Page History

SCANNED PDF

Wiki MarkupIf Luther can speak, as he does, of the word's being "added" to something else \-\- esomething else—e.g., the cross (cf. Bultmann, _NTM_: 40) \-\- he can also —he can also speak, conversely, of something else's being "added" to the word. This he does, e.g., when he says, "\[l\]t is not baptism that justifies anyone, but it is faith in that word of promise to which baptism is added" (LW, 36: 66).unmigrated-wiki-markup

But, then, allowing, as Luther himself allows in the same text, that, if he were to speak "according to the usage of the scriptures \ [1 Tim 3:16\]," he should have"only one single sacrament, but with three sacramental signs" (18; cf. 93: "Christ himself is called a 'sacrament'"), one could say, _mutatis mutandis_, "It is not Christ that justifies or benefits anyone, but it is faith in that word of promise to which Christ is added" \-\- —"Christ" here being understood, of course, as a proper name for Jesus or Jesus Christ.

Jesus, or Jesus Christ, in other words, is the "one single sacrament" because he is "added" to God's original (implicit) word of promise analogously to the way in which baptism is one of the "three sacramental signs" because it is "added" to God's decisive (explicit) word of promise, Jesus Christ.

...