The Lord's Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz Bjarne - Logia

As a matter of fact, Chemnitz remarks that “Sarah tries by some special
kind of interpretation to escape the literal meaning of the words,
Gen. 16:2” (LS 71). But Abraham “ joined together the certainty of the
oft-repeated promise with the power of God and thus came at last to
the full assurance of faith (Rom. 4:21)” (LS 74).
54 Possibly even more striking in the life of Abraham is his conduct
when commanded to sacrifice his son (Gen. 22:2). Chemnitz observes
that “the natural meaning of the statement is perfectly clear.” However,
they seem to be in contradiction to Genesis 9:6 and Genesis 21:12,
“so that the proper and natural meaning of this precept seems to be
in diametric opposition to both the Law and the Gospel, that is, contrary
to the analogy of the entire Word of God.” But Abraham did
not stumble in faith: “Though various conflicting and contradictory
interpretations seem to stand in the way, he did not dare to depart
from the proper and natural meaning.” Chemnitz then draws the conclusion
that “if Abraham in the face of this most powerful opposition
did not dare to depart from the proper and natural meaning of this
precept which he had heard only one time, . . . with what kind of conscience
will we dare in this present controversy, in the face of much
more insignificant objections, to depart from the proper and natural
meaning of this dogma which has been repeated in several places in
Scripture with consentient and equivalent words?” (LS 74–76).
55 The Solid Declaration, after summarizing the historical background
of the sacramental controversy, in giving the Lutheran doctrine takes
as its starting point the position here developed by Chemnitz (SD VII,
43–60). This section contains so many verbal parallels to what Chemnitz
has written that one can almost see the authors of the Formula
having at their side the works of Chemnitz which they are compressing
into a shorter paraphrase. Here is another example of where we can
easily see the significance of carefully studying not only Luther but
also Chemnitz for a better understanding of the Formula of Concord.
Aristotle and chemnitz
The Biblical Foundation |
56 In giving Chemnitz’s stance with regard to the Scriptures and his
hermeneutical principles, it is necessary to consider his view of reason
and the use of Aristotelian terms and conceptual usages. Chemnitz is
a sharp thinker who recognizes the necessity of precise definitions and
nice distinctions. He will draw valid conclusions from clear proposi-