some abrogated ceremonies, which in themselves are matters of indifference and are neither commanded nor forbidden by God, may nevertheless, upon the pressure and demand of the adversaries, be reestablished without violence to conscience, and we may thus [rightly] have conformity with them in such ceremonies and adiaphora. To this the one side has said Yea, the other, Nay.
AFFIRMATIVE THESES: The Correct and True Doctrine and Confession concerning This Article.
3 1. For settling also this controversy we unanimously believe, teach, and confess that the ceremonies or church rites which are neither commanded nor forbidden in God’s Word, but have been instituted alone for the sake of propriety and good order, are in and of themselves no divine worship, nor even a part of it. Matt. 15:9:In vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
4 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the congregation of God of every place and every time has the power, according to its circumstances, to change such ceremonies in such manner as may be most useful and edifying to the congregation of God.
5 3. Nevertheless, that herein all frivolity and offense should be avoided, and special care should be taken to exercise forbearance towards the weak in faith. 1 Cor. 8:9; Rom. 14:13.
6 4. We believe, teach, and confess that in time of persecution, when a plain [and steadfast] confession is required of us, we should not yield to the enemies in regard to such adiaphora, as the apostle has written Gal. 5:1: Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage. Also 2 Cor. 6:14: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, etc. For what concord hath light with darkness? Also Gal. 2:5: To whom we gave place, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the Gospel might remain with you. For in such a case it is no longer a question concerning adiaphora, but concerning the truth of the Gospel, concerning [preserving] Christian liberty, and concerning sanctioning open idolatry, as also concerning the prevention of offense to the weak in the faith [how care should be taken lest idolatry be openly sanctioned and the weak in faith be offended]; in which we have nothing to concede, but should plainly confess and suffer on that account what God sends, and what He allows the enemies of His Word to inflict upon us.
7 5. We believe, teach, and confess also that no Church should condemn another because one has less or more external ceremonies not commanded by God than the other, if otherwise there is agreement among them in doctrine and all its articles, as also in the right use of the holy Sacraments, according to the well-known saying: Dissonantia ieiunii non dissolvit consonantiam fidei, Disagreement in fasting does not destroy agreement in faith.
NEGATIVE THESES: False Doctrine concerning This Article.
8 Accordingly, we reject and condemn as wrong and contrary to God’s Word when it is taught:
9 1. That human ordinances and institutions in the church should be regarded as in themselves a divine worship or part of it.
10 2. When such ceremonies, ordinances, and institutions are violently forced upon the congregation of God as necessary, contrary to its Christian liberty which it has in external things.
11 3. Also, that in time of persecution and public confession [when a clear confession is required] we may yield to the enemies of the Gospel in such adiaphora and ceremonies, or may come to an agreement with them (which causes injury to the truth).
12 4. Also, when these external ceremonies and adiaphora are abrogated in such a manner as though it were not free to the congregation of God to employ one or more [this or that] in Christian liberty, according to its circumstances, as may be most useful at any time to the Church [for edification].
XI. Election.
1 Concerning this article no public dissension has occurred among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession. But since it is a consolatory article, if treated properly, and lest offensive disputations concerning the same be instituted in the future, it is also explained in this writing.
AFFIRMATIVE THESES: The Pure and True Doctrine concerning This Article.
2 1. To begin with [First of all], the distinction between praescientia et praedestinatio, that is, between God’s foreknowledge and His eternal election, ought to be accurately observed.
3 2. For the foreknowledge of God is nothing else than that God knows all things before they happen, as it is written Dan. 2:28: There is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days.
4 3. This foreknowledge extends alike over the godly and the wicked, but it is not the cause of evil, neither of sin, namely, of doing what is wrong (which originally arises from the devil and the wicked, perverse will of man), nor of their ruin [that men perish], for which they themselves are responsible [which they must ascribe to themselves]; but it only regulates it, and fixes a limit to it [how far it should progress and] how long it should last, and all this to the end that it should serve His elect for their salvation, notwithstanding that it is evil in itself.
5 4. The predestination or eternal election of God, however, extends only over the godly, beloved children of God, being a cause of their salvation, which He also provides, as well as disposes what belongs thereto. Upon this [predestination of God] our salvation is founded so firmly that the gates of hell cannot overcome it. John 10:28; Matt. 16:18.
6 5. This [predestination of God] is not to be investigated in the secret counsel of God, but to be sought in the Word of God, where it is also revealed.
7 6. But the Word of God leads us to Christ, who is the Book of Life, in whom all are written and elected that are to be saved in eternity, as it is written Eph. 1:4: He hath chosen us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world.
8 7. This Christ calls to Himself all sinners and promises them rest, and He is in earnest [seriously wills] that all men should come to Him and suffer themselves to be helped, to whom He offers Himself in His Word, and wishes them to hear it and not to stop their ears or [neglect and] despise the Word. Moreover, He promises the power and working of the Holy Ghost, and divine assistance for perseverance and eternal salvation [that we may remain steadfast in the faith and attain eternal salvation].
9 8. Therefore we should judge concerning this our election to eternal life neither from reason nor from the Law of God, which lead us either into a reckless, dissolute, Epicurean life or into despair, and excite pernicious thoughts in the hearts of men, for they cannot, as long as they follow their reason, successfully refrain from thinking: If God has elected me to salvation, I cannot be condemned, no matter what I do; and again: If I am not elected to eternal life, it is of no avail what good I do; it is all [all my efforts are] in vain anyway.
10 9. But it [the true judgment concerning predestination] must be learned alone from the holy Gospel concerning Christ, in which it is clearly testified that God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all, and that He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and believe in the Lord Christ. Rom. 11:32; Ezek. 18:23; 33:11; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 John 2:2.
11 10. Whoever, now, is thus concerned about the revealed will of God, and proceeds according to the order which St. Paul has observed in the Epistle to the Romans, who first directs men to repentance, to knowledge of sins, to faith in Christ, to divine obedience, before he speaks of the mystery of the eternal election of God, to him this doctrine [concerning God’s predestination] is useful and consolatory.
12 11. However, that many are called and few chosen, Matt. 22:14, does not mean that God is not willing to save everybody; but the reason is that they either do not at all hear God’s Word, but wilfully despise it, stop their ears and harden their hearts, and in this manner foreclose the ordinary way to the Holy Ghost, so that He cannot perform His work in them, or, when they have heard it, make light of it again and do not heed it, for which [that they perish] not God or His election, but their wickedness, is responsible. [2 Pet. 2:1ff ; Luke 11:49. 52; Heb. 12:25f.]
13 12. Thus far a Christian should occupy himself [in meditation] with the article concerning the eternal election of God, as it has been revealed in God’s Word, which presents to us Christ as the Book of Life, which He opens and reveals to us by the preaching of the holy Gospel, as it is written Rom. 8:30: Whom He did predestinate, them He also called. In Him we are to seek the eternal election of the Father, who has determined in His eternal divine counsel that He would save no one except those who know His Son Christ and truly believe on Him. Other thoughts are to be [entirely] banished [from the minds of the godly], as they proceed not from God, but from the suggestion of the Evil Foe, whereby he attempts to weaken or entirely to remove from us the glorious consolation which we have in this salutary doctrine, namely, that we know [assuredly] that out of pure grace, without any merit of our own, we have been elected in Christ to eternal life, and that no one can pluck us out of His hand; as He has not only promised this gracious election with mere words, but has also certified it with an oath and sealed it with the holy Sacraments, which we can [ought to] call to mind in our most severe temptations, and take comfort in them, and therewith quench the fiery darts of the devil.
14 13. Besides, we should use the greatest diligence to live according to the will of God, and, as St. Peter admonishes, 2 Pet. 1:10, make our calling sure, and especially adhere to [not recede a finger’s breadth from] the revealed Word: that can and will not fail us.
15 14. By this brief explanation of the eternal election of God His glory is entirely and fully given to God, that out of pure mercy alone, without all merit of ours, He saves us according to the purpose of His will; besides, also, no cause is given any one for despondency or a vulgar, wild life [no opportunity is afforded either for those more severe agitations of mind and faintheartedness or for Epicureanism].
Negative Theses: False Doctrine concerning This Article.
16 Accordingly, we believe and hold: When any teach the doctrine concerning the gracious election of God to eternal life in such a manner that troubled Christians cannot comfort themselves therewith, but are thereby led to despondency or despair, or the impenitent are strengthened in their wantonness, that such doctrine is treated [wickedly and erroneously] not according to the Word and will of God, but according to reason and the instigation of the cursed Satan. For, as the apostle testifies, Rom. 15:4, whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope. Therefore we reject the following errors:
17 1. As when it is taught that God is unwilling that all men repent and believe the Gospel.
18 2. Also, that when God calls us to Himself, He is not in earnest that all men should come to Him.
19 3. Also, that God is unwilling that every one should be saved, but that some, without regard to their sins, from the mere counsel, purpose, and will of God, are ordained to condemnation so that they cannot be saved.
20 4. Also, that not only the mercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ, but also in us there is a cause of God’s election, on account of which God has elected us to everlasting life.
21 All these are blasphemous and dreadful erroneous doctrines, whereby all the comfort which they have in the holy Gospel and the use of the holy Sacraments is taken from Christians, and therefore should not be tolerated in the Church of God.
22 This is the brief and simple explanation of the controverted articles, which for a time have been debated and taught controversially among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession. Hence every simple Christian, according to the guidance of God’s Word and his simple Catechism, can perceive what is right or wrong, since not only the pure doctrine has been stated, but also the erroneous contrary doctrine has been repudiated and rejected, and thus the offensive divisions that have occurred are thoroughly settled [and decided].
23 May Almighty God and the Father of our Lord Jesus grant the grace of His Holy Ghost that we all may be one in Him, and constantly abide in this Christian unity, which is well pleasing to Him! Amen.
XII. Other Sects.
1 In order that such [heresies and sects] may not silently be ascribed to us, because, in the preceding explanation, we have made no mention of them, we intend at the end [of this writing] simply to enumerate the mere articles wherein they [the heretics of our time] err and teach contrary to our Christian faith and confession to which we have often referred.
Erroneous Articles of the Anabaptists.
2 The Anabaptists are divided among themselves into many factions, as one contends for more, another for less errors; however, they all in common propound [profess] such doctrine as is to be tolerated or allowed neither in the Church, nor in the commonwealth and secular government, nor in domestic life.
Articles that Cannot be Tolerated in the Church.
3 1. That Christ did not assume His body and blood from the Virgin Mary, but brought them with Him from heaven.
4 2. That Christ is not true God, but only [is superior to other saints, because He] has more gifts of the Holy Ghost than any other holy man.
5 3. That our righteousness before God consists not in the sole merit of Christ alone, but in renewal, and hence in our own godliness [uprightness] in which we walk. This is based in great part upon one’s own special, self-chosen [and humanly devised] spirituality [holiness], and in fact is nothing else than a new sort of monkery.
6 4. That children who are not baptized are not sinners before God, but righteous and innocent, who in their innocency, because they have not yet attained their reason [the use of reason], are saved without Baptism (which, according to their assertion, they do not need). Therefore they reject the entire doctrine concerning original sin and what belongs to it.
7 5. That children are not to be baptized until they have attained their reason [the use of reason], and can themselves confess their faith.
8 6. That the children of Christians, because they have been born of Christian and believing parents, are holy and children of God even without and before Baptism; and for this reason they neither attach much importance to the baptism of children nor encourage it, contrary to the express words of God’s promise which pertains only to those who keep His covenant and do not despise it. Gen. 17:7ff
9 7. That that is no true Christian congregation [church] in which sinners are still found.
10 8. That no sermon is to be heard nor attended in those churches in which formerly papal masses have been celebrated and said.
11 9. That one [a godly man] must not have anything to do with the ministers of the Church who preach the Gospel according to the Augsburg Confession, and rebuke the sermons and errors of the Anabaptists; also that he is neither to serve nor in any way to labor for them, but to flee from and shun them as perverters of God’s Word.
Articles that Cannot be Tolerated in the Government.
12 1. That under the New Testament the magistracy is not an estate pleasing to God.
13 2. That a Christian cannot with a good, inviolate conscience hold or discharge the office of magistrate.
14 3. That a Christian cannot without injury to conscience use the office of the magistracy against the wicked in matters as they occur [matters so requiring], nor that subjects may invoke for their protection and defense the power which the magistrates possess and have received from God.
15 4. That a Christian cannot with a good conscience take an oath, nor with an oath do homage [promise fidelity] to the hereditary prince of his country or sovereign.
16 5. That under the New Testament magistrates cannot, without injury to conscience, inflict capital punishment upon malefactors.
Articles that Cannot be Tolerated in Domestic Life.
17 1. That a Christian cannot with a good conscience hold or possess property, but is in duty bound to devote it to the common treasury.
18 2. That a Christian cannot with a good conscience be an innkeeper, merchant, or cutler [maker of arms].
19 3. That the married may be divorced on account of [diverse] faith, and the one may abandon the other and be married to another person who is of his faith.
Erroneous Articles of the Schwenkfeldians.
20 1. That all those have no true knowledge of Christ as reigning King of heaven who regard Christ according to the flesh as a creature.
21 2. That the flesh of Christ by His exaltation has assumed all divine properties in such a manner that Christ as man is in might, power, majesty, and glory altogether, as regards degree and position of essence equal to the Father and to the Word, so that now there is only one essence, property, will, and glory of both natures in Christ, and that the flesh of Christ belongs to the essence of the Holy Trinity.
22 3. That the ministry of the Church [ministry of the Word], the Word preached and heard, is not a means whereby God the Holy Ghost teaches men, and works in them the saving knowledge of Christ, conversion, repentance, faith, and new obedience.
23 4. That the water of Baptism is not a means whereby God the Lord seals the adoption of sons and works regeneration.
24 5. That bread and wine in the Holy Supper are not means through and by which Christ distributes His body and blood.
25 6. That a Christian who is truly regenerated by God’s Spirit can perfectly observe and fulfil the Law of God in this life.
26 7. That it is not a true Christian congregation [church] in which no public excommunication [some formal mode of excommunication] or no regular process of the ban [as it is commonly called] is observed.
27 8. That the minister of the church who is not on his part truly renewed, regenerate, righteous, and godly cannot teach other men with profit or distribute genuine, true Sacraments.
Error of the New Arians.
28 That Christ is not true, essential, natural God, of one eternal, divine essence with God the Father and the Holy Ghost, but is only adorned with divine majesty inferior to and alongside of God the Father [is so adorned with divine majesty, with the Father, that He is inferior to the Father].
Error of the Anti-Trinitarians.
29 This is an entirely new sect, not heard of before in Christendom, [composed of those] who believe, teach, and confess that there is not one only, eternal, divine essence of the Father Son, and Holy Ghost, but as God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons, so each person has its essence distinct and separate from the other persons of the Godhead; and that nevertheless they are either [some think] all three of equal power, wisdom, majesty, and glory, just as otherwise three men are distinct and separate from one another in their essence, or [others think that these three persons and essences are] unequal with one another in essence and properties, so that the Father alone is properly and truly God.
30 These and similar articles, one and all, with whatever other errors depend upon and follow from them, we reject and condemn as wrong, false, heretical, contrary to the Word of God, the three Creeds, the Augsburg Confession and Apology, the Smalcald Articles, and Luther’s Catechisms, against which all godly Christians of both high and low station are to be on their guard as they love the welfare and salvation of their souls.
31 That this is the doctrine, faith, and confession of us all, for which we will answer at the last day before the just Judge, our Lord Jesus Christ, and will neither secretly nor publicly speak or write anything against it, but that we intend by the grace of God to persevere therein, we have after mature deliberation testified, in the true fear of God and invocation of His name, by signing with our own hands [this Epitome]. (Source: https://bookofconcord.org/epitome/ )