REPENTANCE
REPENTANCE
Repentance was a major concern for Gerhard because it is where theology becomes practical, Law and Gospel are put into effect, and godliness is pursued. In the Lutheran sense, which Gerhard explains carefully, repentance is contrition and faith. This is where all theology is applied to the lives of human beings.12 Therefore this commonplace rests upon the previous commonplaces (On the Image of God in Man before the Fall [Commonplace XI] and On Original Sin [Commonplace XVII]) as well as on some of the following ones (On Justification through Faith [Commonplace XIX] and On Good Works [Commonplace XX]). Gerhard explained this practical aspect of repentance in his Aphorisms: “The practice of Law and Gospel consists in repentance. … For it is not sufficient to know what the office of the Law is, what the office of the Gospel is, but the practice of both is required. Theology is practical doctrine.”13 This same concern is reformulated at the beginning of the commonplace On Repentance: “[I]t should by no means be decided that it is sufficient to know the doctrine of the Law and the Gospel unless we are eager to bring this into practice in a true conversion to God.… [T]he doctrine of repentance.… is a living practice of the Law and Gospel.”14 This view of repentance as the practical application of Law and Gospel corresponds to the parts of repentance: it includes contrition (i.e., remorse at one’s sin) and faith in Christ. Good works, then, are the result or fruit of repentance. These parts of repentance, it should be noted, formed also the parts of “godliness” for Gerhard and were at the heart of his five books of The School of Piety, and thus of the moral part of his theology.15 Another term for repentance is “conversion,” as Gerhard makes clear.16
As part of the discussion of repentance, Gerhard seeks to clarify the role of good works. In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession XIIa (V) 28, Philipp Melanchthon (1497–1560) had conceded that new obedience could possibly be considered a third part of repentance, after contrition and faith. Gerhard and those after him take the position that good works and the new obedience are indeed the fruit of faith, or the fruit of repentance, but Gerhard very clearly states that good works are a result of repentance and only in this sense a part of it.17 This is an example of Gerhard’s concern to defend divine monergism in salvation: man is not a cooperator toward his own salvation.18
Most of the commonplace deals with the Roman Catholic definition of the sacrament of penance, whose material consists of contrition, confession, and satisfaction. The discussion of satisfaction leads then naturally to the Roman Catholic practice of indulgences. In English we distinguish between “penance” and “repentance.” In Latin the word was the same: poenitentia. We use “penance” when referring specifically to the Roman Catholic “sacrament of penance” and when an outward act of repentance is meant. Otherwise “repentance” is our translation.
In this commonplace, Gerhard also strives to show that confession and absolution cannot be considered a sacrament, in apparent contradiction to Melanchthon’s confessional statement in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession XIII 3–4. Although Gerhard argues against the sacramental nature of confession and absolution, he also urges his readers to guard it, retain it, and use it.19 He quotes Melanchthon: “Love this custom of private Absolution; for if that custom were abolished, what kind of church would there be? Also, this custom is a witness that forgiveness of sins is in the church.”20 Related to this is the role of the pastor in imparting absolution, the forgiveness of sins. Here Gerhard’s basic thought is that the pastor cannot be a judge, and therefore the releasing or binding of sins cannot rest on the pastor’s diagnosis and judgment of the penitent’s spiritual condition.
Edward Preuss, the editor of the edition of Gerhard’s Loci from which Dr. Richard Dinda made his translation, was reprinting the Frankfurt/Hamburg edition, and that edition, for some reason, omitted the chapter divisions for these two commonplaces. We have restored the chapter divisions and their titles from the original Jena edition.21
The publication of Gerhard’s Theological Commonplaces could not happen without the cooperation of a skilled and dedicated team. The Rev. Heath R. Curtis served as assistant editor for this volume. The Rev. Dr. Richard Dinda, the original translator, is to be thanked for helping to make this project come about in the first place. Dawn Mirly Weinstock has served as production editor for the series from the beginning. Many other colleagues, both within and outside of Concordia Publishing House, have given their advice and support. Without their help, this series, the first large-scale translation of Gerhard’s great work, would be impossible. To God alone be the glory.
Benjamin T. G. Mayes