This article was downloaded by: [Linnaeus University]On: 10 October 2014, At: 11:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International journal for the Study ofthe Christian ChurchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsc20

Notae ecclesiae in Luther's Von denKonziliis und KirchenKnut AlfsvågPublished online: 26 Feb 2008.

To cite this article: Knut Alfsvåg (2008) Notae ecclesiae in Luther's Von den Konziliis undKirchen , International journal for the Study of the Christian Church, 8:1, 33-42, DOI:10.1080/14742250701841731

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14742250701841731

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Notae ecclesiae in Luther’s Von den Konziliis und Kirchen

Knut Alfsvag

In times of crisis such as the Reformation, the quest for the true Church comes intofocus. In Luther’s most important contribution to this question, Von den Konziliis undKirchen (1539), he rejects the idea that the history of Fathers and Councils could be thesolution, though the Councils are significant as defence of the biblical faith. Instead,Luther identifies the true Church as the place where the Spirit sanctifies believersthrough the word of God, which is the most important nota ecclesiae. The presence ofthe divine as fact and goal is thus what characterises the true Church.

Keywords: Martin Luther; ecclesiology; notae ecclesiae; ecumenism; true Church

Where is the Church?

Where is the true Church? Where should we go to experience the fellowship which the Sonof God came to establish? These questions are always important in the life of the Church,and they become particularly urgent in times of crisis. When differing opinions become sodifferent that they appear as a rivalry between the true and the false Church, the quest forthe criteria for what is right becomes all-important.

This question came into focus, for example, in connection with the so-called Donatiststruggle in North Africa. The background to this struggle were the great persecutions inthe third and fourth centuries and the question of how the Church ought to deal withapostates who wanted to return to the Church after persecution. The struggle persisted,however, for a long time after the Church had won state recognition. Struggling with theDonatists, Augustine developed his answer to the question of the true Church, as adoctrine of the marks of the Church. These marks are four, he said: unity, holiness,catholicity and apostolicity.1 The true Church will retain continuity with the apostolic andoriginal Church, whilst at the same time being a universal fellowship continuing fromgeneration to generation.2

The theology of Western Europe after Augustine is based on the foundation heprovided. This is also true of ecclesiology. Thus, when Martin Luther, in a new era ofecclesiastical conflict, had to give his answer on the question of the true Church, henaturally made Augustine’s doctrine of the marks of the Church his point of departure.However, as Luther was the person he was, it is no wonder that he gave his answer his own

1Cf. Nicaeo-Constantinopolitan Creed: ‘Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam’.2Lohse, Martin Luther’s Theology, 283.

International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church

Vol. 8, No. 1, February 2008, 33–42

ISSN 1474-225X print/ISSN 1747-0324 online

� 2008 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/14742250701841731

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

26 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

distinctive stamp. His answer is examined below, after a discussion about the context inwhich the question was both asked and answered, thus enabling us to have a more preciseunderstanding of what Luther really tried to say.3

The Councils and the unity of the Church

Among the important political and theological problems in Germany after the Diet ofAugsburg in 1530 was the question of whether it would be possible to solve theecclesiastical division by summoning a council. This method had previously succeeded:the Council of Constance (1414–1418) had resolved the unity of the Church after thedivision of the papacy; and the Council of Florence (1439–1442) had even restoredunity with the Greek Church, although this was not very meaningful in the long term.The reform movement led by Luther had also asked for a council as the solution inthe current situation. The pope did not, however, like the idea of, again, being overruledby a council and was a clever enough politician to be able to postpone the council until1545.

Nevertheless, in 1538, it seemed for a while that a council might be a real possibilityand Luther and his co-operators started their preparations. Luther wrote the SmalcaldArticles as a presentation of the theology of the Lutheran reform movement;4 andMelanchthon wrote his On the Power and Primacy of the Pope to explain the attitude ofthe Evangelicals toward papacy.5 Finally, Luther wrote the work that I shall now explorein more detail, Von den Konziliis und Kirchen,6 where he discusses the idea of a council andgives a theological evaluation of what a council may and may not achieve in the actualsituation.

The first question Luther discusses in this book is the question of whether it is possibleto let the story of the Councils be the road to the restoration of lost unity. Could the unityof the Church be restored if all parties agreed to accept the decisions of the Councils andthe doctrines of the Church Fathers? Luther’s answer to the question is a resounding ‘No’,and he gives two reasons for his answer.7 One is that the decisions of the different Councilsoften contradict each other and they, therefore, cannot possibly be a coherent foundationfor unity.8 An agreement to build church unity on the decisions of the Councils willtherefore, according to Luther, be nothing more than a pseudo-agreement immediatelydissolving into an endless struggle about what to accept and what to reject from theCouncils and the Church Fathers.9 This is not an answer that Luther just makes up; he hasstudied the history of the Councils carefully and gives precise references for his

3For an overview of the literature on Luther’s ecclesiology, see Neebe, Apostolische Kirche, 20–31;Blaser, ‘Le peuple’, 131.4Bekenntnisschriften, 405–68.5Ibid., 469–98.6Luther, Kritische Gesamtausgabe, 1883 ff (hereafter WA) 50, 509–653; Luther, Luther’s Works,1955ff (hereafter LW), 41, 9–178; Dantine, Die Kirche, 22–40. Dantine gives a summary of Von denKonziliis und Kirchen, in the context of a presentation of some of Luther’s other ecclesiologicalworks.7Among the Protestants, Martin Bucer and among the Catholics, Georg Witzel for example, werepositive to this idea. For an analysis of Luther’s view in a historical perspective, see zur Muhlen. Dieauctoritas patrum’, 141–52.8WA 50, 520, 11–21; LW 41, 20; WA 50, 525, 31–526, 10; LW 41, 27.9WA 50, 542, 18–24; LW 41, 47.

34 K. Alfsvag

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

26 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

arguments.10 In addition, he gives a more principled argument. The Fathers themselves,Luther says – and he is obviously thinking particularly of Augustine – explicitly refer toScripture as the one infallible authority and were therefore reluctant themselves to pay toomuch attention to the views of Fathers and Councils.11 By founding the unity of theChurch on the unity of the Fathers, one is thus looking for a kind of unity that wasrejected by the very authority with which one tries to establish it.

Luther thus explicitly rejects that idea of the tradition of the Church as the criterion forand the way back to the unity of the Church. The Church does not have a coherenttradition; it has a plurality of differing traditions. To try to end the quest for the marks ofthe true Church by pointing to its history is, therefore, to Luther, completely meaningless.Luther does not entertain a romantic view of history that may adjust the history of theChurch according to an idea of how it should be. Differing opinions among leadingrepresentatives of the Church are left as they are; the tradition and history of the Church isdemythologised and left completely unusable as a potential theological authority.12

The history of the Church is, thus, not an unambiguous source to the understanding ofits essence. This does not mean, however, that the history of the Church is theologicallyirrelevant. On the contrary, the historical continuity with the Apostles is of immensetheological importance; it has to be there, no matter how much Councils and Fathers havedisagreed on important theological questions. The reason is that it is promised by Christ inMatt 28.20; it is thus an article of faith that one may not be able to demonstrateempirically13 but which, as a matter of theological necessity, is part of the Church’sconfession of faith.14 The Church was, is and ever will be until the coming of Christ and italways exists as a concrete, historical community even if it subsequently may be difficult toprove that it was there and there and there. Still, the continuity is there; and the existenceof this continuity is a decisive element in the ecclesiology of Martin Luther.

Armed with this insight, Luther then returns to the Councils and investigates themagain. From this perspective, they become both interesting and important. Liberated fromthe burden of having to present the definitive solution to the quest for the unity of theChurch – a burden the Councils cannot possibly carry – their history allows for anotherand considerably more important question. Is it possible to show continuity through thehistory of the Councils, when it is understood as the story of attempts to confess thebiblical faith and defend it against attacks from heterodoxy and misunderstandings? ‘Yes’,Luther says, it is definitely possible and to show it, he embarks upon a detailed explanation

10Luther used the books of Eusebius, Rufinus and other historians of the Early Church; in addition,he studied a printed collection of Council decisions that was published in 1538. For a presentation ofLuther’s sources, see LW 41, 7; and zur Muhlen, ‘Die auctoritas patrum’, 142.11WA 50, 524, 12–24; LW 41, 25. zur Muhlen, ‘Die auctoritas patrum’. That Luther based hisevaluation of the Fathers on Scripture is also emphasised.12In this respect, Luther also challenges the tendency in modern ecumenism to ensure the visibility ofthe Church by identifying catholicity and tradition.13Hohne, Luthers Anschauungen, 89–99. This view of the continuity of the Church, as based on thegospel, implies a critique of empirically based criteria of continuity that has to lead to a rejection ofthe Roman concept of tradition and succession. This is emphasised also by Hohne.14‘Es mus anders zugehen, weder wir aus Concilien und Vetern furwenden, oder mus keine Kirchegewest sein sint der Apostel Zeit, welchs nicht muglich ist, Denn da stehts: ‘‘Ich gleube eine HeiligeChristliche Kirche, Und, Ich bin bey euch bis zur welt Ende’’. Diese wort mussen nicht feilen, undsolten auch alle Concilia und Veter feilen, Der man mus heissen, ‘‘Ego veritas’’, Veter und Conciliasollen gegen im heissen, ‘‘Omnis homo mendax’’, wo sie widdernander weren.’ WA 50, 542, 25–32;LW 41, 47–48.

International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

26 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

of the Council of Nicaea, the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), and the Councils ofConstantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon.

The Councils may have delved into a lot of questions they could have ignored but,when it comes to defending the biblical revelation against differing opinions, they areactually remarkably consistent. In this way they show that the continuity of the Churchthrough history, which Luther first defined as a statement of faith, is closely related todocumented historical reality.15

As already mentioned above, Luther knows the history of the Councils well. Thus, hegives instructive lessons concerning the rejection of Arianism at the Council of Nicaea, therejection of the doctrine of justification by works at the Council of Jerusalem, theconfession of the deity of the Spirit at the Council of Constantinople, the rejection ofNestorianism at the Council of Ephesus and the rejection of Monophysitism at theCouncil of Chalcedon.16 Like modern church historians, Luther is somewhat scepticalabout the latter two. The struggle with Nestorianism and Monophysitism may have beenmore of a struggle concerned with unclear expressions and misunderstandings than realheterodoxy.17 But the actual decisions of the Councils are in Luther’s view no problem.They are actually of contemporary relevance, he argues: the rejection of Nestorianism is atthe same time a confession of communicatio idiomatum that is also very relevant againstmodern Nestorians such as Zwingli.18

For Luther, the Councils thus become theologically relevant when one sees that on thesubject under discussion, they do not establish new doctrine; and, they never go beyonddefending and confessing what is given in the original revelation. Their main task,actually, is to reject new articles of faith and, according to Luther, the five Councilsdiscussed here maintained this task fairly well.

This confirms Luther’s starting point: the fact that the unity of the Church cannot befounded on the decisions of the Councils. When these Councils are at their best and dowhat they are supposed to do, they all point to an authority that stands above them andfrom which they derive their own authority, that is, Holy Scripture. If one tries to makethe Councils themselves into a foundation of unity, one forces the Councils into a patternthat differs substantially from their own self-understanding. As a demonstration of thedoctrinal continuity of the Church from the time of the Apostles and as examples of theimportance of a clear confession in times of theological crises, the Councils are veryimportant. Nevertheless, they do not in themselves give an unambiguous answer to thequest for the true Church.

So far, Luther’s conclusion on the question of the essence of the true Church isnegative. Neither Fathers nor Councils, nor any other instance of authority, can guaranteethe unity and authenticity of the Church. Thus, Luther does away with layers of traditionand institution and makes them, not necessarily theologically irrelevant but unsuitable aspossible answers to the central ecclesiological question: Where is the Church? A discussionof the Church as an institution and organisation will never give a meaningful answer tothat question.

There is, therefore, only one possible way left to pose that question. It must be asked asa question about what is actually going on in the local congregation. What happens when

15Hohne, Luthers Anschauungen, 100–10. For a discussion of Luther’s view of the continuity of theChurch in a wider perspective.16WA 50, 605, 16–20; LW 41, 121. Cf. Luther’s summary.17WA 50, 583, 26ff; LW 41, 96ff.18WA 50, 587, 31ff; LW 41, 100ff; on Zwingli as a neo-Nestorian, see WA 50, 591, 11; LW 41, 105.

36 K. Alfsvag

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

26 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

the Christian congregation gathers? What do we do when we are together as Christians? Itis the answer to that question which decides whether the particular church or congregationwe are considering is to be understood as a true or a false church. If one has accepted thetheological foundation of Luther’s view of the Councils, then one has to ask the questionabout the true Church in this way.19 We will now consider his answer to this question.

The seven marks of the holy Christian Church

Luther’s point of departure is the holiness of the Church, one of the marks emphasised byboth Augustine and the Apostolic Confession. You will find Christian holiness, he says,where the Spirit gives people faith in Christ and thereby sanctifies them.20 This process ofsanctification is observable as an active and positive appropriation of the two tables of theDecalogue.21 To find the Christian Church on earth, one must therefore, according toLuther, look for signs of this ongoing process of sanctification.22

Luther thus defines the Church as the place where a process of sanctification takesplace with the Spirit as subject and the believers’ life according to the Ten Commandmentsas goal. Both the tables of the law are important here. Luther, therefore, criticises twogroups which have a difficult relationship with the second table.23 Some reject it, he says –this is written while he was discussing the problem of Antinomianism with John Agricolaand one can see this discussion between the lines of what he writes here.24 The papacy, headds, has a tendency to replace the revealed law with its own inventions on clothes,festivals, monks and so on. Both groups have such a difficult relationship with the secondtable of the law that one may doubt if the Church is there at all.25

The tables are, however, not equally unambiguous. Also, among gentiles there may beobedience toward the second table.26 Therefore, first and foremost, one has to look for themeans used by the Spirit to inscribe the theological virtues of the first table: faith, hope andlove,27 in the hearts of the believers, in order to find indisputable signs of where theChristian congregation is.28

19Cf. Luther’s emphasis that the word ‘Church’ must be understood as ‘ein Christlich heilig Volck’and not institutionally. WA 50, 624, 21–32 (LW 41, 143–45). In itself, the word ‘Church’ is unclear inthis respect; Luther therefore calls it ‘dis blinde wort’. WA 50, 625, 16; LW 41, 144.20‘Denn Christliche heiligkeit oder gemeiner Christenheit heiligkeit ist die, Wenn der heilige Geistden Leuten Glauben gibt an Christo und sie dadurch heiliget, Act. 15’ (v. 9). WA 50, 626, 15–17; LW41, 145. Neebe, Apostolische Kirche, 155. Luther’s emphasis on the holiness of the Church in Von denKonziliis und Kirchen is also observed in Neebe.21WA 50, 626, 17–627, 17; LW 41, 145–47.22WA 50, 628, 16–28; LW 41, 148. Blaser, ‘Le peuple de Dieu en quete d’une identite tangible’, 140.That the holiness of the church is the point of departure for the ecclesiology of Luther, is alsoemphasised in Blaser.23WA 50, 627, 18–628, 15; LW 41, 147–48. On Luther’s relation to the ‘Orthopraxie-forderung’, seefurther. Dantine, Die Kirche, 37.24WA 50, 627–31; LW 41, 147. According to Luther, there is a parallel between the Antinomians andthe Nestorians; both accept Christ as starting point but, reject him in the conclusion.25WA 50, 627, 14; LW 41, 147. According to this book, then, there should be no doubt aboutLuther’s answer to the question that is sometimes discussed in our time, the question of whetherethical questions may cause church divisions.26WA 50, 643, 6–37; LW 41, 166–67.27WA 50, 626, 31; LW 41, 146.28Lohse,Martin Luther’s Theology, 284. In Wider Hanswurst, written a couple of years later (WA 51,469–572; LW 41, 185–256), Luther counts both respect toward the authorities (fourthcommandment) and toward marriage (sixth commandment) as marks of the Church.

International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

26 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

To this background, Luther establishes the first and most important mark of theChristian Church. The holy Christian people is recognised above all by its possession ofthe holy word of God.29 This word is the holiest of the holy and the reason why theChristian people are called holy – the word of God sanctifies all it touches. This is themeans that the Spirit uses to anoint and sanctify the Christian Church. Therefore, thismust be the first and foremost mark of the Christian Church.

Luther emphasises that he is thinking of the external word as it is preached, believed,confessed and lived. Where this happens, there is the true, holy, catholic Church, that isthe Christian holy people.

It is immediately noticeable here how resolutely Luther structures his understanding ofthe Church from the principle of the efficacy of the word of God, thus presenting itself asthe basic proposition in Luther’s thought also in this connection.30 As the word isproductive and efficacious, it can be seen as the most important mark of a process ofsanctification. Where the word is proclaimed, there the Spirit is at work, sanctifying thosewho listen and the Christian Church is established.31

Luther does not want to connect the identity of the Church to institution or tradition,but this must not lead us to present his ecclesiology as an abstract theory unrelated to theconcrete reality of the Church. The identity of the Church to Luther is clearlydemonstrable as identity of doctrine. Where the biblical gospel is proclaimed inaccordance with the Holy Scripture, the Spirit works on the sanctification of hearts;therefore, the true Church will necessarily be there. This is valid both in a diachronicperspective, as Luther’s presentation of the history of the Councils already has shownand, in a synchronic perspective. In the places where the holy gospel is proclaimedclearly and purely today, there is the holy, catholic Church. Where that is, one willunderstand by measuring the witness of sermon and worship by the apostolic norm in theword of God.

The next four marks of the Church follow from the first, as they represent the concreteform and shape of the word in the life of the Church. These are baptism,32 the Lord’sSupper,33 the public use of the keys34 and the office of preaching.35 These are the meansused by the Spirit for sanctification. According to Luther, the biblical foundation for thekeys is Matt. 18.15—20. They are used both publicly and privately36 as a mark of theChurch. However, the important thing naturally is the public use. Where sin is forgiven,or – when there is no repentance – retained, there is the people of God. The pope has noright to maintain that he alone has the power of the keys, it is given to the holy people allover the world.

29‘Erstlich ist dis Christlich heilig Volck dabei zu erkennen, wo es hat das heilige Gotteswort.’ WA50, 628, 29; LW 41, 148. This is emphasised also in Dantine, Die Kirche, 35–6.30On the understanding of this as the basic principle in Luther’s thought, see Rothen, Die Klarheit.Schwobel, ‘The Creature of the Word’, also considers this as the most important point in Luther’secclesiology, but does not relate it particularly to Von den Konziliis und Kirchen.31See Beyer, ‘Luthers Ekklesiologie’, 116–17, for a discussion of whether the consideration of thesecond table of the law, as Luther does in Wider Hanswurst, implies a re-institutionalisation ofLuther’s concept of the Church.32WA 50, 630, 21–631, 5; LW 41, 151.33WA 50, 631, 6–35; LW 41, 152.34WA 50, 631, 36–632, 34; LW 41, 153–54.35WA 50, 632, 35–641, 19; LW 41, 154–64.36Luther writes ‘offentlich und sonderlich’. WA 50, 632, 4.

38 K. Alfsvag

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

26 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Of necessarity, there also have to be bishops, pastors and preachers37 who publicly andprivately administer the first four marks: The word, baptism, the Lord’s Supper and thekeys. They do this on behalf of the congregations and based on the institution of Christ.38

Luther’s scriptural reference for the institution of Christ is Eph. 4.11. The office must forpractical reasons be entrusted to one person, who, according to the New Testament, mustbe a competent man. According to Luther, the Spirit has excepted women, children andincompetent persons from this task.39 The pope is not to be obeyed, however, when he alsowants to prevent married men from being called to this office.40

The five first marks are thus concerned with the word in its different formats. Wherethe word is proclaimed, heard, believed and appropriated, then, something happens andthis is also used by the Spirit in its work for the sanctification of the congregation. Whathappens is prayer, praise and thanksgiving, that is, Christian worship. Luther mentionshere the Lord’s Prayer, psalms and songs in accordance with the word of God, theDecalogue and public use of the catechism. According to 1 Tim. 4.5, prayer also sanctifies.Everything must be understandable and presented in a way that one can learn from it; theclamour of monks and nuns and priests is, thus, neither praise nor prayer.41

Finally, there is the holy possession of the sacred cross: the persecution and trials thatChristians will have to endure from the devil, the world and the flesh. This seventh mark isalso in the Church in order that it may become like Christ. The goal of the suffering is,thus, that one shall keep ever closer to Christ and his word, according to the promise ofChrist in Matt. 5.11. When people have to suffer all kinds of evil for the reason that theywill have Christ and no other God, one can be sure that the sanctifying Spirit and,therefore, the Christian Church is there.42

Besides the active use of the word in preaching and the administration of thesacraments, the true Church is primarily recognised by prayer and worship and, byperseverance in suffering, as these are what the Spirit uses in the work for the sanctificationof the Church.

Sanctification as criterion – the seven marks in use

The Church is, to Luther, the place where the powerful word of God sanctifies believers toa life in love and obedience. When the suffering and persecuted congregation gathers forprayer and praise and while the word is administered through preaching, sacraments andconfession, there is the Christian Church because the Spirit works for the sanctification ofthe congregation. This, therefore, is Luther’s pastoral and practical answer to the questionwith which I started: ‘Where is the true Church?’

There is, thus, both continuity and renewal in relation to Augustine’s understanding ofthe holiness of the Church. The holiness of believers, as expressed in confession andobedience, is the goal of all ecclesiastical activities. Where the una sancta is, there isnecessarily a process of sanctification. At the same time, Luther decidedly emphasises thetheocentric perspective of sanctification. Thus, he can retain the criterion of holinesswithout having to conceal the fact that the Church often appears as anything but holy.

37‘Bisschove, Pfarrher oder Prediger’. WA 50, 633, 1.38‘. . .von wegen und im namen der Kirchen, viel mehr aus einsetzung Christi’. WA 50, 633, 3.39WA 50, 633, 12–24; LW 41, 154–55.40WA 50, 634, 34; LW 41, 156.41WA 50, 641, 20–34; LW 41, 164.42WA 50, 641, 35–21; LW 41, 164–65.

International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

26 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Now, we are in the world and while we are here, not all have the word to the same degreeand equally purely.43 Where the word is, however, it is never without fruit and this fruit isthe holiness of the Christian people.

This theocentric perspective of sanctification is also the reason for Luther’s view thatthe essence of the Church can never depend on human authorities like popes, bishopsand conciliar decisions that are not strictly founded on the word of God. Only theholy God can work sanctification through the means he has chosen and put forwardfor this purpose. The essence of the true Church must, therefore, be in the use of thesemeans.

This is to Luther the absolute criterion for where the true Church is; in relation to thisstandard, nothing may be either added or subtracted. This is clearly expressed inLuther’s evaluation of the spiritual status of the Roman Church. Is it to be considered atrue church according to these seven marks? ‘No, it is not’, Luther says in Von denKonziliis und Kirchen; on the contrary, it is the devil’s attempt at establishingsomething similar to the true Church in order to abolish the word of God and thesacraments.44 As an institution, the Roman Church is a failure and it is one preciselybecause it considers the institution and its servants, that is, human authorities, as theguarantors of holiness and sanctification. As this is done consistently in the RomanChurch and defended doctrinally, it is not to be considered a Christian church in aspiritual sense. Thus, it cannot even be compared to a church where continuity withapostolic doctrine is regarded as the foundation of church life without additions fromhuman authorities.45

Luther may, however, express himself quite differently when it comes to evaluatingwhat actually goes on in various concrete situations within this church. Then it becomesimportant that the means God has instituted for sanctification are still present in the life ofthis church. It has both the Scripture, baptism, the sacrament of the altar, the keys, theoffice of the ministry and the catechism in the form of the Lord’s Prayer, the Decalogueand the articles of the creed. The papacy is not a Christian church, but the ChristianChurch also exists under the papacy. We all come from there; it is actually through whathas occurred under the papacy that Christ has kept his promise that the one, holy, catholicchurch shall not disappear until he returns.46

It may, therefore, look as if Luther’s application of the criteria for the presence of thetrue Church takes place on two different levels. On the institutional, organisational level,the level that may be presupposed when the title of this book uses the word ‘Kirchen’(churches) in the plural, what counts is an evaluation of the official doctrinal decisions anddocuments of the actual Church. Are they based on the marks of the Church that God hasinstituted? Or are these marks distorted, as human traditions and decisions are respectedon a par with, or above, the word of God? In the case of the latter, this is not the trueChurch but a false one.

At the same time, Luther seems to be aware that there is not always correspondencebetween the official documents and what actually happens when the congregations gather.Consequently, even the Roman Church, which has not only added but actually replacedthe divine foundation with considerable amounts of hay and straw, will, in practice, come

43WA 51, 628, 20–629, 1; LW 41, 148–49.44WA 50, 644, 12ff; LW 41, 167ff.45Beyer, ‘Luthers Ekklesiologie’, 115. Not even the true Church can, however, pretend to be identicalwith the kingdom of God. If it does, it becomes a false church.46Cf. Lohse, Theology of Luther, 285.

40 K. Alfsvag

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

26 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

out much better. In the life of the congregations of the Roman Church, in many cases allseven marks will be in use.

Luther also seems, however, to be aware of the opposite problem; the fact that achurch which in theory confesses the word of God as its absolute authority, may, inpractice, replace it with human inventions and distortions. In Von den Konziliis undKirchen this is expressed, first and foremost, through his criticism of the Antinomians. Bytheir neglect of the importance of sanctification they, according to Luther, show that theysimply have not grasped that what the Church is all about, is giving the Holy Spirit roomto create a community of saints. This is not done first and foremost by doctrinal decisions,important as they are. The Spirit works mainly through the word of God as it is preacheddaily in the local congregation; this is, therefore, the ultimate battlefield.

Luther and the quest for the true Church

It is not difficult to recognise the urgency in Luther’s quest for the true Church in today’secclesiological struggles. Many seem to agree that the prospect for ecumenical progressis not as bright as it once was considered to be and interdenominational conflictsseem, in many cases, to be stronger than ever. If we agree with Luther’s insistence thatthe understanding of the word of God as the instrument of sanctification should be thebasic criterion for sound ecclesiology, where will that leave us with respect to currentissues?

Arguably, it leaves us first and foremost with an understanding of the theologicalimportance of ecclesiology. There seems to be scant support from the father ofProtestantism for those who argue that questions of ecclesiology are either too difficultor too trivial to be at the centre of the current agenda; his is not among the voices of thosewho argue that we first have to agree on questions like soteriology and social action beforewe sit down to try to come the terms with ecclesiological issues. On the contrary, it is in theeveryday life of the congregations where the important theological battles are fought.Church life and ecclesiology, as the doctrine of church life, should be at the centre of thecurrent debate and not somewhere along the periphery.

This insistence on the close relationship between ecclesiology on the one hand andChristology and soteriology on the other, may seem to make the ecclesiological problemsnext to insurmountable. If we are not allowed to take the problems one by one andpainstakingly work our way toward unity and understanding, will ecumenical progress bepossible at all? Yet, it is possible to look at this from another angle. Luther’s insistence onthe significance of ecclesiology is at the same time an insistence on holiness as the mostsignificant of the notae ecclesiae. This holiness is realised as the presence of the divine thatnecessarily characterises the Church; without the word of God, there obviously is noChurch. At the same time, as the purpose of the life of believers, holiness is the goal ofeverything that takes place there. In the tension between these aspects of divine holiness,the Church was, is and ever will be, until the return of Christ. This is a perspective onchurch life and ecclesiology that is both profoundly biblical, theologically productive andwith still unrealised ecumenical potential.47 Hence, Luther’s doctrine on the notae ecclesiaemight still be ecumenically significant.

47It is thus interesting to observe that a Roman Catholic author can find Luther’s pneumatologicalecclesiology highly relevant in an ecumenical perspective; see Wicks, ‘Holy Spirit – Church –Sanctification’.

International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

26 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Notes on contributor

Knut Alfsvag is associate professor in systematic theology, School of Mission and Theology,Stavanger, Norway. His research interests are Reformation theology, apophaticism and Christology,and his publications include: The Identity of Theology (Bangalore, 1996); ‘Who has known the mindof the Lord? The theological significance of the doctrine of the hidden God’, Luther Bulletin (2003):30–46; ‘Virtue, reason and tradition: A discussion of Alasdair MacIntyre’s and Martin Luther’sviews on the foundation of ethics’ (2005).

Bibliography

Beyer, Michael. ‘Luthers Ekklesiologie’. In Leben und Werk Martin Luthers von 1526 bis 1546, ed.

Helmer Junghans, 93–117. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983.Blaser, Klauspeter. ‘Le peuple de Dieu en quete d’une identite tangible: ‘Von den Konziliis und

Kirchen’ (1539) dans l’ecclesiologie de Luther’. Revue de theologie et de philosophie 132, no. 2

(2000): 131–50.Dantine, Johannes. Die Kirche vor der Frage nach ihrer Wahrheit: Die reformatorische Lehre von den

‘notae ecclesiae’ und der Versuch ihrer Entfaltung in der kirchlichen Situation der Gegenwart.Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980.

Hohne, Wolfgang. Luthers Anschauungen uber die Kontinuitat der Kirche. Berlin: LutherischesVerlagshaus, 1963.

Lohse, Bernhard. Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historic and Systematic Development. Minneapolis:

Fortress Press, 1999.Luther, Martin. Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch–lutherischen Kirche. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck

& Ruprecht, 1976.

———. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Weimar: Hermann Bohlau. 1883 ff (WA).———. Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann. St. Louis: Concordia

Publishing House. 1955ff (LW).

Neebe, Gudrun. Apostolische Kirche: Grundunterscheidungen und Luthers Kirchenbegriff unterbesonderer Berucksichtigung seiner Lehre von den notae ecclesiae. Berlin and New York: Walterde Gruyter, 1997.

Rothen, Bernhard. Die Klarheit der Schrift I: Martin Luther. Die wiederentdeckten Grundlagen.

Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990.Schwobel, Christoph. ‘The Creature of the Word: Recovering the Ecclesiology of the Reformers’. In

On Being the Church: Essays on the Christian Community, ed. Colin E. Gunton and Daniel W.

Hardy, 110–55. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989.Wicks, Jared. ‘Holy Spirit – Church – Sanctification: Insights from Luther’s Instructions on the

Faith’. Pro Ecclesia 2, no. 2 (1993): 150–72.

zur Muhlen, Karl-Heinz. ‘Die auctoritas patrum in Martin Luthers Schrift ‘‘Von den Konziliis undKirchen’’ (1539)’. In Auctoritas patrum II: Neue Beitrage zur Rezeption der Kirchenvater im 15.und 16. Jahrhundert, ed. Leif Grane, Alfred Schindler and Markus Wriedt, 141–52. Mainz:

Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1998.

42 K. Alfsvag

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

26 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014