Upstate Lutheran

Literal Interpretations of the Scriptures

2010-05-19T19:46:00.000-04:00

I was reading "The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation" which Dr. Tighe graciously supplied to me. The book is really good, but I want to focus for a moment on one particular aspect of the book. It is the different ways the Reformed and Lutherans approached Scripture in a literal way.

For the early Reformed, the literal sense was, more or less, the bare words themselves. But the words themselves carried a deeper spiritual meaning. So, for instance, the account of the Lord's Supper is first and foremost a description of the events of the Lord's Supper, and this account tells of the spiritual truth of what Jesus was accomplishing there--our salvation, forgiveness of sins etc.

For Luther, after he more or less abandoned the fourfold interpretation of Scripture, he settled on the moral interpretation of Scripture as the "literal" sense. By this he meant that when Scripture is describing what God does the literal sense is what God is doing "for me". Thus, when we read the account of the Last Supper, it is an account of what Jesus is doing for me. He is giving me his body and blood for the forgiveness of sins.

I think these differences, while subtle, explain why the two traditions' interpretation of the Lord's Supper differ so much. For the early Reformed (Calvin had his own system which to me seems unrelated to Zwingli or Luther) the spiritual truth behind the Lord's Supper is almost precisely what e.g. Baptists argue today. The bare words of Christ--"This is my body" don't point to the bread being his body but to the deeper spiritual truth behind "this is my body". By way of contrast, for Lutherans unless "this is my body" means it is his body, it becomes more difficult to to show what Christ is doing "for me", because the "for me" happens later on the cross and not by the sharing of his body and blood.

I think we see this elsewhere, too. For TULIP Calvinists, when the Scriptures say that God wants the world to be saved he reads it as God's elect. Not because of some devilish desire to twist the Scriptures (though I think their interpretation is wrong), but because the bare words point to a deeper spiritual truth behind themselves. The words "save the world world" point to God's plan of salvation.

A Lutheran, however, will reason that since he is part of the world the words are meant for him, or "for me" if you will.

I have not worked this systematically, but I have been thinking about it and it seems workable so far. Not as an iron rule, but as a way to understand why the Reformed come to the conclusions they come to.

Very Ingenius Sophistry

2010-04-27T22:36:00.000-04:00

Via National Review

http://tinyurl.com/2f7wk3h

Please see the penciled in comment from this scanned copy of "The Grammar of Assent".

Insulting your opponent's intelligence

2010-04-20T13:10:00.002-04:00

I see this a lot, and I suppose I have been guilty of it too. I am not talking about generic insults, but the one that goes something like this:

The reason you don't agree and become Lutheran/Orthodox/RC/Buddhist is because you are too dense to see the awesome subtlety of why I believe like I do. If only you were as intelligent and sensitive to nuance as my coreligionists and me, you would see the light immediately.

This takes many forms, and these kinds of arguments are rarely if ever persuasive. What usually happened is not that your opponent didn't understand the subtlety of your argument, but that for him it passed by being subtile a while ago and has morphed into sophistry.

Here are some examples that people have used against me:

RC annulments really mean that no marriage occurred but any children born into the non-marriage aren't bastard children.

EOs are apophatic, and yet they speak of God having an ousia.

Baptists insist on Scripture alone, and yet have no problem asserting that no matter what Christ and the Apostles say, Jesus cannot have meant the bread is his body because he just cannot do that--we know this from science.

We are the church, you are not. So why don't you join the real church?

Is it really the best argument to say that your opponent is too dumb to understand what he s supposed to believe? Sharp disagreement is OK and even to be expected. But there is a lot of sophistry and posturing which passes for argument.

The teachings of men....

2010-04-16T19:59:00.000-04:00

Quite often when discussing the liturgy and whether or not we need to discard it or modify it, I am told it is just the "teaching of men..." and an adiaphoron, in any case, so why not just get rid of all that so we can bring in more people?

The problem is that I do not see a reason to discard the "teaching of men..." over the centuries and replace it with the teaching of a couple of men in the here and now--without Scriptural warrant. In other words, there is a burden to be overcome, it is not enough to show that a particular practice isn't commanded in the Scriptures so we can do whatever we want. We have to at least respect what was handed down to us and not just discard it--because in many ways what is handed down to us is what "works" for Gospel proclamation.

Palm Sunday

2010-03-28T14:26:00.000-04:00

Today is Palm Sunday, when we celebrate our Lord's triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and is proclamation by the people as King. While prayerfully thinking about this event, it occurred to me that Jesus Himself knew that some, perhaps most, of those cheering him as King today would want him to be crucified by Friday. Since he was aware of his fate, and he is also fully human, it definitely adds to the "drama" if you will: Despite the support he was receiving, despite all he had done in his ministry, despite the fact that as Son of God he had an "out" from anything he wanted to avoid, he went flint faced to his death on the cross even though he knew the costs. I think this is why this holiday is sort of bitter-sweet, The Cross will always cast a shadow over all the hosannas.

On unity

2010-03-27T18:29:00.000-04:00

If you are not in fellowship with a Church, any talk of theological unity is pretty meaningless.

Missing organic relationships between Reformation churches

2010-03-19T21:29:00.000-04:00

I keep hearing about Luther spawning new churches. The problem is that I cannot find an organic relationship between Lutherans and e.f. the Anabaptists, except on the most tendentious grounds. For instance, it is not at all clear to me that the Zwinglians and Calvinists broke off from the Lutherans.

Any information or sources about this?

Atheists acting like Children

2010-03-16T19:00:00.003-04:00

Sometimes atheists critiques of Christianity (or religion in general) amount to a child sayng "poo poo" and waiting for the adults to react. It is, in fact, one of the reasons it is difficult, if not impossible, to have any useful dialogue with an atheist. (HT Extra Nos) Consider this:

"When I'm accused, 'Why are you going after easy targets, the fundamentalist nutbags, why don't you take on the real theologians?', well, the real theologians like Pope Nazi [that would be the current occupant of the chair of St. Peter ed.] believe in miracles.'

Pope Benedict XVI, formerly Joseph Ratzinger, was conscripted into Hitler Youth, as were all German boys, when he turned 14.

'It's just surreal and completely gives the lie to the claim that the sophisticated theologians should look down on fundamentalist wingnuts. They are all the same."

"I can give you a devastating argument against religion in two words," Williams said in his introduction.

'Senator Fielding.' Richard Dawkins said his IQ is lower than an earthworm, but I think earthworms are useful."

Har dee har har har. So, to critique religion Mr. Dawkins is allowed to dehumanize another man who happens to believe in Creationism. All par for the course for the morally and intellectually "superior" atheist--Stalin--a famous atheist--would approve I am sure. Just snuff the useless worm out as he just gets in the way.

And this from one of his acolytes:

"Broadcaster Phillip Adams and Melbourne ethicist Leslie Cannold urged atheists not to be too strident or fundamentalist as it could alienate moderate believers who shared their aims for a more secular society."

Ah yes, the rationalist/fundamentalist atheists. From the article it is clear that most speakers just mocked religion. As i said, this is th ebiggest tool in the atheist toolbag. Mockery has a place, but when it predominates it more or ess shows that there is really not too much of an argument behind it.

There was one commenter who said something which rang a bell:

"Melbourne atheist philosopher Tamas Pataki attracted little applause for suggesting the organised atheist movement was taking on the appearance of a religion 'with its priests, apostles and disciples, and this is the worst that could happen'."

Yup, just another religion, only this one asserts there is no god and the universe is ruled by heredity and necessity instead.

I wonder if Mr. Dawkins (and his most vociferous friends) has the stones to critique a Muslim theologian, say in Iran, the same way he does pope Benedict. After all, all believers in miracles are the same, right? I mean, he is so much smarter than all us rubes, and Muslims believe in a host of miracles. So when will he bring his mockumentary to someplace where Christianity is not the default religion and have a go? I think I know why. And I ask this because of his childish "critique" of Christianity. If all you can do is act like a child, then you are only going to preach to the choir, aren't you?

Calvin's theology is radically different from Luther's even if they sound the same

2010-03-05T20:53:00.000-05:00

The more I read of Calvin, the more I see that it is really a different animal from Lutheranism--even of some concepts overlap. I don't mean to simply condemn Calvin and Calvinists, of course. It is just that the difference is plain every time I read his writings. For one, he is far more likely to say that something cannot be true because it offends reason than Luther was or than Lutherans in general are. Having said that, he is not as rigorously rational as I have believed. I don't get the sense that his rigorous logic gives way to mysticism or symply not resolving paradoxes, I mean that he is rigorously logical when it suits his philosophical axioms but he is quite willing to abandon strict logic when his axioms call for it. An example was his claim that the stone at the tomb rolled away when Jesus walked out, and then rolled back after he left, only to roll away again to show the empty tomb. (Calvin Institutes IV 17:29)

In any case, to my knowledge Lutherans have always taught that the Son, i.e. the eternal second person of the Trinity, is eternally begotten by the father throughout all time, not as a sort of one-time event before time. In this Lutherans more or less what historic Christianity teaches. However, Calvin has his doubts:

I hope the pious reader will admit that I have now disposed of all the calumnies by which Satan has hitherto attempted to pervert or obscure the pure doctrine of faith. The whole substance of the doctrine has, I trust, been faithfully expounded, if my readers will set bounds to their curiosity, and not long more eagerly than they ought for perplexing disputation. I did not undertake to satisfy those who delight in speculate views, but I have not designedly omitted anything which I thought adverse to me. At the same time, studying the edification of the Church, I have thought it better not to touch on various topics, which could have yielded little profit, while they must have needlessly burdened and fatigued the reader. For instance, what avails it to discuss, as Lombard does at length, (lib. 1 dist. 9,) Whether or not the Father always generates? This idea of continual generation becomes an absurd fiction from the moment it is seen, that from eternity there were three persons in one God.

(Calvin, Institutes I 13.29) [emph. added]

The eternal generation is not questioned so much because it is unbiblical as because it is absurd.

In my opinion, Calvin's admittedly uneven application of reason leads him down some theological dead ends, such as making Christ a person out of two natures, double predestination and his denial of the Real Presence, or the effacasy of Baptism. He is a little fuzzy on assurance--i.e. can or will a believer know he is elect, but even when he does speak of assurance he has a tendency to emphasize the quality of one's faith.

On all these points he differs from Lutheranism.

My son is reading...

2010-03-04T20:09:00.000-05:00

Green Eggs and Ham, all by himself!!

On the Lack of Context in Luther Quotes

2010-03-02T15:57:00.000-05:00

Misquoting Luther actually has a long history in RC polemics, as James Swan has amply documented. In the previous thread on Luther, there was a lot of Sturm und Drang but little if any interaction with the context of Dave Armstrong's Luther citations. I asked him several times to explain if his citations of Luther support his comments about how Luther felt, and he responded by citing completely different sources to support his contentions. Not only that, but one of his readers, Adomnan, cited by him in that thread, stated this:

You, Dave, accurately quote Luther saying A. Swan digs up the texts where Luther said A (or some other text he sees as related), and notes that he also said B, C, D and E, the "context" of A. Swan then claims that because Luther said B, C, D and E, none of which contradict A, it follows that he didn't say, or didn't mean, A.

This is false on the face of it and, in my opinion, deserves no response other than perhaps a curt dismissal.

Keep in mind this was quoted approvingly by Dave Armstrong. According to Adoman, only "A" matters. Nothing else is context if Mr. Swan thinks it is related. Indeed it cannot be related because according to Admonan, context can never make "A" mean "Not A". That is a childish and naive view of how language works. We do not understand verbal communication by having a dictionary handy, nor do we ignore rhetorical devices such as irony, exaggeration etc. By ignoring context we only increase the likelihood that we will get something wrong.

Does Calvin teach infant faith is impossible?

2010-03-01T21:47:00.000-05:00

Interestingly, calvin does not deny infants can have faith. At first blush, it appears Calvin has it in mind that faith=knowledge of the will of God. This would be normally impossible fo ran infant. But like a green shoot coming up through the asphalt, Calvin seems to abandon his rationalism when he argues against the Anabaptisis:

But how, they ask, are infants regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Moreover, infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be previously regenerated by the Lord. (Institutes IV 16.17)

While in this particular section he goes on about the elect, as he is wont to do, none the less he states htat an infant can have faith not based upon the understanding of the infant (Compare Institutes II 2.16-17) but as a sort of mystery. Indeed, he states that John the Baptist leaping in the womb is proof not of a special dispensation of God, but that God himself has shown infants can have faith.

Given this, can a reformed Baptist really be Calvinist?

Calvin on temporary, deep in the heart faith

2010-02-25T21:33:00.000-05:00

This passage seems a little odd, given the Reformed doctrine that one can know that one will persevere, that one is elect. In this passage from Calvin's Institutes he states that even those who will fall away--i.e. they do not have the gift of perseverance, will have what is preached take deep root in their hearts:

There will be no ambiguity in it [Mt. 22:14], if we attend to what our former remarks ought to have made clear--viz. that there are two species of calling: for there is an universal call, by which God, through the external preaching of the word, invites all men alike, even those for whom he designs the call to be a savor of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation. Besides this there is a special call which, for the most part, God bestows on believers only, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit he causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts. Sometimes, however, he communicates it also to those whom he enlightens only for a time, and whom afterwards, in just punishment for their ingratitude, he abandons and smites with greater blindness. (Calvin Institutes III 24.8)

It seems to me there can be no assurance at all if it is possible for God to enlighten us so that the word takes deep root, but then later he abandons and consignes to even deeper darkness due to ingratitude. Indeed, the passage above even implies this is God's plan. This goes far, far deeper than even the temporary faith I blogged about before because at least temporary faith was described as a sort of false faith. Here Calvin says one can have true faith for a time and yet have this gift taken away. He postulates two species of calling, but there can be no assurance that one is effectually called at any given time--God could remove what he has placed in one's heart just like he can implant it there. That this is just like the faith of the effectually called is brought out by his statement that "for the most part" God only grants deep faith in the heart on believers.

The more I read of Calvin, the more I see that what he purportedly gives for assurance he takes away due to implanting doubt in those who want to know they are elect. The pastoral difficulties are readily apparent: if Christ died only for the elect and if the faith deep in my heart today can be taken away tomorrow due to ingratitude, where is the assurance?

Taking Luther out of Context

2010-02-24T20:55:00.000-05:00

Over at Beggars All James Swan has been going through Dave Armstrong's book, Protestantism Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic. I have not done anywhere near the work James has done on Luther's works, but on the occasions I have responded to outrageous Luther quotes I have found that he is taken out of context more often than not. It seems to me that James' context makes Dave's claims rather difficult to believe. It seems to me that if one has to take Luther out of context to "prove" something about "protestantism", that perhaps one's own position is a bit weaker than one would like.

Finally, this does not mean that one has to agree with Luther, but one should disagree with him based on what he actually believed and said, and not because of quotations taken out of context.

Temporary Faith

2010-02-22T19:35:00.001-05:00

Could a Calvinist tell me how the teaching of "Temporary Faith" doesn't undermine assurance?

From Turretin Fan's blog post:

There is a temporary faith, that goes beyond all the former, and is effected by the common operation of the Spirit of God: nor is it merely taken up with the truth of the gospel, but also hath some relish of the goodness and sweetness of it; and hence the stonyground hearers are said to receive the word with joy, Matthew xiii. 20.; yet this belief hath no root, no abiding principle: it is not the faith of the promise that takes place in the children of promise.—Here is the most subtile deceit in the matter of faith: some people may take hold of Christ, as it were, and really get some sap and virtue from him, for their refreshment, and yet never get in to him. They are like the ivy, that grows up by the tree, and clasps about the tree, and draws sap from the tree, and yet grows upon its own root, and is never one and the same with the tree: so here, some professors may receive Christ, in the promise, by a temporary faith, they clasp about him closely, and draw some sap and virtue from him; but still they are never rooted in Christ, but rooted in the old Adam; still rooted in the old covenant, were never cut off from the old root, and ingrafted into Christ, but only draw virtue from Christ to maintain their old-covenant fruit.

Why I bring this up is not to convince the Reformed that the Calvinist system does not actually offer assurance, but to show that what I was saying about Calvinist assurance is true from within Calvinism itself.

If one can have "temporary faith" and believe one is elect when one is not, how does any Calvinist show to himself that his faith is "true" faith?

If a Calvinist points to the Gospel that begs the question, for even Ralph Erskine points his readers to the quality of their faith to differentiate "temporaary faith" from "true" faith:

Temporary faith may say, From the Lord I have righteousness and strength; but true faith says, "In the Lord have I righteousness and strength."—Temporary faith may get many things from him, but true faith gets all things in him, and is complete in him.

So how does one know aside from a sematic shift wheter "In the Lord I have righteousness.." (true faith) or "From the Lord I have righteousness..." for example?

I suspect it is by looking at the quality of one's faith, because if the right quality is not there one does not have "true" faith and the promises to not pertain.

Which is what I have been saying all along.

Here we stand

2010-02-21T14:48:00.000-05:00

More than one time, I have been asked why I argue about certain things. Here is an example from the comments:

"Is the proclamation of the Gospel of the Kingdom predicated on the relevance of this unsettled argument?"

This is in regards to the Christological arguments which have been going on between several Reformed interlocutors and me. The "unsettled argument" is exactly how to interpret Chalcedon. A Reformed theologian more or less conceded that the Lutheran understanding of the person of Christ as a divine person who assumed human nature is the older "Chalcedonian" view as compared to the Reformed view which is more like Christ is out of two natures, i.e. when the Logos assumed flesh he became a new person who is God and man . As the article says:

The Reformed placed the emphasis upon the formula “two natures unimpaired in their original integrity subsequent to their union.” As Calvin put it, “For we affirm his divinity so joined and united with his humanity that each retains its distinctive nature unimpaired, and yet these two natures constitute one Christ” (Institutes II.xiv.1).1 This was said in order to lay a foundation for the rejection of the Lutheran doctrine of a direct communion or inter-penetration of the natures. The properties of each nature, the Reformed said, are rightly ascribed to the “person” but not to each other. God remains God, the human remains human – precisely in the hypostatic union.

(Link)

Needless to say, I reject the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper and its underpinning, the Reformed doctrine of Christ where the uniting of the two natures makes the person Jesus Christ "out of two natures", as Calvin said. Lutherans believe the person Jesus Christ is the divine Logos who has assumed human nature. So for us, it is not an "unsettled matter" that the Logos is the person of Jesus Christ, but a correct interpretation of Scripture as described in the Definition of Chalcedon. Reformed Christology is, therefore, not something I can lightly ignore for the sake of Gospel proclamation as it is a key difference between the two communions, and it is the basis for Reformed denial of key doctrines such as that of the doctrine of the Real Presence.

Curling

2010-02-20T14:32:00.002-05:00

The sport of curling is hilarious and interesting at the same time.

Jesus Christ--a divinized man

2010-02-18T21:55:00.001-05:00

This is more or less in response to Turretin Fan's post, which can be found here.

When I say Jesus' human nature is divinized, what do I mean? I do not mean that the divine nature is mixed with the human nature, what I mean is that the union of the two natures in the one person of Jesus Christ makes his human nature divinized such that it participates in divinity to a degree no one else can. Examples of this were in some of my other posts: Peter walked on water because of faith in Jesus, while Jesus walked on water because he was Jesus. So I don't think it is enough to say that Jesus is one person with two natures, one must give an account of how his humanity relates to his divinity apart from just stating they are both there in one person. Orthodox christology states not that two natures come together and we have Jesus Christ, but that the divine Son assumed human nature by "taking the form of a servant", he "became flesh" etc. Humanity was added to the divine person such that the man Jesus Christ is the divine Son--it is thus wrong to say one shakes a normal hand if one shakes Christ's hand, as it is God's hand one shakes. Jesus Christ is a divine person.

Turretin Fan said that Jesus' unique authority does not suggest his humanity is any different than ours. But that depends on what we mean by "different". How does Jesus' human nature participate meaningfully in any miracles? To be consistent, Turretin Fan would have to say that because our human nature cannot perform miracles, it was only Jesus' divinity which performed miracles. But how is that done without falling into some species of Nestorianism?

Turretin fan said "Jesus' unique authority, even when that is expressed according to his humanity, does not suggest a difference in Christ's human nature as compared to our human nature". It is not that Christ's human nature itself is different in kind but, as I said above, the hypostatic union means that Jesus' humanity's participation in divine power is unique and has no parallel because he is God in the flesh, and no one else is or ever was or ever will be. Is it really possible for a non-divinized humanity to exercise all authority? I don't think so, but I don't think a Reformed Christology can say that Jesus' humanity participates in any meaningful way in upholding all things, it is more or less just there as if it is a coat with a divine person within it. Anything god-like is usually explained as being "spiritual" or as something the divine nature does. But if the divine nature "does" something apart from Jesus' human nature that immediately implies a divine person and a human person--which I am sure the Reformed would like to avoid.

So, I would like to ask Turretin (or any one else) in what sense does the person Jesus Christ hold together all things, and in what way does his humanity participate in this without dividing the person?

Note: Added the following clause "give an account of how his humanity relates to his divinity apart from just stating they are both there in one person"

Answering a question with a question

2010-02-16T14:59:00.002-05:00

Answering the question with a question is not answering the question.

If St. Peter can do it, Jesus' miracles don't tell us anything special about Jesus as a man...

2010-02-14T17:49:00.003-05:00

What a good topic for Transfiguration Sunday!

This argument is used to show that, in particular instances, what Jesus did, e.g. walk on water, was done by others, e.g. St. Peter, so this is no proof Jesus' flesh is divinized.

The problem goes back to the question of "what" instead of "whom". My reformed interlocutors insist that the "who" has little to do with anything the "what" can do. In the example of walking on water, Jesus did it because of who he is while Peter did it because of Jesus. It is not like a force or energy outside of Jesus kept him walking on water, he did himself based on his own power as God in the flesh. Peter was able to walk on water because his faith in Jesus sustained him--until he doubted. If Jesus walked on water because of a different "whom" then per force we have two persons in Jesus Christ, as opposed to two natures. The difference between the "who" of St. Peter and the "who" of Jesus Christ can be shown by Jesus' statements about himself, such as "...You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world." (John 8:23), "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink." (John 6:55). I could supply more examples, but suffice it to say there is something intrinsic in Jesus that makes his miracles of a different kind from those done for e.g. Daniel or St. Peter. Now, if the miracles of e.g. Daniel and those of Jesus Christ really are the same, I would ask who sustained Jesus Christ on the water? I don't want to hear about a "nature" because a nature doesn't do anything--a nature is not a personal actor while a person is.

Is there any indication in Scripture that the "who" of Jesus Christ makes a difference as to his humanity as compared to others?

"Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, rose from supper." (John 13:3-4)

Since as the divine Son, the Word already had all godhead, it is evident that St. John here is speaking of giving all things into Jesus' hands according to his human nature. Thus as the God-Man, Jesus has all that God has as per his nature. (q.v. Matt 11:27, Matt 28:18)

"Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:9-11)

As above, as the divine Son, the Word already was entitled to be worshipped as God. But when God became man, it is now appropriate to worship a man as God. The worship rightly given to God as Spirit is also rightly given to the flesh and bone man, Jesus Christ, which means what is God's by right also belongs to the man Jesus Christ by right. Put another way, the man Jesus Christ is capable and welcomed into the full communion of the trinity.

"And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." (John 17:5)

As above, this pertains to his human nature not his divine nature; so Jesus Christ, the Man, has all the glory he had before he became incarnate. And part of this glory is omnipresence.

Unless one wishes to assert that omnipresence is not part of God's glory.

Related post: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/02/one-more-response-to-edward-reiss.html

Cathapol makes some similar points: http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/02/transubstantiation-question-ii.html

Jesus as a "Spiritual reality"

2010-02-13T18:45:00.001-05:00

From the Comments on "Calvin's framing of the question about the Incarnation--i.e. Jesus' body, is flawed" post:

Yes, it's a metaphor and I think that is pretty obvious. Yet it is also a descriptor of a SPIRITUAL reality. Jesus dwells in us SPIRITUALLY. Surely you wouldn't argue that the spiritual is not real, would you?

But that's not what y'all say about the Eucharist - you in fact get all upset when we say it's spiritual b/c you insist it's more real than that, and say that the spiritual is not the "real presence". It's disingenuous on YOUR part, not ours.I think pretty much everyone would agree that a "spiritual" presence is a real one. Bit it seems that at every turn Jesus' body is banned from any presence among us at all. This does seem to be a genuine legacy of Calvin's theology.

Now to be honest, I thought the charges against Calvinism that it is Nestorian were over blown, and I still think that most Calvinists are basically Chalcidonian Christians. But it also seems that the Reformed as well as the have a very strong tendency to deny even the possibility of Jesus' humanity being present at all. Everything is "spiritual", nothing is material. Besides what I believe is a view of the Incarnation which allows the Son to be present in his divinity without his humanity, I think an over emphasis on a "spiritual" presence leaves our own physical persons with little if anything to grasp. This is, in fact, an advantage of sacraments--that they are spiritual AND material.

Calvin's framing of the question about the Incarnation--i.e. Jesus' body, is flawed

2010-02-11T23:15:00.004-05:00

Calvin’s philosophical commitment to his view of the Incarnation--that the God-Man's body is like ours in all respects--leads him, and by extension his theological descendants, down some Incarnational dead-ends. To wit, when confronted with an action by Jesus Christ which does not fit this philosophical paradigm, he merely argues from assertion because to not do so would mean he would have to abandon his philosophical commitment. In my previous post, I pointed to Scriptural examples of Jesus disappearing, going through doors, walking on water, glowing etc. Calvin in his writings has answers for these, of course, but we will see if they hold up.

Calvin's view can be summarized with this: "But it has been demonstrated by strong and clear passages of Scripture, first, that it is bounded by the dimensions of the human body; and, secondly, that its ascension into heaven made it plain that it is not in all places, but on passing to a new one, leaves the one formerly occupied."

As stated, Calvin's claim above is true of our human bodies. But let us rephrase it and see if it still rings quite as true if we speak of the God-Man in like terms:

"But it has been demonstrated by strong and clear passages of Scripture, first, that [the person Jesus Christ] is bounded by the dimensions of the human body; and, secondly, that [the person Jesus Christ's] ascension into heaven made it plain that [he] is not in all places, but on passing to a new one, leaves the one formerly occupied."

I think even Calvinists would have issues with this claim. The reason I made it is because "a human body", a "nature" don't do things, persons do things. My body does not fight off infection, I do, my body does not walk down the street, I do. A typical human being cannot heal sickness and cast our demons, but the person Jesus Christ can--asking if his nature is what is doing this is to attribute personal properties to nature, which is a category error. We read in Scripture "The Word became flesh"--the Word being the second person of the Trinity--"I and the Father are one"--the "I" referring to the person making the claim and not the divine nature--"For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily"--the fullness dwells in a person, Jesus Christ. Calvin’s framing of the question as "what is omnipresent" as opposed to "who is omnipresent" is the wrong question. So instead of asking "how can human nature be everywhere?" we should ask "When a human nature is divinized, how many of our pre-conceived notions of human limitations must we give up?" Can a human being raise the dead on his own authority? Yes, if that human being is also God. Can a human being create food out of nothing? Yes if that human being is also God.

When discussing Jesus Christ, his body is not an "it" but "who". In other words, Jesus Christ is a person with two natures, which means that what the person does includes both natures. So it is not proper to ask "did Jesus' human body walk on water?", instead we should ask "did Jesus Christ walk on water?" When we answer in the affirmative the questions about Jesus' body become less important because of whom Jesus is--he is God in the flesh so normal rules don't apply so it will not do to simply look at the properties of a human body and limit the glorified, deified body of Jesus to the same properties. It is not wrong, though, to discuss Jesus' body, it is just that we should not speak of it as if it has no connection to his person, as Calvin does in places when he treats it like a coat he can put on or take off, depending if we are talking about his local presence or his divine presence. For instance he writes "But it is clearly gathered from Scripture that the one person of Christ is composed of two natures, but so that each has its peculiar properties unimpaired." (Calvin Institutes IV 17:30). So far so good. Unfortunately Calvin makes the right statements but paints a non-chalcidonian picture even though he formally agrees with Chalcedon when things would go against his adopted philosophy. For instance he wrote "Although the whole Christ is everywhere, yet everything which is in him is not everywhere." (Calvin Institutes IV 19:30) To preserve his claim regarding Jesus' body, he has to assert that the whole Christ, though being omnipresent, is not wholly omnipresent. (Did you get that?) By this claim he says that the human nature of Christ, though it is of the whole Christ is not part of the whole Christ but is "in" him. And he does this based on his philosophical commitments to the nature of a human body, and not even considering that Jesus Christ's divinity has anything to tell us about his body.

And this is why he has to reinterpret "the doors were locked" into "the doors were opened (somehow)", and "the stone at the tomb was rolled away, and rolled back again" (Calvin Institutes IV 17:29) Yes, he actually wrote that the stone was rolled away, and then rolled back--all because Jesus' human body has to be exactly like ours! In other words, any explanation, no matter how strained or ridiculous, is OK for Calvin so long as he can maintain his doctrine that Jesus' body is exactly like ours. Jesus is omnipresent? Of course, but though the whole Christ is omnipresent, part of him is not. Scripture says the tomb was sealed? Of course, it must have been moved away and then back, because Calvin's philosophy cannot be wrong. Locked doors? Any explanation is OK, so long as Calvin can maintain his doctrine Jesus divinized body is just like ours.

This is in large part due to his misframing of the question, along with a too high view of philosophy which he uses to interpret Scripture.

Update: This post was inspired in part by Rhology's thread at Beggars All.

How Jesus' body--even before the resurrection, is not "Just like ours".

2010-02-10T19:53:00.003-05:00

When the Reformed argue against the Real Presence they often say that since Jesus' body is a material body, just like ours, he cannot be bodily present in the bread and nor can his blood be present in the wine. Jesus' body and blood, being localized in space and time, cannot be in more than one place at a time as a body. This can be traced back to John Calvin. Calvin wrote:

As we cannot at all doubt that it [Jesus' human body] is bounded according to the invariable rule in the human body, and is contained in heaven, where it was once received, and will remain till it return to judgement, so we deem it altogether unlawful to bring it back under these corruptible elements, or to imagine it everywhere present. (Calvin Institutes IV, 17:17)

For Calvin, there is an "invariable rule" of a human body--it is in a single place at a time, to which Jesus' body is as subject as ours. Also, to bring Jesus' body down again from heaven is unlawful, even repugnant of Christ's human nature and glory. (Calvin Institutes IV, 17:19) As a matter of dogma, it cannot be that Jesus' body is anywhere other than seated at the right hand of the Father in glory etc. for those who follow Calvin. He uses the term "absurdity' frequently to describe his opponents' views of Jesus' body, or that his views avoid absurdity. (Institutes IV 17:12, 17, 19). They are absurd not because they contradict Scripture, but because they contradict the properties a human body has. So for Calvin, discussions of Jesus' body start and end with the properties our bodies have. This for Calvin the objective, local presence of Jesus' body and blood is an empirical question more or less answered by the properties of a human body. It is my purpose to show that this is not a very strong objection at all. All I have to do is show from Scripture that Jesus' body is not like ours in every respect. And Lutherans believe this is so because of the personal union, which is to say for instance that shaking Jesus' hand is the same thing as shaking God's hand. But that is a post for another day.

Calvin is not completely wrong; the Son assumed a real human body, not a "phantasm". However, is it true that when God assumed human flesh that the resulting God-Man has the same properties we do? Is there a way to understand "human body" congruent with the Scriptures which is greater than the doctrine Calvin teaches?

There are some miracles which seem to defy what a body can do, but which never the less Jesus Christ did. (All Bible citations ESV)

First let us consider Jesus walking on water (John 6:16-20):

When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea, got into a boat, and started across the sea to Capernaum. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them. The sea became rough because a strong wind was blowing. When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and they were frightened. But he said to them, "It is I; do not be afraid." Then they were glad to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going.

Human bodies sink when we try and walk on water without special equipment. This is because human bodies are subject to the physical laws of gravity as well as other physical laws--such as we cannot be in two places at one time. Human bodies have mass and three dimensions. If the displacement of the mass of water is less than the mass of the human body, the human body begins to sink. This behavior is called buoyancy. This law is as immutable as any other and is routinely used in shipbuilding. While this example does not show that Jesus can be in more than one place at one time, it does show that the God-Man Jesus Christ can violate the laws of physics because at least one attribute of divinity carried along the "mundane" body of Jesus Christ. God's mastery of his creation was exercised through Jesus' body. One might say it is absurd to claim a human body walked on water so we should discard the account.

Second, let us consider the transfiguration (Luke 9:28-36):

Now about eight days after these sayings he took with him Peter and John and James and went up on the mountain to pray. And as he was praying, the appearance of his face was altered, and his clothing became dazzling white. And behold, two men were talking with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. Now Peter and those who were with him were heavy with sleep, but when they became fully awake they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him. And as the men were parting from him, Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is good that we are here. Let us make three tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah"— not knowing what he said. As he was saying these things, a cloud came and overshadowed them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him!" And when the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent and told no one in those days anything of what they had seen.

Human bodies do not change their faces and cause their clothes to become "dazzling white". As with the previous example, this does not show Jesus could be in more than one place at one time, but it does show how the God-Man's body does not exactly behave like ours.

Finally, let us consider the accounts of Jesus after his resurrection. Please see the following passages for reference:

(Luke 24:28-31)

So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He acted as if he were going farther, but they urged him strongly, saying, "Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent." So he went in to stay with them. When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight.

(Luke 24:36-43)

As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, "Peace to you!" But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. And he said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?" They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them.

(John 20:19-23)

On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." 20When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you." 22And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld."

(John 19:26-29)

Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe." Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" 29Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

In the two Luke passages above, Jesus does things which a typical human body cannot do. In the first passage he simply disappears right after breaking bread, in the second he simply appears and the disciples are frightened, even thinking he is a ghost! He allays their fears by showing them he does indeed have a body, and even eats some food. In the two John passages Jesus appears to pass through locked doors. In all three cases Jesus ' body does things which a typical human body cannot do. If we follow Calvin, we should say this is absurd to believe Jesus passed through locked doors, disappeared or otherwise behaved in a way not consistent with a typical human body. Indeed his theological descendants say it is absurd because it violates Calvin's teaching of "the invariable rule in the human body". However, seems to me that the physical quality of Jesus’ body is quite variable--especially if we are not limited by our experiences of what exactly human nature is, and what a human body can do. Apparently Jesus' human body can pass through material objects and disappear from sight. If this is part of normal human nature I am sure the Special Forces would like to hear about it as I am sure they would find it useful.

Now, some may object that Jesus vanishing was nothing more than his walking or travelling away. And that he either opened the doors, created a key to open them or otherwise passed through the doors in a basically typical manner. In the first case I would just point out that using the word "vanished" or "afantos" (related to phantasma, whence our phantom!) in this context does not imply picking up one's things and moving along--it implies a disappearance. Indeed, the passage states they recognized him and he vanished.

In the second case, one must re-interpret "the doors were locked" to mean "the doors were unlocked", based solely upon the propositions of what properties a human body must have. In both cases, an extraneous interpolation of philosophical commitments into the text to make them fit those commitments. And this is the problem with Calvin's approach, and also with those who are his theological descendants. It does not seem that Calvin's teaching can explain various Scripture passages which clearly show that Jesus' body, being fully human and material, could never the less, because he is God, perform various acts which violate what a human body can strictly do.

UPDATE: Triablogue Responds. He basically recapitulates Calvin's critique. I will respond in another post.

If your critique of Lutheranism sound like this....

2010-02-09T10:47:00.000-05:00

...you don't really have an argument:

No other topic is more important and explains better the demise of our society than the saga of Lutheranism. To start, Lutheranism writes a lot of long statements that mean practically nothing. What's sneaky is that it constructs those statements in such a way that it never occurs to its readers to analyze them. Analysis would almost certainly indicate that Lutheranism used to complain about being persecuted. Now it is our primary persecutor. This reversal of roles reminds me that now that I've been exposed to Lutheranism's snow jobs I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps Lutheranism is completely versipellous. When it's among plebeians, Lutheranism warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against nonrepresentationalism. But when Lutheranism is safely surrounded by its torchbearers, it instructs them to further political and social goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or violence and a violation of criminal law. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that infantile crackpots like Lutheranism are not born—they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may be, I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that someone has been giving Lutheranism's brain a very thorough washing, and now Lutheranism is trying to do the same to us.

It will not be easy to denounce those who claim that granting Lutheranism complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air. Nevertheless, we must attempt to do exactly that for the overriding reason that its assault on free speech was not mounted in a few weeks. Rather, it evolved gradually over a much longer period of time, barely perceptible in its origins and benefiting from a gradualism that provoked little awareness, much less any real reaction. That's why it is now the time to bring a fresh perspective and new ideas to the current debate.

Lutheranism is locked into its present course of destruction. It does not have the interest or the will to change its fundamentally temperamental prophecies. If some people are offended by my mentioning that Lutheranism flaunts its personal histrionics and attitudes in front of everyone else, then so be it. Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors. Likewise, Lutheranism may put increased disruptive powers in the hands of the worst kinds of disaffected slaves to fashion there are right after it reads this letter. Let it. Sooner or later, I will tell it like it is. Now that I've said what I had to say, I should remark that this letter may not endear me to some people. Indeed, it may even cost me a friend or two. However, friends do not let friends get trampled by ugly protestors like Lutheranism. The truth is the truth and we pay a steep price whenever we ignore it.

They are so easy to write a machine can do it.

Arguing about Arguing

2010-02-08T13:43:00.000-05:00

Once you are arguing about arguing, the argument is over.

A simple analogy for the Eucharist being the Gospel itself

2010-02-07T23:04:00.001-05:00

I have been re-reading my Sr. Hermann Sasse materials lately. While doing that I realize why I liked reading him so much. While discussing Communion, its place in worship and the real Presence, he used a very clever and useful analogy.

When discussing what is the Gospel he stated

..."This is my body" and "This is my blood" are true and must be taken as they stand...With this understanding of the Sacrament the relationship between Word and sacrament is no longer a problem. They go together. The sacrament is the verbum visibile (visible word); the Word is the sacramentum audibile, the audible and heard sacrament. The spoken and heard word is of itself a thing of nature, soundwaves that come from the voice box and are received by the ear. And yet we hear "in, with and under" these sound waves, the Word of the eternal God himself. The natural word becomes the Word of God, is the word of God.

("We Confess the Sacraments" Hermann Sasse p. 24)

He goes on to use examples such as God's word and human writing--the Scriptures, and how God is veiled from us, the divinity of Christ is cloaked in his humanity, if you will.

Similarly, when the words of Institution are spoken, and we receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, the body and blood and the promises are cloaked in bread and wine. In fact, God never comes to us "naked"--he is always wrapped, hidden, obscured. And it is by this body and blood cloaked in bread and wine is the very proclamation of the Lord's death--the Gospel of forgiveness, new life etc. as he himself said when we do this in remembrance of him.

What is a promise for a Christian?

2010-02-05T14:25:00.000-05:00

I was thinking about this yesterday. When I say something is a promise for a Christian, I mean you can bank on it. So, when God promises grace in baptism, we can bank on the fact it is there. When God says "This is my body..given for you..." we can bank on receiving his body given for us. When Christ says through the pastor "I forgive you all your sins" it is as real as the air we breathe and the ground we walk upon.

So, what kinds of things are not promises for the Christian? That we will be happy, healthy, wealthy or powerful. That there will be little or no strife in the Church or in our families. That we will see peace in our day. Nor is it assurance we will be saved on the last day no matter what. The former things I mentioned are what we receive from Christ, while the latter are what we receive here on earth. God does not promise us a rose garden, but he does promise eternal life for all who believe.

And you can bank on that.

On lying about Calvinism

2010-02-04T14:56:00.006-05:00

Steve Hays at Triablogue writes "At this point it’s very hard to credit Reiss with even a modicum of honesty. He habitually misrepresents the Reformed position by setting up a dichotomy between God’s promises and self-examination–even though Calvinism explicitly treats these in tandem.

Why do Lutherans like Reiss think it’s permissible to chronically lie about a position they disagree with? Is mendacity a moral imperative in Lutheran ethics?"

What did I lie about? Apparently I set up a "dichotomy" because subjective assurance is a guarantee. I wrote “There is no promise we will know we have eternal life.”

Steve responded "Is he speaking for Lutheranism or Calvinism? In Calvinism, there are such promises."

I suggest he read Reformed confessions, as this will show I did not lie about Calvinism. Brett, a reformed Baptist pastor, also agreed with me that the elect may be decieved as to their status. I wonder if Steve believes Brett lies too?

CHAPTER XVIII.

Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation.

I. Although hypocrites, and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions: of being in the favor of God and estate of salvation; which hope of theirs shall perish: yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may in this life be certainly assured that they are in a state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God: which hope shall never make them ashamed.

II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probably persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith, founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God; which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.

III. This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith but that a true believer may wait long and conflict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto. And therefore it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure; that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance: so far is it from inclining men to looseness.

IV. True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it; by falling into some special sin, which woundeth the conscience, and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation; by God's withdrawing the light of his countenance and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darkness and to have no light: yet are they never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may in due time be revived, and by the which, in the meantime, they are supported from utter despair.

From the WCF. Notice the bolded parts. The word "may" appears in section I, while Steve says there is such a promise in Calvinism. This means that not all will, but some may receive assurance by looking within themselves. As I have said a few times, I don't know why this is even controversial, this self examination to prove to one's self one is elect is baked right into Calvinism. But the writers of the WCF disagree with Steve, so I suppose the writers of the WCF lie about Calvinism, too.

Also see the bolded part of section II. Notice there is "inward evidence". Now, inward evidence is by definition not "extra nos", outside of us. So once again the Calvinist is pointed to himself for assurance he is one of the elect.

Notice the bolded part of section III. The Christian is called to make his election sure to himself by dilligence. And how does one know one is diligent? By looking for the "inward evidence" plus the outward works of a true believer.

What about his contention that there is a difference between the elect and the non-elect? Please see the bolded part of section IV. Since the subjective assurance may be revived, by definition the subjective assurance was lost.

I didn't make any of this up, I just read the Calvinist confessional documents.

Steve Hays seems to argue by vigorous assertion, along with taking what his opponent says and extrapolating it to a point his opponent never meant. But it seems his accusations that I "lie" about Calvinism are quite off the mark, and mine is an internal critique of his claims. Perhaps if Steve wiped the foam off his monitor before posting his arguments would strike closer to home, instead of missing the mark and making him look uninformed about his own tradition.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/02/upstart-lutheran.html

UPDATE:

Triablogue replies:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/02/rightly-using-ordinary-means-of-grace.html

Unfortunately, it consists largely of speculations as to my motivations, and does not prove I lied, which was his claim.

Steve claimed the elect will have subjective assurance--as he stated there is a promise--and the WCF does not say that there is such a promise by the cunning use of the word "may", as is shown in my citation above. When caught, he changes the subject and brings in a lot of other information, such as what the confessions "do not" say, his interpretations of my motivation and tendentious alternate interpretations of rather clear statements such as "by God's withdrawing the light of his countenance and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darkness and to have no light...." to mean the elect do not walk in darkness. Apparently for Steve, an elect person who has no light still has assurance, which is frankly bizarre.

He also claims the document does not say the elect should look to themselves for their assurance--despite the fact the confession states just that as I cited above. If "inward evidence" is not looking into one's self, well words fail me as to how to see that as an honest interpretation of "inward evidence".

The confession I cited plainly says the elect may experience a loss of assurance, which directly contradicts Steve's claims.

Remember, all along it was my claim that the typical Protestant approach to these things is to reflect on the quality of his or her faith. The "retort" from Triablogue is to claim this is not true, and to deny the plain meaning of respected and widely believed Reformed confessions.

UPDATE II:

Steve interestingly mentioned "nuance" in his latest post. Well, if he wants his claims to be treated with nuance he should practice what he preaches and not make each of his new posts sound like they have no relationship to what was discussed before and force a conversation which has stretched over more than a week into an un-nuanced side show. It is quite interesting how I went from being "...Edward Reiss, an adroit and thoughtful Lutheran apologist" to a liar while maintaining the same argument all along. I have been saying pretty much the same thing all along so I didn't change at all.

To the point, if Steve now wants to claim that even the elect may not know they are elect he has wasted a lot of bandwidth because I have been saying that all along. And if even the elect cannot be 100% sure he has quite simply lost the argument.

UPDATE III:

This will be my last upodate, as Steve just proved my point with his latest post.

From the article Steve cites: "Note the difference from the Heidelberg: the Westminster statement says that assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith as to preclude periods of doubt."(Emph. Added)

If the faithful (who for Calvinists can never loose their salvation) have doubt, they do not have assurance. And to regain their assurance the very confession cited by Dr. Frame says to look for inward evidence.

Well, that is what I have been saying all along. This issue has never been whether in a Calvinist system one can loose his faith, I know they don't believe that is possible. The point all along is that the Calvinist system encourages and also claims we need to look into our inner evidence to prove our election, while in Lutheranism every time we hear the Gospel and believe it we are justified. And by "we" I mean everyone who believes at any time has possession of the gifts of God when he believes. Whether is believes tomorrow is tomorrow's problem.

Calvinists and Lutherans mean different things when we say "Assurance"

2010-02-04T08:23:00.002-05:00

I think a lot of the difficulty the Calvinists are having with what I have been saying boils down to a definition of terms, because I don't think the underlying point is seriously disputed.

Calvinist assurance: You are assured of eternal salvation and under no circumstances will you lose it.

Lutheran assurance: You are assured that here, today, now, when you believe you are truly justified.

In my opinion, this is why when I say baptism is effective, real grace etc., a Calvinist will reply that this cannot be because some people who are baptized go to hell. I am using "assurance" with the Lutheran definition in mind, while the Calvinist is using assurance with the Calvinist definition in mind. Thus, Brett asks me about 1 John 2 and how this fits into my theology. When Brett sees "And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments" he assumes that this knowledge means eternal assurance, while we see it as assurance that we have repented today, now and that we are Christ's today and now.

Now, I still think "Lutheran" assurance is far superior partly because by looking into one's self one cannot ever really have any assurance, as several Reformed confessions testify. Ours is a concrete event, and objective fact in history, while the Calvinist's is more of a psychological event which must be teased out, or worse, a mere feeling.

Triablogue says Lutherans are on the run....

2010-02-01T12:08:00.002-05:00

I have been particiapting in a couple of threads on "TRIABLOGUE". Things seemed pretty cordial in the first thread, Lutherans on the Run. Then a new thread was created, Witness of the Spirit where things became heated. A poster claimed he was worried that he had comitted an unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit, which he knows would mean damnation. After the Reformed offered their confort I stated he should look to Christ:

The best thing I can say to you is that Jesus Christ died for you, and I can say that unreservedly.

In fact, it is on this issue that the argument turnes.

It is the second statement which apparently set Steve off--that the argument I was having with Steve (and others) turns on whether or not Christ died for all. Steve interpreted this as my using Rach's tormented conscience as "canon fodder" in my argument--which was not my purpose at all.

After some discussion as to whether or not we can know if someone is reprobate--to which Stece answered in the affirmative--a lot of chest thumping and accusations followed, including that I behaved despicably, that Lutheranism is callous and that somehow Lutheran theology made me sociopathic. This was stated after I pointed out "My remarks to RACH were to comfort him/her. If he/she believes I was using him/her, I apologize." Apparently this clarification/apology is not enough to sate the anger of Steve Hays who has been spitting bile for a few posts. Now there is a new post on Triablogue dedicated to Steve's misunderstanding of my point, at least as far as I can see.

UPDATE

Steve from Triablogue responds here:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/02/upstart-lutheran.html

I will leave it to the reader to decide if I lie about Calvinism.

How an apologetic mindset can distort the Gospel

2010-01-31T23:01:00.000-05:00

So, what kind of problems can we encounter when our faith is founded upon reason? I mean this post to deal with apologetics - i.e. rational arguments for the faith. In my experience an excessive reliance intellectual arguments can lead to theological problems, and even the loss of faith altogether.

In the early Church, one apologist was Justin Martyr. I believe that he was just a little too fond of philosophy. In some ways, this philosophy laid the foundation of the Arian heresy. St. Justin's ultimate error, in my opinion, was his claim that the Logos was emitted/begotten as an act of will by the Father. The Arian tendencies in this should be readily apparent--the Arians said that there was a time when the Son was not even though they also stated he "began" before time--though Justin's Logos Christology is not really Arian.

If we follow St. Justin's reasoning we can see he is reasoning like a Stoic, who had all kinds of logos theories. Basically, St. Justin does believe the Logos is eternal, but he was not always distinct. The stoics had an odd view of "logos". They believed in an imminent logos which did not become distinct until the thought goes out as a word. This is the intellectual framework Justin used for his apologetics - i.e. his attempt to argue with the intellectuals of his day for the truth of Christianity--which he considered the best philosophy. Basically, Justin postulated an imminent logos within God who became distinct when God, as an act of will, began to create. This is the "Logos Christology" which was ultimately abandoned by the Church. In my opinion, St. Justin's Logos Christology was a product of his intellectual environment and not Apostolic Doctrine.

One of Justin's predecessors was Theophilus:

Theophilus to Autolycus II.X

For he that is created is also needy; but he that is uncreated stands in need of nothing. God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things.

The logos is not distinct when the logos is internal, the Logos is in the bowels of God. The Logos is not dynamic unless and until the Father emits the Logos along with wisdom and begins to create "all things".

Being dynamic and distinct is a key component of personhood in orthodox triadology, so this doctrine at least implies there was a time when the person of the Logos was not. Now, it is possible that Theolophilus didn't actually believe that the Logos is not a person, but by using the philosophical categories of Stoicism he claimed what I believe is a heretical doctrine of the Logos.

If we allow the Logos is eternal as Justin does, but attempt to describe what kind of eternality the Logos has, we can begin to see how Justin could maintain both an emitted Logos and an eternal Logos. When God began to create, he spoke--the Logos became distinct where before the Logos was not distinct. This is the temporal generation the Catholic Encyclopedia found "unfortunate"

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08580c.htm

It is, of course, to Christian revelation that Justin owes his concept of the distinct personality of the Word, His Divinity and Incarnation; but philosophic speculation is responsible for his unfortunate concepts of the temporal and voluntary generation of the Word, and for the subordinationism of Justin's theology. It must be recognized, moreover, that the latter ideas stand out more boldly in the "Apology" than in the "Dialogue."

Here St. Justin spells out this Stoic doctrine of the Logos. For the Stoics, the Logos of God was the Logos endiatheos until God speaks, when the Logos is the Logos Spermatikos.

Trypho 61

For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word. When we utter a thought, the utterance of it does not diminish the power of thought in us, though in one sense the thought has gone away from us. [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled.

And here we see St. Justin on the subordination of the Logos to the Father, in part due to his Logos Christology:

Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew 56

Then I replied, “I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things—above whom there is no other God—wishes to announce to them.” And quoting once more the previous passage, I asked Trypho, “Do you think that God appeared to Abraham under the oak in Mamre, as the Scripture asserts?

Temporal generation leads to an Arian sounding heresy all because of the requirements of a philosophical school. As I stated, St. Justin is using a Stoic doctrine of the Logos to describe how the Son was generated. It is an act of volition for the Logos to be generated--as St. Justin says, we do it the same way more or less. This is so because unless God speaks, the Logos is not distinct. Furthermore, being the Logos is generated; he is in a sense "another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things". Stated another way, there was a time the person of the Logos was not--not the way Arius stated things, but consistent with St. Justin's reasoning as a stoic, and when the person of the Logos is, he is a distinct and subordinate God.

Trypho 128

And that this power which the prophetic word calls God, as has been also amply demonstrated, and Angel, is not numbered [as different] in name only like the light of the sun but is indeed something numerically distinct, I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same.

Here "numerically distinct" is not meant in the orthodox Trinitarian sense, but in the stoic sense of an imminent logos becoming an external, distinct Logos. As I pointed out, this means a temporal generation of the Son, which I think is a heresy.

Now, in my opinion St. Justin was using the scientific language of his time and place--philosophy. He called himself an apologist, and so he attempted to use reason to show the truth of Christianity. Unfortunately, by philosophizing the deposit if faith he fell into errors--the Logos being indistinct within God just like our own logoi are, the Son as a numerically distinct subordinate God. These ideas answer questions which arise in philosophy and not so much in the life of the Christian.

Now that I have given a quick outline of my reading of St. Justin (and I will accept correction if I am shown to be wrong...) here is how I would apply it to our situation today regarding apologetics. Since apologetic arguments are by their nature based upon reason, it is rather easy to substitute our reason and philosophy for what the Apostles actually teach. It is easy, for instance, to have "systematic theology" replace the preaching of the cross, or to have a philosophical notion, such as divine simplicity or essence/energies begin to rule over the rest of our theology instead of starting with the Christ and him crucified. There are a lot of arguments on the web which turn almost completely on abstract notions and have a tangential relationship with apostolic teaching and pastoral concerns. For examples, see:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/01/witness-of-spirit.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/01/lutherans-on-run.html

A good movie: The Nativity Story (2006)

2009-12-28T13:52:00.001-05:00

I saw this movie just before Christmas an I enjoyed it. What really struc me was the portrayal of St. Joseph. In most nativity movies I have seen he is sort of just "there". In this movie he fulfills the traditional role as his family's provider and protector. He brushes off some pick-pockets, for instance. To be honest, I never thought of St. Joseph as a shrewd and capable protector, though I did always think of him as a protector.

Also very interesting is the protrayal of Mary and Joseph's relationship. While not portrayed as a romance, there is some affection and an emotional bond between the two.

Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" and Apostolic Succession

2009-12-27T22:06:00.003-05:00

This is from a post a while back on TWEB:

"Apostolic Succession" as typically used by EO and RC apologists here is anachronistic when read back into e.g. Irenaeus or the Scriptures, or other fathers they cite. I will give a thumbnail regarding Irenaeus, the most popular Father used to establish AS as a way to identify the true Apostolic Church.

For Irenaeus, all the apostolic churches taught correct doctrine because they were founded by apostles and faithfully passed down what the Apostles taught--which incidentally was also written down in the Scriptures according to Irenaeus--the true churches could trace their bishops/elders/presbyters back to the Apostles through showing this faithful traditioning from the days of the Apostles down to Irenaeus' day. It was easy to spot the innovations of the various Gnostic sects because their doctrines were contrary to what was preserved by the bishops/elders/presbyters in succession to the Apostles in the Church, and it was equally as easy to show they believed contrary to Scripture. However, Irenaeus apparently assumes that if a Church is in Apostolic Succession, it has the rule of faith, which is similar to the Apostles' Creed and contradicts the Gnostics who also contradict each other. That last is key for Irenaeus, because he often compares the cacophony of the Gnostic doctrines with the homogeneous teachings of the Apostolic Churches.

His system breaks down when one or more bishops/elders/presbyters disagree on what constitutes Apostolic Doctrine and anathematize each other--something which didn't really happen much in his day. It is even worse if groups of bishops/elders/presbyters do this. This causes a breakdown for two reasons. First, if division is evidence against the Gnostics, it is evidence against a group of churches claiming AS. Second, as Irenaeus assumes ipso facto that what the Apostolic Churches teach is the true Apostolic Doctrine, if Apostolic Churches disagree there is now no way to simply say "here is the Church in valid succession to the Apostles because they teach ABC" as could be done in Irenaeus' day. Basically, the schisms of the later Church cause the old wineskins of Irenaeus' AS to burst due to circumstances which did not obtain in his day.

Irenaeus did say that the Scriptures are the same message the Apostles proclaimed, and that they are the ground and pillar of truth.

Against Heresies III 1-2

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

2. These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.

"Tradition" was taught and written down by the Apostles according to Irenaeus. I do not mean by "tradition" here things like praying to the East, but doctrines and dogmas like the Incarnation.

While it is true that St. Irenaeus has a sort of AS which looks like EO AS, it is not really the same. We see that the succession is one of teaching the tradition handed down--and remember that for Irenaeus tradition is written down in the Scriptures and is not another source of revelation. A Christian could have confidence the tradition taught in his church was true because of two factors: The tradition taught is in the Scriptures (Irenaeus has a lot of fun ripping apart the ridiculous interpretations of Scripture offered by the Gnostics, who were the ones who claimed one could not understand the Scriptures without a secret "key") AND that the line of bishops/presbyters/elders could be traced back to the Apostles. This "works" because the Apostolic Churches agree on the tradition. That does not obtain throughout Church history though, because widely acknowledged Apostolic Sees, such as Rome from an EO perspective, lost the "tradition" and so there is no successtion there. Now, since Rome can trace her bishop back to Sts Peter and Paul, she is Apostolic and Rome claims there is a line of teaching back to the Apostles which agrees with her tradition. But it is no longer the case that because a Church is can trace herself back to one or more Apostles that she is therefore Apostolic. Now, maybe there could be councils and majorities of bishops to decide these things--but that is not what St. Irenaeus teaches, that is a later innovation. In other words, reading e.g. EO AS back into Irenaeus is anachronistic.

Irenaeus ipso facto assumes the Apostolic Churches agree in doctrine, hence even barbarians can learn the capital "T" Tradition, just point to the Apostolic Churches and listen. That does not help the EO/RC use of Irenaeus either, because it is not the case that all Apostolic Churches (churches which have been publicly proclaiming the Tradition and who can trace their origins back to the Apostles) have agreed on all points over time--one of Irenaeus' arguments against the Gnostics. So, the current state of the Apostolic Churches means this particular argument by Irenaeus does not really apply today.

The Reformation a template for "Climategate"

2009-12-17T15:45:00.002-05:00

Well, I for one see a resemblance, if not an identity. Like all comparisons of commonality, this is a little arbitrary, but I hope you will bear with me and "get" the main point.

Tha papacy before the Reformation enjoyed:

1) Being the "default" position, and being locus of religious authority in the West
2) The ability to dictate the terms of debate such that disagreeing with Church dogma came with severe civil penalties in addition to the ecclesial penalties
3) The ability to cut opponents off from the Sacraments, depose emperors (or at least make their lives very, very difficult), tell subjects their oaths of allegiance need not be obeyed etc.

The global warmists before Climategate enjoyed

1) Being the default position and the locus of authority for human generated global warming
2) The ability to dictate terms of debate such that anyone who disagreed with AGW was more or less ostracized
3) The ability to cut opponents off from being published, and from funding for their research.

As I said, the comparisons are not exact, but what I see as the main commonality is the collapse of authority and the resulting inability to control the terms of debate and to deny opponents access to things they want or need. In the case of the Reformation, the printing press took care of 2, and the various protestant princes took care of 3. 2 meant that protestant ideas could spread despite the institutional authority and power of the RCC, while 3 means that there are different churches in Western Christianity now; broadly speaking the Lutherans, the Reformed and the Anabaptists. When these events combined, these reduced 1 to a great degree, such that the pope had to play defense for a century or two and it was no longer a strong argument to say "the pope says...".

In the case of Climategate, the "direction" of the collapse went in a different direction. First, the content of the emails made 1 quite problematic. This means that 2 is gone--it is no longer good enough to simply cite the authority of the global warmists to stop discussion. Nor can the dissemination of the emails be stopped, and they cannot just wave away the dissenter anymore or stop their ideas from getting out. This is mainly due to the Internet. 3 looks like it may be tottering, but I am not sure it has occurred yet. Some signs it has are newspaper accounts which cite warming skeptics in a more respectful, if not sympathetic light. It is probably still more difficult for a warming skeptic to get funding etc. but that may change.

Authority Claims

2009-12-15T18:28:00.004-05:00

Although I have written about this before, I would like to make the point again.

In a typical discussion about any controversy between a Lutheran and a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, the RC or EO will just claim apostolic succession means his church is the church. Since his church is the ancient church and the Lutherans are not, Lutheran claims can be given a polite hearing, but ultimately they cannot be true because the Lutherans don't have apostolic succession, which the real church has. In this way, apostolic succession can rhetorically do away with any issue which is difficult for a RC or EO to deal with. Anything the Lutheran says is either his personal opinion or the received personal opinion of someone who is outside the Church while the RC or EO is merely following apostolic succession. So, no headway can ever be made, though as I said the Lutheran may be given a polite hearing.

However, when the Lutheran simply asks "why is your apostolic succession better than (insert alternative apostolic succession)?" the RC or EO has no comeback which can be compelling. This is because it is not logically necessary that if one believes in apostolic succession one will therefore be RC, EO, Armenian, Coptic etc. And since in the vast majority of cases online the RC or EO is arguing from authority either explicitly or implicitly, if he cannot prove his authority there is no reason to take his claim of authority seriously . That is, unless he can show that his authority must be the true authority without appealing to that authority. It is as if I just cited passages from the Book of Concord and then waited for all the RCs and EOs to accept what the Lutheran Church teaches as gospel. (Which it is...) This means the RC or EO has to use (get ready!) private interpretation to determine for himself or prove to another why his apostolic succession is the apostolic succession. Given that much of their polemic is based on a Lutheran's private interpretation as opposed to their mere reception of the teachings of the church in apostolic succession, they are loathe to do so. In fact, in my experience they do not do so but just try and assert that their apostolic succession is the real deal.

Now, I don't think this makes their claims necessarily wrong, it is just that it is a byproduct of their over investment in the argument from authority. Since they have been arguing for years (often in Newmanian fashion) that they are fortunate they do not have to use private interpretation while Lutherans do, the wheels basically come off the cart and they don't have a lot to say, for it turns out they are choosing and judging, too.

I really think this simple argument defangs theirs, though it does not disprove it.

Interestingly, we Lutherans have a stake in this. We do not believe we are sui generis but the inheritors and preservers of the Tradition, which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and which is preserved in the Scriptures, as St. Irenaeus said. This Tradition was handed down through the Church, i.e. an institution, and does not come to us apart from the Word. So in many cases we will argue like the RC or EO--the Church has said e.g. Jesus Christ is of the same substance (or ousia) as the Father, and this is the correct interpretation of the Tradition handed down from the Apostles. Anything which differs from this is not part of the Tradition handed down from the Apostles.

Yet it is different, because we believe the Church is gathered around the Gospel proclamation--here in the form of Baptism, there in the form of a sermon, over the hill in the form of a book or a believer's testimony. The Gospel is the "regula fide", not the pronouncements of councils, bishops or popes. For example, Arianism is wrong not because it is implausible or because no one spoke like an Arian before Arius (Justin Martyr had some odd ideas about the Logos.....), but because if Arius was right, their is no longer a Gospel. We know this from the Scriptures and it is clarified because of how the Church prayed and worshiped. So for us, the worship life of the Church points to the Tradition written down by the Apostles, and when it agrees with this written Tradition we can know to a certainty what that Tradition is. I contrast this with the RC and EO way of presenting things--at least online: We don't know anything unless we have an interpreter. Anything you say is unsure because words can mean anything etc.

Which brings me to my final point. I wonder how much of the reliance on authority, and how many converts move from Wittenberg to Rome or Constantinople, because our culture is imbud with and drunk upon post-modernism. If words can literally mean just about anything, then I suppose we do need an infallible interpreter. I just wish he didn;t have to use words to infallibly teach...

If God cannot be moved by something outside himself, why do I matter to him?

2009-12-03T09:27:00.004-05:00

Basically, this thought just came to me. It is an axiom of theology that God is impassible, that nothing external to God "moves" or affects him. This would seem to mean that anything I do for God and my neighbor doesn't matter to God in the slightest. Whether I live or die eternally, or my predecessors, or my family, or my descendants are all beings to whom God is indifferent, as he cannot be moved by their fate.

Now, as a Lutheran I could answer "Well, this same God became man, lived, suffered, died and rose again, and promises eternal life to all who believe this. That is how we know this impassible God of which you speak"

Come to think of it, that is probably why we don't start with grand definitions of God and his properties, such as his impassibility, his glory, his omnipotence etc. We as Lutherans start with the little baby in Mary's bosom--passable, inglorious, weak etc. who grew up and was killed, and yet rose again. I suppose this is a species of the "Theology of the Cross". Most of the time God in his glory, omnipotence etc. are hidden to us, and for all appearances he may even seem to be absent all together at times--picture the Apostles and Mary at the foot of the cross--and yet he is glorious, omnipotent none the less. It is just that in the apparent weakness and wickedness of the world, his glory and omnipotence are not readily seen.

A Matter of Discipline and Conscience

2009-11-23T20:33:00.002-05:00

I suppose that as Lutheran Christians in the USA, we will always be to some degree under the shadow of the RCC on issues such as abortion, so for better or worse, this post is about them and not so much about the LCMS--which as a body is staunchly pro life.

Having said that, I have criticized the RC hierarchy for what I take to be a dilatory approach to those who support abortion. But it seems that there is some movement on this front. In case you haven't heard, Congressman Kennedy was publicly rebuked for his stance on abortion by his bishop. I don't know if he has been formally excommunicated, but it sounds like he will have to either fish or cut bait. This means that, due to the political dynamics of the Democratic Party, he will have to choose between politics and his Church. I do not know what he will choose, or even if he will have to; what I do know is that there comes a time in many lives where one has to follow Christ, or follow one's own path. The first leads to life--not coincidentally--the second to death, again not coincidentally. Let us hope and pray he follows the Lord of life unto life, and not the one who preaches and brings death.

http://catholicpreaching.com/index.php?content=articles&articles=20091120anchor

Luther says to form Christ within ourselves

2009-11-12T09:17:00.004-05:00

I was reading Luther's treatise on good works, and I found this passage:

Lo! thus must thou form Christ within thyself and see how in Him God holds before thee and offers thee His mercy without any previous merits of thine own, and from such a view of His grace must thou draw faith and confidence of the forgiveness of all thy sins. Faith, therefore, does not begin with works, neither do they create it, but it must spring up and flow from the blood, wounds and death of Christ. If thou see in these that God is so kindly affectioned toward thee that He gives even His Son for thee, then thy heart also must in its turn grow sweet and kindly affectioned toward God, and so thy confidence must grow out of pure good-will and love -- God's love toward thee and thine toward God. We never read that the Holy Spirit was given to any one when he did works, but always when men have heard the Gospel of Christ and the mercy of God. From this same Word and from no other source must faith still come, even in our day and always. For Christ is the rock out of which men suck oil and honey, as Moses says, Deuteronomy xxxii.

(Emphasis added)

The link can be found here:

http://www.bibleteacher.org/luthergd_2.htm

It seems incongruent with his other writings, as well as with Lutheranism in general. I think there is something idiomatic going on there, but I am not sure. If someone can enlighten me, I would appreciate it.

Faith, works and synergy

2009-11-09T23:34:00.002-05:00

If faith is the gift of God, as Christ and the Apostle say, then where is the synergy when someone gives us unrighteous pukes a "free gift" as St. Paul said?

Sanctification is synergistic and that is where our works in faith "fit"--however sanctification is not trust in the promises of God, it is not passing from death into life, which is faith. So faith, in the sense of our adoption as sons, in the sense of God granting us the Holy Spirit, is not synergistic--it is pure grace. To put it succinctly, when an infant is baptized, where is the synergy? When Jesus called Lazarus from the tomb, where was the synergy? When Jesus raised the widow of Nain's son, where was the synergy?

There was no synergy, because those things are examples of God's gracious acts on his creation.

That is how we receive faith, by an act of God upon us and not by our striving. That is how we are justified by faith alone, and not by works of the law. There is no synergy because, as St. Paul says, we are dead in trespasses and sins and raised to life by the Gospel which is the power of God unto salvation--just like Lazarus was dead and was called to life through Christ's word. The only synergy is that we, as new, living beings in Christ, willingly cooperate in serving God and our neighbor.

Than which fewer wiser things have been said on any discussion board....

2009-10-16T14:25:00.002-04:00

EO negative theology would be a lot more convincing if it weren't so concerned about terms and definitions yourselves, and didn't demand that everyone adopt your exact way of saying things.

http://tinyurl.com/ylxm6nv

UPDATE: Link fixed

Things could be worse...

2009-10-13T22:38:00.001-04:00

More about John Calvin at Calvin 500

If you want to be the Church, deny the Augsburg Confession!

2009-10-12T13:45:00.003-04:00

From Cyberbrethren:

“The Commission for Theology advises the Council of the EKD not to accept the Augsburg Confession as a primary confession in the EKD fundamentals.” The Commission is co-chaired by Michael Beintner (Münster) and Professor Dorothea Wendebourg. The vote was unanimous and agreed to by the EKD Council, which affirmed its readiness to continue strengthening the bonds of the EKD. Instead of accepting the Augsburg Confession, a document that both Lutherans and Protestants in Germany agree “has been the core confession of all of German Protestantism from 1530 to 1806″ (Prof. Dr. Wolf-Dieter Hauschild, Münster), the Council referred dissenters to its 2001 adoption of “Church Fellowship in Evangelical Understanding” (KneV). There it states that the EKD does not seek to form “a canonical church, like her member churches,” since the EKD already is [the] church in the fullest sense of the word. Perhaps mindful that KneV was German Protestantism’s response to the Vatican’s August 2000 document “Dominus Iesus,” which affirmed the primacy of the Roman Church over all other “ecclesial communities,” EKD President Hermann Barth stated, “Measures by which the EKD must first become the church are not necessary, since she is already it in the theological sense, since church fellowship is church.” The EKD reaffirmed it’s continuing commitment to the Leuenberger Konkordie.

So, if someone is already the Church, what do they need with the Augustana? Put another way, it seems that the EKD (Evangelische Kirche Deutchland?) has no need for the primary Evangelical confession, which makes one wonder why they consider themselves "Evangelical".

I am really beginning to think that Liberal Protestantism is becoming so unhinged from any semblance of history or tradition they they are becoming--funny! I don't really mean that in a glib way, it is as if we were playing the game "how far can they go?"

Apparently, quite far. Think about it, the ultimate end of being Evangelical is to deny the doctrines of the Evangelical Church are binding, the ultimate end of being Christian is to deny Christ (UCC, others on the way), the ultimate end of studying the Scriptures is to deny the Scriptures (modern critical theory). All the while, they are "church", because they say they are, and all that matters is a few specific words and some scholarly mambo-jumbo.

It is actually pretty funny if you think about it, though in a tragic way.

Polanski

2009-09-30T14:12:00.002-04:00

I think if he was called "Pastor Polanski" or "Father Polanski" there would be no celebrities asking for clemency, and there would be a lot of talk about "protecting the children" from sexual predators. It seems that for many of our betters, it doesn't matter what you do so much as who you are. A Christian? Throw the book at him! A gifted "artiste"? Hey, the girl was a bit mature anyway....and it was only sex.

I fail to see why being punished for raping a 13 Y.O. girl--something he plead guilty to to--is of so little import that we can just forget about it. Unless you happen to be of the wrong tribe, of course!

Apologitis

2009-09-21T08:56:00.003-04:00

Apologitis is a fairly common ailment on religious blogs which discuss interfaith issues. If you have any two of the following symptoms in a thread, you probably have apologitis:

1) You feel compelled to respond to every critique of your religion such that you spend hours discussing minutia, because everything must be defended. Typical examples are arguing about how your opponent is arguing, and quick, ill thought out responses which, after you read them, even you can see are full of question begging and poor reasoning but never retracted or clarified. But SOMETHING had to be said!

2) You will not retract an obviously false argument because it will hurt your "team". Examples are, when the facts are against you, simply state your opponent does not understand what you are saying about your incredibly deep and nuanced tradition, despite the fact it is a valid critique and the critique does show some tension in your beliefs. This is often used as evidence of the density of your opponent, and that he needs homework assignments. These homework assignments are best when they are thick tomes full of obscure language. This re-enforces the point that your opponent does not understand you and your incredibly deep tradition, as only the knowledgeable can really "get" the source you have assigned, which will clear everything up as soon as they are read.

Another tactic is to feign fatigue because your bovine opponent cannot deal with your rapier-like wit and argumentation. At all times, it is critical to insure the light of reason is shown to be 100% on your side, while anything your opponent says is so obviously wrong only a simpleton could possibly believe it and deny the luminescence of the Truth(tm).

3) You act passive-aggressive toward your opponent in an attempt to look superior. Examples are trying to get the last word explicitly by constantly posting to exhaust your opponent, or implicitly by posting an aggressive argument and offering to let the opponent get the last word out of the bigness of your hart; combined with the statement about the obvious dullness of your opponent.

4) You claim that what ever criteria your tradition has for determining truth is applicable for any other tradition. When cornered, you simply appeal to the obvious truth of the epistemological structure your tradition uses. Examples are Roman Catholics citing Roman Catholic traditions as if they are self evident or wild claims that "the Church" has stated something which "the" Church has not, or Protestants simply citing their confessional documents and/or the peculiar interpretations of Scripture of said tradition as proof.

The cure is Christian humility.

1) If your tradition depends on a single pet argument you have, you need to find a new tradition because it is a weak and easily refuted tradition.

2) As a corollary, if your tradition depends on you to defend it, find another tradition for the same reason.

3) A little intellectual honesty goes a long way. If someone does not accept the same authority you do, that authority is pretty useless for convincing anyone, no matter how many times you post it and pretend the truth is obvious. Also, any tradition which is not brand new will have something going for it, so don't pretend otherwise either actually or rhetorically.

4) Rhetorical games make your argument look weak. If you don't have the time to post, it is almost always better to just say so and not try and gain the upper hand with a faux magnanimity. Alternatively, if someone is a jerk, just stop posting and don't feed the troll--see 1 and 2 above.

Pseudointellectual Dreck

2009-09-10T20:45:00.004-04:00

I am watching History International and I learned the following:

1) The Nag Hammadi writings portray Mary Magdalene as a sort of proto-feminist heroine because she spoke up against St. Peter, who said Jesus would never teach such knowledge to a woman.

2) A modern scholar can read the minds of e.g. St. Athanasius and state with a straight face that he wanted to suppress gnosticism because he felt threatened by the gospel of finding God from self reflection. As everyone knows, salvation extra nos cannot possibly be true, because we are the center of everything and have divinity within us.

3) The Madonna and child imagery is just taken from Egyptian mythology--apparently no one ever thought to portray a mother and child without referencing Egyptian mythology.

4) Christians apparently didn't have a single new idea--everything was pinched from the pagans in the neighborhood.

5) Muslim conquerors were humane compared to others, especially the notoriously viscous Byzantines.

Itching ears, indeed.

Come to think of it, I suppose liberal Christianity does indeed have ancient roots.

Why does the pastor say "I" during absolution?

2009-09-07T18:30:00.002-04:00

Here is what I think is happening during Absolution. The pastor says "I" because he is in Christ's seat when he gives absolution, because when he does so he acts in accordance with Christ's command and his word of promise.

As to why we need absolution during out life here on earth, we have to do it again not because we necessarily flop back and forth between salvation and damnation, but because we sin--we are sinners as touching our sinful acts and desires and justified as touching our relationship with the Father through Christ. Because we are both at the same time, we still struggle with the sin we were born with and into. The more we grind Adam into dust, the more Godly our acts.

Finally, keep in mind that the objectivity of what is going on is important to Lutherans--it is important we believe the minister when he says our sins are forgiven, because without belief we cannot benefit from the promise of absolution God is iffering through Jesus Christ via the minister.

At what point would a pro abortion stance automatically excommunicate us?

2009-08-30T17:28:00.004-04:00

This is something which ranckles me a little bit. You see, the LC-MS and the RCC, as well as the EOC have strong positions against abortion--it is simply a sin, though I think the EOC and LC-MS will permit an abortion in the case of the mother's life being at risk--I am not sure abou tthe RCC.

Now, I am not aware of any prominent LC-MS politicians which hold to a pro abortion point of view, though if they exist the same critique would apply to them. And if there are some, I would hope they are not as radical as Nancy Pelosi, Rudolph Giuliani and the recently deceased Edward Kennedy. For that reason I will concentrate on those three prominent RC politicians.

Each one is committed to a "pro choice" view, which is defined as intrinsically evil by the RCC. (And I am not really picking on the RCC here, it is just that I am more familiar with their "pro choice" public figures). I am not sure about Giuliani, but both Pelosi and Kennedy are and were in favor of public funding of abortion, which means I have to pay for acts which I believe are intrinsically evil. So, given that, how does Nancy Pelosi get a papal audience, receive communion and otherwise get to go around and parade her RCism in public and yet maintain a firm commitment to an intrinsically evil act? Edward Kennedy did more or less the same, and received a full RC burial, and was for all appearances a member of the RCC in good standing. Giuliani was, to my knowledge, specifically instructed not to receive communion by the cardinal. But if that is not true, the same critique applies to him.

So, what gives? how can one publicly maintain support for an intrinsically evil act and remain in communion with the Church? I always though public, flagrant sin was a cause for excommunication. Perhaps I am missing something.

ELCA off the cliff

2009-08-23T19:50:00.003-04:00

When I heard the news, I wasn't surprised, and only a little disappointed. I mean, it is not like orthodoxy was flourishing before now. The trends have been clear for a long while. And anyone who cannot see that the Scriptures do not permit a homosexual lifestyle is doing theological sophistry. If you want to allow things the Scriptures forbid, don't say your doctrine is based on the Scriptures and admit you disagree.

What will be the effect? The ELCA has by this action proclaimed openly what many have said about her before, she is just another post-modern, culture affirming liberal Church. Less liberal than some, to be sure, but that will change over time. By being in fellowship with so many, how can she speak for American Lutheranism? What do they bring to the table which the UCC does not?

Of course, I hope and pray that the people and clergy in the ELCA "fix" this, but I don't think the problem is gay ministers, but that there is functionally no doctrinal authority except the hierarchy itself. In other words, there is a lot to fix.

*******UPDATE*******

This is really interesting if it pans out. It appears that a freak tornado went through Minneapolis during the events described above, and shredded some tents and knocked the cross off a church used by the convention when the vote was to be taken.

http://tinyurl.com/lpazub

Symbolism abounds. :-)

The President says I am a sinner....

2009-08-21T08:30:00.004-04:00

"President Obama sought Wednesday to reframe the health care debate as “a core ethical and moral obligation,” imploring a coalition of religious leaders to help promote the plan to lower costs and expand insurance coverage for all Americans."

Link

I don't think my religion should determine my politics per se, but I find it offensive that the President of the United States would basically call me unethical because I don't think the government is an efficient, or I daresay, ethical distributor of health care resources for the nation. We are supposed to care for our neighbor, but the government taking resources from one and giving it to another does not make the one whose resources are taken more "ethical", nor does it make the one doing the taking more ethical. Government is force, and necessary, but it is not necessarily a force for ethoical good.

In fact, I think this kind of government moralizing and doctrinizing is what got the LCMS started. "All you fuddy-duddy Lutherans better get with the program and unite with your Reformed neighbors and stop hanging on to your narrow doctrines...."

Update:

It gets worse:

""We are God's partners in matters of life and death," Obama said, according to Moline (paging Sarah Palin...), quoting from the Rosh Hashanah prayer that says that in the holiday period, it is decided "who shall live and who shall die.""

I don't find this comforting at all, not one little bit.

This made me think of pomo worship

2009-08-19T21:18:00.002-04:00

When I saw this video, I immediately thought of "contemporary worship". I know that isn't totally fair, but that is what came to mind with all the "relevance" and "packaging" and being "easy to follow".

HT http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/what-orthodoxy-is-not/

When the facts are on your side....

2009-08-18T17:24:00.004-04:00

I see a pattern in how any critique of RCism is dealt with by RC apologists. Let's suppose I wave 1 Clement 32 under an apologist's nose:

"Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, "Your seed shall be as the stars of heaven." All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."

Well now, that seems pretty straight forward--we are saved by faith and not works--even our godliness and works done in purity of heart. So, Clement seems to have taught something like justification by faith alone, which is a torpedo amidships for accusations of Luther's "innovation".

Well, no, if you ask an RC apologist.

You see, Clement is RC, so he must agree with the current position of the RCC.

I think this is besides the point.

If I argued that Trent said justification by faith alone is the true doctrine of justification, RC apologists would not bother with "The writers of Trent are RC, so an RC interpretation is the correct one", they would argue from the words of Trent themselves. And they would be right, and it would be trivial to show I am wrong since justification by faith alone is explicitly condemned.

What I am getting to is this, there is an old lawyer saw that goes something like this:

"When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition."

I submit that when an apologist, be he RC, EO, Lutheran or whatever, argues from generalities to make what is written mean something quite different from what seems to be the natural sense of what is written, he tacitly admits he does not have the facts on his side. I think something like this is going on with this Clement quote--the RCs have tacitly admitted the facts are on not their side, so they change the subject to "If Clement is RC he agrees with us..." This is a common tactic in my experience.

I also think pope St. Clement did teach something very like justification by faith alone.

Employed!

2009-07-29T20:49:00.003-04:00

Whew!

Just to catch up first, I was unemployed for a bit, but I found work so it looks like my family and me will be OK. I would like to thank the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and everyone for their prayers. I have never been unemployed before and I have to say it is a very stressful experience. We had some money saved but with little or no income, which means the "burn rate" is rather frightening. We were spiritually sustained by our congregation as well as friends and family. Thank God it is over, and I hope and pray for anyone who has to go through such a stressful period.

Why posting has been light

2009-03-04T19:16:00.000-05:00

I recently lost my contract, and I am looking foe more work. Until I find it, I will not be able to post too much.

Prayers are appreciated.

Epistemological Modesty

2009-02-20T10:49:00.004-05:00

I saw this here:

Epistemological Modesty [Jim Manzi]

Most of what I write about can be summarized in the following four sentences by David Brooks:

The correct position is the one held by self-loathing intellectuals, like Isaiah Berlin, Edmund Burke, James Madison, Michael Oakeshott and others. These were pointy heads who understood the limits of what pointy heads can know. The phrase for this outlook is epistemological modesty, which would make a fine vanity license plate.

The idea is that the world is too complex for us to know, and therefore policies should be designed that take account of our ignorance.

Which is fairly humbling, and not the greatest advertisement in the world for reading any of my essays.

I think the same applies to theology. There are a lot of "pointy headed" theologians who's ideas and teachings undermine key theological truth by layering on precept over precept--Bishop Spong is one famous example. There are examples in all churches I am familiar with. In fact, I think there is a good case that much of the Reformation was a reaction against the "pointy heads" who had some rather elaborate theories about justification for one. Well, if our theories are rally completely novel, such as "development of doctrine", then there is a really high chance that we do not respect pour own ignorance of divine things and end up rejecting what was revealed by God. Now, this is not to say that theology is useless, just that the "pointy heads" should be careful lest their theories supplant what we have received through divine revelation. In fact, I was subjected to this when I was an apologist against skeptics: my arguments began to supplant my faith in Christ, he became more of an idea I could hang other ideas around instead of the Lord of Life come to save me. Of course, my arguments were impeccable, though!

I really like this song

2009-02-11T19:34:00.000-05:00

Is the Pope still Catholic?

2009-02-07T15:41:00.003-05:00

An interesting statement by Pope Benedict:

"Luther, the pope had told his audience, had been right to insist in sola fide, that a believer was justified by faith alone!"

Now, before we get too excited, here is how the pope defined faith:

"The pope defined faith as 'identification with Christ expressed in love for God and neighbour'. Such love fulfilled the law. Being justified meant simply being with Christ and in Christ. Christ alone was sufficient."

Depending on what "identification with Christ" means, there may be something significant here. Lutherans believe the faith by which we are saved is that we believe and take as our own what God has promised in Christ. This faith is the gift of God the Holy Spirit given through the preached Gospel. I can't place my finger on it, but it does seem to me that the pope's definition of faith is a different one, and it seems to me that it is centered on "identification with...".

This may cause some e-apologists heads to explode though:

"Luther had correctly translated Paul's words as 'justified by faith alone', the well-known sola fide, Benedict affirmed, as reported in the newspaper."

This translation was a famous "scurrilous interpolation" by Luther who only wanted to import his subjective, private judgement into the translation of the Bible, according to more than one RC e-apologist I have read.

Link:
http://au.christiantoday.com/article/luther-rome-and-the-bible/5255.htm

This just makes me want to barf...

2009-01-20T21:10:00.003-05:00

By their fruits.....

2008-12-29T16:53:00.002-05:00

So, what does an atheist see in Christians while traveling in Africa?

"How can I, as someone with a foot in both camps, explain? When the philosophical tourist moves from one world view to another he finds - at the very moment of passing into the new - that he loses the language to describe the landscape to the old. But let me try an example: the answer given by Sir Edmund Hillary to the question: Why climb the mountain? “Because it's there,” he said.

To the rural African mind, this is an explanation of why one would not climb the mountain. It's... well, there. Just there. Why interfere? Nothing to be done about it, or with it. Hillary's further explanation - that nobody else had climbed it - would stand as a second reason for passivity.

Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I've just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates. "

Read the whole thing!

Venerating Saints

2008-07-31T10:26:00.001-04:00

I have been told that, by definition, worship is not given to saints in the RCC. It was easy, according to the RC apologists, to tell if worship was being given to a saint's relics or not--or even to a saint, or the Mother of God. If there is no sacrifice, no worship is given. That was actually a pretty good argument, because they are not beholden to a prot view of what worship is. No matter how similar the actions looked, or how similar the words sound to worship they could simply point to their doctrine that if one is not sacrificing, one is not worshiping; hence by definition saints are not worshiped.

QED

I recently came across these two verses of Scripture in another discussion forum:

Ephes 5:5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Col 3:5Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.

While there may be a plausible explanation offered to explain why St. Paul is not really speaking about worship, I don't see it. I think it looks like the fine distinctions used to say that the saints are never worshiped in e.g. venerating bones is beginning to break down. The citations above show what amounts to "non-sacrificial worship", which should be a contradiction in terms, given the typical RC distinction made. The highlighted terms used in the passages cited above are EIDOLOLATRIS and EIDOLOLATREIA respectively, so St. Paul is plainly speaking abut worship, which is latreia. Maybe they could say that proper veneration of the saints is never latreia but proper dulia, but they cannot simply rule idolatry out of court simply because by nature nothing is latreia without a sacrifice. This means a lot more weight is given to what people actually say and do as opposed to a sort of objective yardstick to determine if worship is given.

The distinction seems to a notion one keeps in one's head because St. Paul blatantly called actions without sacrifice worship, and I think he has a lot of authority. And as we all know, it is very easy for us to rationalize what we think we are doing even if we are doing something wrong. That is why the "kinetic" and material parts of worship are important. One could think one has the proper distinction in one's head, but in reality one is actually giving idolatrous worship to something made with hands and is deceived because of what one does. If the definition or worship is more "kinetic" such that it by definition rules out a given set of acts actually being worship, this is not nearly as much of an issue. Absent the "kinetic" bulwark though, traditional prot critiques of e.g. bone venerating have a lot more force. It can be very easy to become an idolater--especially when the actions of adoration of an icon look so similar to worship.

The Bible, God's Word

2008-07-21T23:52:00.000-04:00

Perhaps we should allow God to speak for himself:

"Is not my word like fire", declares the LORD, "and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces? Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets", declares the LORD, "who steal my words from one another. Behold, I am against the prophets", declares the LORD, "who use their tongues and declare, 'declares the LORD.' Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams", declares the LORD, "and who tell them and lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness, when I did not send them or charge them. So they do not profit this people at all", declares the LORD. [Jeremiah 23:29-32]

I think we would agree that these are the words of God, and that those prophets and Apostles who speak his word are speaking his word and not the word of another. Also, when they write his word down, it remains his word, just as much as when they spoke his word, and it does not lose its power or effect because it is written and not spoken.

So, it seems elementary that the Bible is the Word of God, so long as one accepts that the Bible is inspired.

"Nuking" Theology

2008-06-20T21:44:00.002-04:00

"Nuking" Theology

A little background first.

When I was in the US Navy in the '80s, there was a shortage of nuclear technicians for the various submarine and surface vessels in the fleet. If you scored high enough on the ASVAB, and were a male, you would be encouraged to join the nuclear program. If you agreed, you would be called a "nuke" and receive faster advancement, more pay etc. "Nukes" had to have a rate besides being a nuclear technician. (A "rate" is like a job in the Navy, a rate would be cook, electronics technician, machinist's mate etc.) One of the rates a nuke could learn was Electronics Technician--my rate when I was in the Navy. So the "nukes" went to the same schools as the regular electronics Technicians (ETs) with a slightly modified curriculum.

Now, the "nukes" had a reputation of over analyzing things to such a degree that they would miss the obvious. Because of their often greater intelligence, they would bring irrelevant facts to bear on simple questions and come up with the wrong answer while "Charles the Simple" would look at the question, realize "b" made the most sense, answer the question and move on to the next question. It was considered great sport to listen to the grandiloquent explanations from the "nuke" as to why his answer--the product of his superior knowledge and intellectual acumen--is really the best answer while "Charles the Simple" was missing key nuances. This was known as "nuking" the question, and the instructor would often tell the "nuke" to keep it simple, and to pay attention to the question and not to over analyze it.

"Nuking" is basically taking our reasoning a step or more too far, and thereby losing sight of the obvious. It is as if someone asked me directions to the Albany Academy and instead of saying "go down New Scotland and make a left at Academy Road" I begin to think that though a left turn is how he should get to the Albany Academy, he is currently facing East so Albany Acedemy is on his right, so I tell him to turn right--he subsequently gets lost.

I think a lot of "nuking" has gone on throughout Church history and I am growong more and more convinced that it is the source for all heresy.

So where do I see writers and theologians "nuking" a question? Chiefly in the Medeival Church.

The Scholastic theology of the West was one giant "nuking" of the Gospel in many ways. There were elaborate theories about how someone could be justified before God. There were those who asserted God accepts an arbitrarily minimum effort on our parts for him to justify us, AKA the "via moderna". The problem is, that God accepting the minimum we can do and justifying us because of that sort of leaves Christ out of the equation. If God chooses to accept a "minimum" why is the Incarnation necessary? Instead of accepting what the Scriptures and tradition say about justification before God, they brought Ciceronian concepts of "justice"--that justice is giving everyone what he or she deserves--and then claimed that God as sovereign simply chooses the minimum we are capable of as payment. What was missed is that God justifies sinners--something inherently contrary to Cicero's definition of justice because sinners don't get what they deserve, Christ gets what they deserve. Their philosophical understanding of "justice" trumped what was right before their eyes. This bit of nuking more or less lead to the Reformation: we are justified by grace through faith, not by what we deserve; i.e because of our works. The reformation overturned the reigning theological paradigm of the day.

I think it is dangerous to the Church when "nukes" are running theology. Just look at what the Arians did!

The real Presence and Discerning the Body and Blood

2008-06-10T22:22:00.002-04:00

I don't think we can discern the actual Body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Alter. The question is, not whether we can discern the body of Christ physically, but whether we can discern the effects of the body of Christ. For instance, Medieval people could discern the effects of infection, but could not always discern the cause of infection. The only "empirical" evidence was the effects, not the cause. This did not cause them to deny the reality of infection, far from it. Through experience they even learned to mitigate the effects. Later in history, we learned more details about infection, that they are caused by bacteria or viruses. In other words, the cause of the infection was later "revealed" through investigation. So, in a like manner, the RP was revealed, not only in Christ's words of Institution, but by their effects on those who profaned the Sacrament. This is true even though, like bacteria and viruses, we cannot now see the Body and Blood of Christ with our senses. And like the "revelations" of science, God will reveal all things to us in his good time. But in the mean time, it is not correct to assert that we have no empirical evidence, what we have is enough evidence to believe, which should be sufficient this side of eternity.

Liberation Theology Run Amok

2008-05-29T13:42:00.004-04:00

Apparently, I am supposed to feel ashamed and guilty because my ancestors "benefited" from the oppression of black people. Do we get a credit for blacks in the middle and upper classes, as well as poor white people? The whole racialist thing is rather disturbing to me, because it aloways focuses on the bottom line--the all mighty dollar.

I note that there is not a single reference to grace and forgiveness, it is all about guilt and shame.

Also, it is kind of funny to see a RC priest in his collar scream and flap his arm like a bird. It looks so--out of sync.

Via Powerline

Pirate Christian Radio

2008-05-28T17:31:00.002-04:00

Like a phoenix, Pr. Wilken is back.

http://www.piratechristianradio.com/

LC-MS Priorities Upside Down

2008-05-06T13:20:00.003-04:00

I am concerned, but not as much as a large portion of the Confessional Lutheran blogosphere is regarding Issues Etc. cancellation. I definitely have my concerns, but I want to wait for the synod leadership to address the questions--or not address them. Either way the answer will be forthcoming. There are also many more able bloggers than I am, who are on top of this issue.

Anyway, I saw this on http://augsburg1530.wordpress.com/

Again, we spend $25,000 on congregations in Missouri such as JeffersonHills Church that puts up signs purporting to come from Satan, but we don’t have funds to spread the Gospel in Togo?

We don’t have money problems. We have priority problems.

From the post, I would certainly say so! For some reason, the synod does not see evangelism in Africa as important as funding trendy churches with ridiculous signs which say for example "Boycott JeffersonHills Church, signed Satan". Given that Issues Etc. was canceled for financial reasons according to synod leadership, this is definitely a legitimate concern. If money is the issue, why are we wasting so much on such dreck as above?

I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the synod leadership, but the more I see what is actually happening, the more concerned I become. I mean, are we supposed to believe that the church will grow if we recall our missionaries and shut down a well regarded Christian radio program? What gives? If the purpose of the plan is to grow the church, then I would say it is a pretty wrong-headed plan since everything is going in the opposite way as far as I can see.

Throwing Babies

2008-05-01T11:52:00.004-04:00

Apparently, there is a custom in India for parents to throw their infants from a building to be caught on a sheet.

I know it is ethnocentric, but some customs are just plain weird. At the link, you will see this is done for the "luck" of the child. The video may be disturbing to some, but no baby was hurt, and at least one was as tranquil as a warm summer evening. The video can be found here

The Imperial Cult and Martyrdom

2008-04-30T22:41:00.002-04:00

Would early Christians find devotions to the saints akin to worship of the Roman Emperor? Is worship of the emperor akin to the worship of mary? (hyperdulia).

We should keep in mind that the RCC only considers an act to be worship if a sacrifice is made. So, for RCs, offering incense to the statue of the emperor would be worship. (Biblically though, worship can also be contrition, prayers etc.) I believe this is a distinction with no difference--many Christians were martyred for refusing to worship a being they certainly thought were lower than the Triune God.

For Lutherans, to worship is to receive the gifts God offers in the preaching of the word and in Holy Baptism, Holy Communion and absolution. So, for us any veneration in exchange for such blessings would be wrongful worship, which is due only to God.

Now, let us start with the Martyrdom of Polycarp.

Chapter 8
“What harm is there in saying, Lord Cæsar, and in sacrificing, with the other ceremonies observed on such occasions, and so make sure of safety?”

Sacrifice was specifically requested. Thus, as a Christian, he could not offer this worship toward the Emperor.

Chapter 9
“Have respect to your old age,” and other similar things, according to their custom, [such as], “Swear by the fortune of Cæsar; repent, and say, Away with the Atheists. hen Polycarp with solemn countenance looked upon the whole multitude of lawless heathen that were in the stadium, and waved his hand to them; and groaning and looking up to heaven he said, 'Away with the atheists.'”

No sacrifice, but a specific request to renounce the Christians--“Away with the Atheists”. Polycarp adroitly turned the "Away with the atheists" statement around, but he did not do so with swearing by Caesar, because that would be worship.

Chapter 10
“Swear by the fortune of Cæsar,”

No sacrifice, no denunciation. In other words, no worship. It sounds like the proconsul was ready do compromise. For Lutherans, swearing by the fortune of Caesar constitutes worship, because to do so is to ask for a supernatural benefit from a mere man.

Now, though the emperors were called "gods", we should keep in mind that the actual term used was "divus" or "divine", a lesser state of deity, if you will. Hence, the emperor was not offered latraea. So, even the Roman Emperors were not worshiped in the same way a Christian would worship the Triune God, he was a lower order of being--similar to St. Mary and the other saints.

So, what does RC Marian devotion look like?

Another recommended Marian devotion is wearing the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. There are many Scapulars, all valuable, but this one is eminent among them. There is a very ancient tradition that St. Simon Stock, Superior of the Carmelite Order in England in 1251, after imploring the help of Our Lady, was favored with a vision in which she gave him the Scapular, saying: "This will be a privilege for you and for all Carmelites, that he who dies in this will not suffer eternal fire." The historical evidence for this vision is very impressive, and gives at least some degree of moral certitude that the vision really did take place. To gain this promise one must be enrolled in the Confraternity of the Scapular. Pope Pius XII, on the 700th anniversary of this vision, wrote to the Major Superiors of the Carmelites, clearly showing his belief in it: "For not with a light or passing matter are we here concerned, but with the obtaining of eternal life itself, which is the substance of the Promise of the Most Blessed Virgin which has been handed down to us."

However, the Pope warned that the mere physical wearing of the Scapular is not enough: "May it be to them a sign of their Consecration to the Most Sacred Heart of the Immaculate Virgin, which in recent times we have so strongly recommended." If one then uses the Scapular as the outward sign of living such a Marian consecration, then faith in the fulfillment of the promise is well justified. In fact, Pope Pius XI said (Explorata res. Feb. 2, 1923): "Nor would he incur eternal death whom the Most Blessed virgin assists, especially at his last hour. This opinion of the Doctors of the Church, in harmony with the sentiments of the Christian people, and supported by the experience of all times, depends especially on this reason: the fact that the Sorrowful Virgin shared in the work of the Redemption with Jesus Christ." In other words, a solid Marian devotion is certain to bring one close to Jesus Christ, and so will assure one of reaching salvation, even if the vision to St. Simon Stock might not be authentic. Also, when Vatican II said that all things recommended by the Magisterium of the Church towards her should still be considered matters of great importance, the Scapular was clearly included, for numerous Popes have recommended it strongly.
From a Lutheran standpoint, this is worship--performing pilgrimage to carry out a change within us.

Source: http://www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/maryd7.htm

Clearly, one consecrates one's self to St. Mary, and receives a guarantee of salvation so long as one's devotion is true. Of course, I am aware that RCs believe this salvation actually comes from Jesus. My concern here though, is do discern how the RCs differentiate between the devotion to the vergin via the scapular, and merely swearing by the genius of one's ruler. Clearly neither is "worship" in the RC sense--nothing is sacrificed. However, Christians were willing to die in order to avoid a simple act of obeisance to the emperor, while similar devotion to St. Mary is encouraged. What, in the Imperial cult, made throwing incense in the name of the Emperor’s “genius” idolatry, while invoking Our Lady Mary to save us is not?

Finnish Lutheran blog

2008-04-29T12:42:00.004-04:00

I received this link from Dr. Tighe. I highly recommend it. It is really meaty and interesting to boot.

http://tentatioborealis.blogspot.com/

Confessional Church in Germany has some cool videos

2008-04-28T15:01:00.002-04:00

This video is from our sister church in Germany, the SELK. it is about the new Luther Center in Wittenberg. Have a look:

Luther, Apologists and the Canon

2008-04-23T23:00:00.002-04:00

Very often, RC apologists will claim that Luther wanted to remove books from the Bible, usually the Epistle of St. James is used as an example. Luther supposedly, on his own authority, wanted to remove the Epistle of St. James from the canon. I think this argument, like the 20,000-denominations-from-Sola-Scriptura argument belongs on the trash heap of apologetics.

First, regarding the questioning of the authenticity and authority of the antilegomana (books spoken against, i.e. challenged as to their authenticity) being something Luther invented. I will point out that the category of antilegomena is a very old one, and questioning the authority of the antilegomena has an ancient pedigree, going back to Jerome and even further. More than that, Cajetan (the Cardinal by whom Luther was examined for heresy) and Erasmus both questioned the authenticity of the antilegomena, and they were Luther's contemporaries.

Regarding Erasmus, the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

In these publications the attitude of Erasmus towards the text of the New Testament is an extremely radical one, even if he did not follow out all its logical consequences. In his opinion the Epistle of St. James shows few signs of the Apostolic spirit; the Epistle to the Ephesians has not the diction of St. Paul, and the Epistle to the Hebrews he assigns with some hesitation to Clement of Rome. In exegesis he favoured a cold rationalism and treated the Biblical narratives just as he did ancient classical myths, and interpreted them in a subjective and figurative, or, as he called it, allegorical, sense.

(The Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05510b.htm)

In a similar way to Luther, Erasmus thought that the Epistle of St. James did not have the "apostolic spirit". Yet somehow Erasmus escapes the wrath of RC apologists for "editing" the Bible.

Bruce Metzger wrote regarding Cajetan:

Even Cardinal Cajetan, Luther's opponent at Augsburg in 1518, gave an unhesitating approval to the Hebrew canon in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, which he dedicated in 1532 to pope Clement VII. He expressly called attention to Jerome's separation of the canonical from the uncanonical books, and maintained that the latter must not be relied upon to establish points of faith, but used only for the edification of the faithful.

(Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha, p. 180)

Once again, we find a RC theologian saying something Luther more or less said, yet he too escapes the wrath of RC apologists.

The issue was settled for RCs by Trent, but Trent settled this after Luther had died. In other words, Luther's questioning of the antilegomena fell within the range of RC orthodoxy during his lifetime. For this reason, among others, the charge Luther on his own authority simply decided to remove some books is simply wrong--Luther was not behaving any differently from some of the ECFs as well as contemporary scholarship, when he challenged the anilegomena. He also included the disputed books in his edition of the Bible, so if Luther wanted to remove the antilegomena he sure missed the opportunity!

Not every Christian is a Lutheran--Until they are at death's door!

2008-04-21T14:09:00.004-04:00

I believe Luther said somewhere that at the end, when we are about to die, all vanities are stripped away and we will only have Christ left. I have come across this before, and I always find it interesting when e.g. St, Therese says something very Lutheran sounding--yet remains a doctor of the Church.

Jack Fowler, a RC on National Review Online wrote:

So the Church errs in some matters. So teachings change. So traditions change. So, ultimately, what? When the time comes, the One Truth that is supreme is all that matters. Friday abstinence, the Pythagorean Theorem, Darwinism, the boiling blood of St. Januarius (coming this Saturday at the Cathedral of San Gennaro in Naples) – all of this evaporates in meaning and relevance when one engages Christ’s presence. So says WFB. I agree.

I think that is about right--at the end most if not all our theologies, apologetic arguments, epistemology will be swallowed up in Christ, the God-Man, Truth in the flesh. I believe that most if not all Christians will experience something like this at death's door. And this type of focus on the mercy and love Jesus is one of the hallmarks of Lutheran theology. I do not mean this as a dig towards other Christians, I just think that where they end up is more or less where we start.

Pro "Choice" Pols insist on receiving Communion at papal Mass

2008-04-17T22:07:00.002-04:00

It appears that some Pro "choice" pols think they have a right to commune with the pope, and in the process may make the pope's pronouncements to look, well, ineffectual:

"Catholic members of Congress who publicly support the right to abortion will trek to Nationals Park Thursday for a Mass celebrated by a pope who has said such lawmakers should not receive Communion.

Leading these lawmakers, some of whom have repeatedly complained about remarks by Pope Benedict XVI and a few bishops on the subject, will be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the government's highest-ranking Catholic and a supporter of abortion rights. Nowhere in her remarks or her actions this week has she referred to strains with the new pontiff....

... And yes, her spokesman said, she intends to receive Communion from one of the 300 priests and lay ministers who will offer it to the gathered flock of 45,000."

The pope is supposed to be the infallible Vicar of Christ when teaching about faith and morals. RC apologists claim he is a sort firewall for false teaching. If the pope says a politician, or anyone else, should not receive--they should not receive.

If Pelosi does commune in the face of papal pronouncements though, who will listen to a papal pronouncement in the future? It is as if a Lutheran pastor gave a sermon stating the obvious--Mormons cannot receive communion, and then proceeded to commune some Mormon visitors. It completely undermines the authority of the pastor and makes him look like a wind bag. The same thing here. The pope, the guy who is supposed to put a stop to heresy, cannot even stop a legislator from receiving Communion at his own Mass.

And then there is this too:

"If Catholic legislators are scorned and held out for ridicule by Church leaders on the basis of a single issue, the Church will lose strong advocates on a wide range of issues that relate to the core of important Catholic social teaching," they wrote. "Moreover, criticism of us on a matter that is essentially one of personal morality will deter other Catholics from entering politics, and in the long run the Church will suffer."

Notice the implicit threat--let us commune or else there will be consequences! This only increases the problem though, because not only will these pols disregard a clear teaching of the RCC, but they threaten the Church that if it deigns to try and live by its own pronouncements, it had better watch out! In other words, this is even more reason not to commune a flagrant sinner--he insists there will be consequences if his wishes are not fulfilled.

Also, notice the post-modern habit of distilling everything down to "personal morality". I find this appalling. And on another level, what use is papal infallibility, and papal authority, if one can flout the pope on such an important issue and simply do what one pleases? It seems to me Luther was excommunicated and remains so for much, much less. I never thought murder was a private matter, neither does the pope. But apparently, the pope won't act on that conviction.

The principle is rather straight forward; if someone in our congregation is a thief, the pastor would not necessarily excommunicate him. But if he publicly advocates thievery, and persists in his own thievery in public and then demands communion, the pastor would rightly excommunicate him, basically saying "Until you repent, we turn you over to Satan" just a St. Paul did. It is the case, is it not, that flagrant public sin excludes one from the Lord's Table. The critique of the papacy would more or less write itself--the pope said they shouldn't receive because they advocate the murder of the unborn, then he allowed them to at a mass over which he presided. So much for the "fiat currency" of what the pope says--especially these circumstances. In my opinion, this turns the pope's words to mere ink or recycled electrons, because they can obviously be ignored even when he presides over a mass.

What use is this infallibility, again?

Universalism

2008-04-10T22:22:00.005-04:00

It seems there is an Eastern Orthodox bishop believes God would not be so cruel as to condemn people to hell for eternity:

In a stunning ecumenical moment at the Catholic Church's first-ever World Congress on Divine Mercy, Russian Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeye, bishop of Vienna and Austria, told a rapt audience of 8,000 that God's love places no limit on his mercy toward humanity, even to the point of imposing a temporal limit on hell.

Quoting St. Isaac the Syrian, a 7th-century holy man revered in Russian Orthodoxy as "famous among saints," Bishop Hilarion noted that "God does nothing out of retribution. Even to think that way about God would be blasphemous. Even worse is the opinion that God allows people to lead a sinful life on earth in order to punish them eternally after death. This is a blasphemous and perverted understanding of God, a calumny of God."

I think that much of the OT is difficult for the more mystical strains of Orthodoxy to swallow. From the quote supplied "God does nothing out of retribution. Even to think that way about God would be blasphemous. Even worse is the opinion that God allows people to lead a sinful life on earth in order to punish them eternally after death. This is a blasphemous and perverted understanding of God, a calumny of God."

The problem is that there are a lot of readings in the Scriptures which state explicitly that God does take vengeance on the sinner, repays, he repays Israel for her sins, he is pitiless (Ezekiel 7) etc. If my theology asserts something else despite these repeated examples, well, I suppose I have to re-evaluate my theology instead of re-imagining the deposit of faith to fit into my notions of what is or is not a calumny towards God.

I am honestly at a loss as to how a bishop--someone educated in godliness, can come to the conclusion that hell is temporary--unless the Scriptures simply don't mean much to him despite traditional Orthodoxy's claims to the contrary that the Scriptures are quite important indeed. The fact is that we have it on good authority that the damned will go away to eternal punishment. If that makes someone squeamish because it sounds mean, or unjust, or violates their sense of what God ought to be like, so be it. Just admit you are not apophatic, and that theology trumps the Scriptures, Tradition, and everything else.

Eternal damnation is what our Lord has taught by his own words, and throughout the Scriptures. It is in the Old and New Testaments, it is supported by the great majority of the Fathers, it has pretty much been widely believed throughout the centuries--except perhaps among speculative theologians. If "Scriptures+Tradition" or "Holy Tradition" do not establish this, they pretty much do not establish anything at all, including other basic tenets of the faith.

(Via TheologyWeb)

UPDATE:

I found this other article from Bp. Hilarion. In it he states:

"On the one hand, it is impossible for one to actively repent in hell; it is impossible to rectify the evil deeds one committed by appropriate good works. However, it may be possible for one to repent through a ‘change of heart’, a review of one’s values. One of the testimonies to this is the rich man of the Gospel we have already mentioned. He realized the gravity of his situation as soon as found himself in hell. Indeed, if in his lifetime he was focused on earthly pursuits and forgot God, once in hell he realized that his only hope for salvation was God[76] . Besides, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, the fate of a person after death can be changed through the prayer of the Church. Thus, existence after death has its own dynamics. On the basis of what has been said above, we may say that after death the development of the human person does not cease, for existence after death is not a transfer from a dynamic into a static being, but rather continuation on a new level of that road which a person followed in his lifetime."

To be fair to the bishop, he does not claim this as a dogma of the Church.

So, it seems the bishop claims one can repent through a change of heart, in hell, after death. My only critique of his scriptural example of the Rich Man, is that we are told there is a wide gulf between the Bosom of Abraham and hell, and that his relatives have Moses and the Prophets. In other words, the "change of heart" didn't seem to work, and Christ did not say he had any hope.

What do white people like?

2008-02-29T17:49:00.001-05:00

This is not really a Lutheran site, but it is hilarious!

Here is a sample:

It is imperative that you do not attempt to kick them out of their misery by saying things like “get over it,” “there are other people out there,” or “I don’t want to read your poem.” Implying that there things in the world more important to you than their breakup is considered one of the rudest actions possible.

I have seen nothing on the WWW that captures the banality of much of modern American life than this site.

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/

A Lutheran Commercial?!

2008-02-04T14:59:00.001-05:00

I may not have done it exactly like this, but I sure wish the Synod would come out with communications like this!

(Link Updated)

Relational Evangelism?

2008-01-30T22:07:00.000-05:00

Should evangelism be almost completely relational these days? By “relational”, I mean the Christian already has some kind of relationship with the non-Christian. It is not a public proclamation of the Gospel, such as in Church. I am very sympathetic to the relationship angle. However, I am not sure that is how it always worked in the early Church, in a period similar to ours in that the general culture was not friendly to the Gospel message. Peter did not have a relationship with the crowd of people he preached to on Pentecost. What he did is use familiar language, and "fill in the blanks" after he got their attention. Now that I think of it, Paul did the same thing at the Aeropagus--he started from their "Unknown God", and went along pointing the Athenians to the real God, and the Resurrection of all flesh. He did not teach the Athenians Sin/Redemption--instead his "sermon" was one of "God is now calling you all, and he is the one you seek, you seek him because you have a place for the unknown God!" In other words, for non-believers, he did not use the Law/Gospel dialectic. It also seems to me St. Paul used a bit of “Christus Victor”.

I have been thinking about this lately.

The Real Presence, the Incarnation and so called "Empirical Evidence"

2008-01-15T20:57:00.002-05:00

The doctrine of the Incarnation teaches that Jesus is the God-Man. He is not the God-man like I am German-English-Irish though, his way of being God-man is different from your typical American mutt. Regarding my composition, each "group" contributed something to the whole person, me. It might even be possible to separate the different strands which come from each group--blood chemistry etc. In the case of Christ though, it is not as though he is part God and part man so that we can separate the man from God--which would be Nestorianism, but that the person of Jesus Christ is God, such that to shake hands with him is to shake God's hand, to eat with him is to eat with God etc. He is not 50/50, but one person who is God and Man at the same time, indivisible, yet not mixed.

Now, I see an analogy between this and the RP. The bread and body of Christ are united in such a way so the bread is the body of Christ, even if we cannot detect it, just like we can't detect the divinity of Jesus Christ if we eat with him, or shake his hand.

Now, some "Reformed" types claim that the Real Presence is empirically falsified, because if we look at the bread, taste the bread, chemically examone the bread we will find bead and no body. I think this is the wrong question, however. If we want to be empirical the question is, not whether we can discern the body of Christ physically, but whether we can discern the effects of the body of Christ. For instance, Medieval people could discern the effects of infection, but could not always discern the cause of infection. In other words, the only "empirical" evidence was the effects, not the cause. This did not cause them to deny the reality of infection, far from it. Through experience they even learned to mitigate the effects. Later in history, we learned more details about infection, that they are caused by bacteria or viruses. In other words, the cause of the infection was later "revealed" through investigation. So, in a like manner, the RP was revealed, not only in Christ's words of Institution, but by their effects on those who profaned the Sacrament. This is true even though, like bacteria and viruses, we cannot now see the cause with our senses, we don't know how his body is present, but sometimes we can see the effects, including sanctification and the increase of faith and godliness. And like the "revelations" of science, God will reveal all things to us in his good time. But in the mean time, it is not correct to assert that we have no empirical evidence, what we have is enough evidence to believe, which should be sufficient this side of eternity.

What is Baptism?

2008-01-06T22:57:00.000-05:00

I am not a pastor or a trained theologian, just a layman with experience in theological polemics and somewhat well read. I attempted to answer a question regarding Baptism on the Witternberg Trail. This post is lightly modified from a Forum entry I wrote there.

What -- exactly -- happens when a person is baptized?

We are washed by God with the water and the Word. The Word, or the promises in the gospel, come with the Holy Spirit. This is a way God has of bringing us into Christ, of grafting us into the vine, so to speak. I want to add something, because many Protestants have a lot of problems with this idea. It is not water that washes us, but water with the Word that washes us. Water is good for washing away filth, water with the Word is good for washing away sin, death and our slavery to the devil. Baptism is God's promises, a spiritual thing, united with material, water. This is an important thing to understand, because if we miss this, we will miss a lot of what Lutheranism is about.

A good analogy for uniting spiritual things to material things is the Incarnation, where the Word became man, was born of a virgin, wet his shorts etc. It was not a mere man who saved us, but a man who is also God, united in the person of Christ. God and man in one person. In a similar way, God's promise, the Holy Spirit etc. are united with the water in Baptism. We believe this because we believe God's promises.

Does this answer change if the person is an infant?

No.

How do you know this is true? What are the Biblical texts?

Eph 5:25-27
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

This passage is not directly referring to Baptism. But I hope you will notice that there is a washing of water with the word with the effects of cleansing, and leaving without blemish. As I said, water by itself cannot do this, but water with the Word can make us holy and without blemish.

Titus 3:4-7

4But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

While the word "baptism" does not appear here, I believe this is a clear teaching that Baptism brings renewal and rebirth, because it washes away our filth, as the passage above says.

Of course, there is always this:

John 3

1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him." 3Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?" 5Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Again, we see Jesus uniting water with the Spirit, which is another way of saying water and the Word. And let's not forget St. Peter's "Baptism now saves us".

There are other allusions to Baptism throughout the NT, but I hope these will suffice for now.

So, that is my pocket sized justification for our doctrine of Baptism. Whole books have been writen abo tthe subject, but I hope this suffices at least for now.

Vengeance is mine, but I will not repay!

2008-01-03T13:55:00.000-05:00

When God punishes sin, does he take vengeance upon the sinner? By vengeance, I do not mean a petulant rage, like a child who smashes his block building because of a flaw. I mean a righteous repayment for sin, either eternal or temporal.

I ask because I keep thinking about the discussion I had with Dr. Liccione, RC philosopher and expositor of the infallibility of the Majesterium. In this discussion I claimed that Trent Session 14 contradicted the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). Here is the pertinent section of the CCC:

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

(Emph. added)

Now, Dr. Liccione said that the CCC is clear, that when God is said to punish sin in Trent, we should take it to mean that God punishes us by allowing the effects of our sin take hold of us, he is not actively punishing, he is only willing that those effects take place, which is termed "vengeance".

I just don't see Trent, or the Scriptures, or anything else in prior Church history teaching any such thing. Are we really to believe that God is not active in inflicting (Trent's term BTW) punishment? Aren't there numerous passages in the Scriptures, in the writings of the Fathers, even in Church art which tell the story of a vengeful God punishing evil? I am not trying to score cheap debating points, but it seems there is more than a little tension between RC tradition before the CCC, and RC tradition post CCC. If "If any one saith, that satisfaction for sins, as to their temporal punishment, is nowise made to God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, by the punishments inflicted by Him..." really means something like "If any one saith, that satisfaction for sins, as to their temporal punishment, is nowise made to God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, by allowing the consequences of the sin to afflict the sinner..." then words really have no meaning, and we are at the extreme end of nominalism, which is not a good place to be, because it only causes confusion.

A for us Lutherans, when God says he inflicts, he inflicts, because if he wanted to say allow, or inspire a council to tell the truth, he would have said allow. That may be too simple for the learned, but it is much more graspable than constantly "clarifying", or in effect saying words have no meaning.

It is, in fact, a big reason I came over to Wittenburg all those years ago.

Here we stand

2007-12-31T10:48:00.000-05:00

I got this from an account of The Marburg Colloquy over on Begars All:

Luther: We decline naming them [the Fathers who taught the Real Presence]. Augustine wrote the passage you have quoted in his youth, it is moreover very unintelligible. Besides, I do not concern myself as to what the Fathers teach on this head, but I abide by the words of Christ, (Here he pointed again to the words written in chalk upon the table, "This is my body.") See, so they run. You have not driven us out of this stronghold, as you proudly imagined you would do, and we concern ourselves no farther about proofs.

This occurs near the end of the Colloquy, so very soon afterwards the two camps departed, never to be united in doctrine again. The section I cited above is Luther's final argument, basically, and he says he will stand by Christ's words "This is my body", no matter how many logical arguments Zwingli and co. can come up with. This is, I think, the essence of Lutheran Sola Scriptura, in that what God has expressly revealed, we are to believe because it comes from God, not because logical arguments can be deduced. It also ties in with the ongoing micro-blogstorm regarding Luther's alleged statement that councils would be required to judge between Luther's and Zwingli's divergent interpretation of the Scriptures--an argument made by some RC apologists for centuries. I am not a Luther scholar, but doesn't it seem a little odd that the guy who simply said "I abide by the words of Christ" would suddenly have a change of heart about councils? I am not saying it is impossible, just that the possibility is becoming more remote the more I learn about the events around that time.

Faith in Christ precedes Trust in the Bible

2007-12-29T22:38:00.000-05:00

Over on becominghinged, there is a discussion regarding whether or not the CCC contradicts Trent on sin and punishment. While I find that discussion interesting, I was challenged because I wrote that Trent and the CCC apparently contradict on the matter of temporal and eternal punishment. The challenge was

I’ve seen non-Christians use the same argument against the apparent contradictions in scripture. What do we say to them that won’t sound like the same kind of “nuancing” that you accuse the Catholic Church of?

My response was

Regarding what atheists say about the scriptures–I don’t think the Holy Scriptures are meant to be read as a strict history text, but as a proclamation through the writers by God of Jesus Christ. So, I start with Christ and then believe the Bible, I don’t start with the Bible and then extrapolate what it tells me of God. Or, the Bible is true because Christ is true, and Christ has known me, and I him, from my Baptism.

(Here is my stop loss-when I say the Bible should not be read as a strict history text, I meant that questions like how many women were present at Christ's tomb are of no interest to me, because the Gospels are not detailed histories of every event they record, but they are none the less true).

Dr. Liccione responded to this by saying

Your brand of Protestantism is quite problematic even by Protestant standards. You say: “I start with Christ and then believe the Bible, I don’t start with the Bible and then extrapolate what it tells me of God. Or, the Bible is true because Christ is true, and Christ has known me, and I him, from my Baptism.” Well, if your knowledge of and faith in Christ is thus epistemically prior to the Bible, then sola scriptura is out for you, and you claim knowledge of the deposit of faith through a Tradition that is epistemically, and presumably temporally, prior to the Bible. But by whose account of Tradition? Whatever the answer, what authority can they claim? Do you claim to know which ecclesial authority, if any, speaks with the infallible authority of Christ? If so, why? And if none does, at least according to you, then how can you distinguish your faith from mere personal opinion? Even apart from any specifically Catholic-Protestant issue, these are very serious questions for you.

Here is what I mean by "I start with Christ and then believe the Bible, I don’t start with the Bible and then extrapolate what it tells me of God." I believed Christ before I believed the Bible, it is as simple as that. Dr. Liccone says that therefore my knowledge of Christ is before the Bible. I never said anything about knowledge in an intellectual sense, I said I start with Christ before I believed in the Bible. And when I said that I do not then go forth and extrapolate doctrines, I mean that I did not read the Bible, decide it was true, and then decide to believe certain things about Christ--that is a Baptist/Evangelical way of doing things, I am Lutheran and we do not do things that way, we depend on the things Christ provided to the Church to make Christians, Baptism, Holy Communion and the verbal proclamation of the Gospel. So Dr. Liccione is jumping to conclusions here, giant leaps in fact. Sorry, but Sola Scriptura is not out for me, and I think Dr. Liccione's question has a misunderstanding embedded into it. Lutherans believe the Scriptures because they point to Christ, they have Christ as their center, not man. Traditions, infallible "ecclesial authority" or what ever else the RC apologist can throw at me has man at its center, not Christ. Just look at the arguments typically made, or look at Dr. Liccione's statement above; I am to see what authority the ecclesial authority I choose has based on my determination as to whether it speaks with Christ's infallible voice. I am at the center, not Christ, because I decide.

Instead of this, I proclaim that Christ himself baptized me and made me his own, so he knew me and I know him--though not intellectually--more like how an infant knows his mother and father. The "ecclesialogical authority" gives me Jesus' body and blood, and proclaims his love for me and what he did. It is infallible becausse Christ made promises, and he never lies, the infallibility is centered on Christ and not on man. If an "ecclesial authority" can provide people with the things Christ promised, it "works" as an "ecclesial authority", though it may sow tares of false traditions among the wheat of the Sacraments and Gospel preaching, and therefore may destroy trust in the promises of Christ. And we also therefore don't need detailed formulations about exactly when the infallible "ecclesiological authority" is infallible or not--because the Sacraments are infallible, because Christ himself made promised regarding what he does in and through them.

As for Sola Scriptura, I know this is true because God tells me so in his word, the Bible, which proclaims Christ, how he gives himself to us in Baptism and Holy Communion, and in the absolution I receive from the ordained minister in the Church I attend. I don't think it is too hard to grasp.

Now, I suppose Dr. Liccione or another RC apologist might say "How do you know what the Bible tells you about Christ without an infallible "ecclesial authority?" But I am not too interested in elaborate, abstract ideas of authority, in which one must make apologetic arguments to determine which part of what document under which circumstances constitutes an infallible statement. I want Christ where he promised to be, and he says where he will be in his word. I find him in Baptism, Holy Communion and the preaching of the Gospel. He does not lie, and I believe him.

Interesting Church History Papers

2007-12-28T21:45:00.000-05:00

I have been browsing this site recently, and it has some good material. I especially interested in the period of the Western Schism, where there were two or three claimants to the papal office at any particular time. This caused a traumatic decline in the prestige of the papacy. This is important for Reformation history because a council, that of Constance, elected a new pope and deposed the other three popes, in other words, a council was in an important sense superior to the pope, because a council selected a pope after John XXIII abdicated. This adds a little context to what a "council" or "free" council is when Martin Luther mentions the need for a council. It is one not convened by the pope, but one in which the pope is a participant and not a judge, like Constance. Anyway, have a look, there is some interesting stuff there.

Binding the Strong Man

2007-12-25T22:16:00.000-05:00

Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.

ESV

Today we celebrate Christmas, where God became flesh to bind the strong man and plunder his house.

God as plunderer! Well, he is plundering the house of a usurper, the devil, who holds us captive. In any case, the idea that a little baby begins the overthrow of the devil's kingdom is one of the best, and oddest from a purely rational standpoint, teachings of the Church. The idea that a baby, who depends on his mother and father for his life, is the savior of the world, born a King, Lord of Lords is something I keep coming back to. God is truly an awesome God.

Martin Luther--Justifying Faith and Union with Christ

2007-12-22T21:10:00.001-05:00

Here is what the good Doctor said:

..[F]aith does not merely mean that the soul realizes that the divine word is full of grace, free and holy; it also unites the soul with Christ, as a bride is united with her bridegroom. From such a marriage, as St. Paul says, it follows that Christ and the soul become one body, so that they hold all things in common, whether for better or worse. This means that what Christ possesses belongs to the believing soul; and what the soul possesses belongs to Christ. Thus Christ possesses all good things and holiness; these now belong to the soul. The soul possesses lots of vice and sin; these now belong to Christ. Here we have a happy exchange and struggle. Christ is God and human being, who has never sinned and who's holiness is unconquerable, eternal and almighty. So he makes the sin of the living soul his own through its wedding ring, which is faith, and acts as if he had done it himself, so that sin could be swallowed up in him. For his unconquerable righteousness is too strong for all sin, so that it is made single and free from all its sins on account of its pledge, that is its faith, and can turn to the eternal righteousness of its bridegroom, Christ. Now is this not a happy business? Christ, the rich, noble, holy bridegroom, takes in marriage this poor, contemptible and sinful little prostitute, takes away all her evil, and bestows all his goodness upon her! It is no longer possible for sin to overwhelm her, for she is now found in Christ and is swallowed up by him, so that she possesses a rich righteousness in her bridegroom.

(The Christian Theology Reader--Alister McGrath, page 229, Cited Luther's Works 25.26-26.9)

I really like the images Luther uses here. The union between the believer and Christ swallows up sin, not only because Christ's righteousness is applied to the believer in the "happy exchange", but because Christ's omnipotent righteousness swallows up sin.

Wow.

Choosing to Believe, can we even do such a thing?

2007-12-20T22:34:00.000-05:00

I was reading an older post on metalutheran, and I thought it has something to say about people who say they believe something based on the authority of the person saying it, ala Cardinal Newman. To refresh, Cardinal Newman basically said that if we believe something because we weigh the evidence, we do not have faith. We only have faith when we believe based on the authority of the one teaching, otherwise we are engaging in private judgment.

Oftentimes, I will hear a RC or EO claim they believe something based on the authority of the Church, which sounds like they choose to believe based on authority. But can anyone really "choose to believe", or is belief something which happens outside of what we want? In other words, does the EO or RC, or anyone else, including Cardinal Newman, Lutherans, lawyers etc. really believe something based on an authority, or do they just behave like they do until later? This is important, because Lutherans believe faith, which is belief in the Gospel, trust in Christ etc., is a gift of God, we don't choose, we can't choose. When we are born, we cannot believe, like I cannot choose to believe something which seems not to be true to me--even if I act like I do believe. Belief is out of our hands, no matter what we may like.

So, this raises the issue of whether believing based on the authority of the Church, rather than just believing, is really belief. It also implicitly, if not explicitly, makes "belief" into a work we accomplish. All good Lutherans will no doubt sneeze now.

Now, perhaps one can say that behaving as if one believes trains the flesh in the faith, and then belief will follow. But that still means that at some point, it is likely one is only acting out the faith, rather than actually believing it. And if we only act and don't believe, don't we give only lip service? But if we believe, really believe by an act of the Holy Spirit, won't we give godly service?

Just wondering.

Still Unsatisfied with Temporal Punishment

2007-12-19T20:57:00.000-05:00

Rusty responded to my post over on his blog, becoming hinged.

Rusty says I got Trent wrong, that it says what Fr. Kimel says, that temporal punishment is not an external inflicted punishment:

In other words, this ‘punishment’ should be understood in exactly the way that Fr. Kimel (and the Catechism) explicitly states: not external acts of divine vengeance. So how should it be understood? Well, remember that the Bible teaches that the Husbandman purges the branches in Christ. Also, that God chastises those whom he loves. Corrects those who need correction. So, if we, as Mark Shea advocates, understand ‘temporal punishment’ as the purging, correcting, chastising of God’s people - I think we are closer to the truth of what both Trent and Fr. Kimel are getting at.

Fr. Kimel says that the sin brings with it its own punishment--for instance a drunkard with cirrhosis of the liver (my example, not his). The "punishment" is an effect, and not a punishment in the sense of getting a traffic ticket for speeding. But I don't think that does justice to either Trent, or even Rusty's use of "chastizing" point above, because "chastizing" is another word for punishment, and if punishment is not because we have done something wrong, i.e. "vengence", or "[i]nfliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution" {American Heritage Dictionary, dictionary.com), what is it for? I simply don't see what the difference is between Rusty's point above is, and the idea that God inflicts actual punishments on the penitent. Trent seems to support my view. Here is Trent 14 9 again:

It [the council] teaches furthermore that the liberality of the divine munificence is so great that we are able through Jesus Christ to make satisfaction to God the Father not only by punishments voluntarily undertaken by ourselves to atone for sins, or by those imposed by the judgment of the priest according to the measure of our offense, but also, and this is the greatest proof of love, by the temporal afflictions imposed by God and borne patiently by us.

Remember, according to Trent 14 8, there is no forgiveness without this satisfaction: "And it is in keeping with divine clemency that sins be not thus pardoned us without any satisfaction, lest seizing the occasion and considering sins as trivial and offering insult and affront to the Holy Spirit, we should fall into graver ones." Now, "satisfaction" is a work of penance, which in turn, according to Trent 14 9, is imposed by an agent; God himself, or a priest, or ourselves. The mere fact it is imposed is enough to show that it is not something which is an effect or "sin that brings with it, by divine ordination, its own punishment". In the Middle Ages, when a priest told a penitent he had to go to Jerusalem for penance, this was not sin's own punishment, it was imposed, and it was meant to "restrain from sin, check as it were with a bit, and make penitents more cautious and vigilant in the future; they also remove remnants of sin, and by acts of the opposite virtues destroy habits acquired by evil living". By the same token, Trent specifically states that God also inflicts punishment on the penitent. So, I don't see how Fr. Kimel's "clarification" has much in common with Trent.

Rusty goes on to say:

UL spends the remainder of his post aghast that the Catholic “can have no confidence our sins are forgiven unless and until we have made enough “satisfaction” for our sins.” Of course, he neglects the most important part of the whole of Trent’s treatment of satisfaction, a part which is prominently quoted in the Catechism - that when we enter the very act of penitence, we unite ourselves with His suffering, His supreme satisfaction. That any acts of penance are done through his efficacy won on the Cross. Any purging, any correcting, any straightening is done because we have entered the realm of surrender to Him, He who strengthens us.

Well, if it is true that without satisfaction--good works done to remit the temporal punishment we deserve because of God's justice, our sins are not forgiven, then isn't it true the Catholic can have no real confidence his sins are forgiven? I mean, how much "satisfaction" or "purging" does one have to do before God forgives our sins? Maybe we could remit this punishment with something, say an indulgence. That will soothe the conscience. ;-) (I am only half joking here, because these issues are intimately tied in with the Reformation).

I don't think the "pruning" and "purging" really captures what Trent is saying.

"Satisfaction" and Trent Session 14, section 8 and 9

2007-12-18T21:23:00.000-05:00

Over on TWeb, I spotted a post which cited a post that says the doctrine of Purgatory is being "clarified". Now, since I don't subscribe to the RC dogma of papal or magisterial infallibility, I usually see "clarification" as a rewrite of a previous position held by the RCC which they no longer want to defend. In any case, what is being developed is what "temporal punishments" we have to make "satisfaction" for. Now, in RC theology, when the priest absolves you, the eternal consequences of your sin are done away with, but the temporal punishments remain. So, I may lie about my neighbor, repent and be forgiven, but I will still be punished for the sin I committed, maybe because I was cought lying, or my neighbor had his reputation damaged etc. But Fr. Kimel writes

The language of punishment is retained, yet note the insistence that this "must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin." It is sin that brings with it, by divine ordination, its own punishment.

Unfortunately, this seems to contradict Trent Session 14, section 8:

[T]he holy council declares that it is absolutely false and contrary to the word of God, that the guilt is never remitted by the Lord without the entire punishment being remitted also. For clear and outstanding examples are found in the sacred writings, by which, besides divine tradition, this error is refuted in the plainest manner. Indeed the nature of divine justice seems to demand that those who through ignorance have sinned before baptism be received into grace in one manner, and in another those who, after having been liberated from the servitude of sin and of the devil, and after having received the gift of the Holy Ghost, have not feared knowingly to violate the temple of God and to grieve the Holy Spirit. And it is in keeping with divine clemency that sins be not thus pardoned us without any satisfaction, lest seizing the occasion and considering sins as trivial and offering insult and affront to the Holy Spirit, we should fall into graver ones, For without doubt, these satisfactions greatly restrain from sin, check as it were with a bit, and make penitents more cautious and vigilant in the future; they also remove remnants of sin, and by acts of the opposite virtues destroy habits acquired by evil living. Neither was there ever in the Church of God any way held more certain to ward off impending chastisement by the Lord than that men perform with true sorrow of mind these works of penance. Add to this, that while we by making satisfaction suffer for our sins, we are made conformable to Christ Jesus who satisfied for our sins, from whom is all our sufficiency, having thence also a most certain pledge, that Neither is this satisfaction which we discharge for our sins so our own as not to be through Christ Jesus; for we who can do nothing of ourselves as of ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of Him who strengthens us....

It [the council] teaches furthermore that the liberality of the divine munificence is so great that we are able through Jesus Christ to make satisfaction to God the Father not only by punishments voluntarily undertaken by ourselves to atone for sins, or by those imposed by the judgment of the priest according to the measure of our offense, but also, and this is the greatest proof of love, by the temporal afflictions imposed by God and borne patiently by us

(Trent 14,8, 9--emph. added)

Now, at first I thought "Hey!, they are saying that God forgives the sin and the punishment! Well, tat is not so bad." But then I re-read the passage and realized it says just the opposite, it does not say God forgives our sins and our punishment, it says that unless we make satisfaction, i.e. are punished, our sins are not forgiven. Not only that, it seems to me that, contrary to Fr. Kimel's claims about the "development" of this doctrine, the council clearly calls the "effects" punishments. i.e. they are not "accidents of sin" as it were, but punishments inflicted by God, or ourselves. But the worst part of this is that we can have no confidence our sins are forgiven unless and until we have made enough "satisfaction" for our sins. Who can know when he has made enough satisfaction? Perhaps the RC will say that what ever the priest/bishop etc. say is satisfaction, satisfies. I, however, like when Pr. Nuss says "In the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ, I forgive you all your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen!" And it is so. The Roman system, even if "temporal punishment" has "developed" to mean the effects of sin, will tend to put our focus on ourselves or the satisfaction imposed by the priest. The Lutheran and Apostolic doctrine is that our sins are forgiven, because we cannot add to the satisfaction of Jesus Christ on our behalf.

Mixing the Two Kingdoms--Mike Huckabee

2007-12-10T22:37:00.000-05:00

Mike Huckabee wants the US government to turn the other cheek in international relations. From the article:

He (Huckabee) wants to anthropomorphize international relations and bring a Christian commitment to the Golden Rule to our affairs with other nations. As he told the Des Moines Register the other day, “You treat others the way you’d like to be treated. That’s to me the fundamental issue that has to be re-established in our dealings with other countries.”

International relations to not work according to the precepts of the Gospel. The Gospel is about forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake, the president of the United States is not a minister of the Gospel to other nations, forgiving their sins and absolving them before the mercy seat of the Father. The president of the United States is there to enforce the laws enacted by Congress, and protect the Republic from its enemies, not turn the other cheek to those who would attack us.

As Lutherans, we believe in the "Two Kingdoms". The Kingdom of the right hand is the domain of the Church, where sin is condemned and forgiveness dispensed. The Kingdom of the left hand is the earthly government, it is primarily concerned with justice--rewarding good and punishing evil. When we mix the two, we may compromise one or the other, or both.

God humbled a proud convert

2007-12-10T21:20:00.001-05:00

Let me tell you a personal story.

When I became Lutheran at about 27 years, I was filled with joy at what God offered me in Word and Sacrament. But as always, the devil is right behind with his lies.

I was reading the Bible several times a day, everything seemed to just "click" for me in my new church. My beliefs were constantly being reaffirmed in word and deed. Not only this, I became involved in online discussions, and I seemed to be doing well there too. In fact, I said to myself "You are pretty darn good Ed, you can destroy all these heterodox arguments with ease!" Things were perfect.

Then, it happened. Suddenly I couldn't believe anything. Not.A.Single.Thing. Not the Trinity, not the Atonement, not Holy Communion. Oh, I could read the Bible, see what it was saying, know what the truth is etc. But I couldn't believe a word of it. No matter what I read, who I spoke with, how often I went to service, I just couldn't believe anything. I began to despair, like someone who knows his habits will destroy him, yet he simply cannot take the elementary steps to stop his demise. I knew what was the fate of those who do not believe is, yet I could not believe even though I had knowledge of the truth. In this despair all I did is ask my Lord, like a child "Don't leave me!" And with that, I was able to believe again. This burned into my conscienceless that faith, i.e. trust and belief in God and his promises, really is his gift. I could not "choose to believe", I could not submit to God's command to believe the Gospel, I couldn't do any of these things. In my opinion, God humbled me to teach this to me.

Peter the Rock

2007-12-04T22:04:00.001-05:00

Regarding RC apologetics about Peter being the first pope, I wrote:

"'You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church' means that Peter can infallibly determine doctrine, he can dispense indulgences, and only those who are in fellowship with his direct successors can do this."

The RC (Who is a good guy, BTW) replied:

"Oh heck. This is too easy. So, you are saying that the entire doctrine of papal infallibility is a conclusion based on a low-probability meaning of this passage alone? There are no other supporting factors in the Catholic argument. It's this or nothing. ..."

Well, on Catholic Answers I found 17 "proofs" of Peter's origins as pope. Of the 17, 12 were direct citations of Matt 16:18, or direct allusions to it. So, I think it is fair to say that the RCC bases its interpretation of Matt 16:18 on a low probability meaning of the passage, because popes have all these powers, e.g. releasing peple from purgatory, anything which proves Petrer was pope means he has these powers. Hence, in RC apologetics (and the link I provided to Catholic Answers has a nihil obstat and an imprimature, it is pretty close to a done deal)it is indeed true that "You are Peter" really means he has the power of indulgences. It is this kind of thing, reading back onto a passage, whether of the Bible, or the Fathers, or anyone also, which I find objectionable in the way apologetics is done. Nothing is ever as it seems, I suppose.

RC Apologists and semantic arguments

2007-11-28T20:08:00.001-05:00

Well, I was really awfully busy the last few months, so there was no blogginf, and I only had limited time to do anything else besides work. But I should be posting more regularly now.

Anyway, there seems to be a lot of RC apologists who like "shock" quotes from Reformation figures. Here is one from Steve Ray's blog. It is just a bare quote:

Persons who persist in the superstitions of the Roman Antichrist [Catholicism] . . . deserve to be repressed by the sword.

Now, on Theology web, some RCs and at least one Orthodox too issue with James Swan's interpretation of this quote, that Ray's citation of Calvin was meant to imply that Calvin thought RCs should be put to death. The RC/EO claimed that being repressed by the sword does not necessarily mean the death penalty, and that to assert such is to read too much into Ray's citation. This is technically true--repress by the sword can mean any number of things besides death, it could mean pretty much any use of force. However, it seems to me that this is a weak counter argument. As one of the protestant posters pointed out, if a child said "he was molesting me", that carries a connotation different from "he was disturbing me". The same is true with "repressed by the sword". It is a purely semantic argument to claim we don't know Ray did not necessarily mean the death penalty, even though it is technically possible.

The problem is, that many RC apologists reply to critiques of RCism with just this type of argument, "it does not necessarily mean that". This happens with infused grace--something infused but it is not really a thing, even if it is described as a thing--e.g. it is God's life. You end up in an endless semantic loop, where nothing means what it actually says. I suppose that could serve the purpose of "proving" the need for an infallible interpreter.

Mother Teresa said some Interesting Things, Lutheran Things

2007-08-24T21:46:00.000-04:00

Before I begin, I want to point out that I do not believe Mother Teresa was a Lutheran during her life, she was a Roman catholic. however, this is the second time this year I have read of a prominent Roman Catholic with "Lutheran" difficulties, i.e. they look inside and see a pit of darkness, they despair and they have nothing left but Christ.

Here is an excerpt from the Fox News article:

Shortly after beginning her work in the slums of Calcutta, she wrote: “Where is my faith? Even deep down there is nothing but emptiness and darkness. If there be a God — please forgive me.”

“I am told God lives in me — and yet the reality of darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul,” she wrote at one point. “I want God with all the power of my soul — and yet between us there is terrible separation.” On another occasion she wrote: “I feel just that terrible pain of loss, of God not wanting me, of God not being God, of God not really existing.”

This, I dare say, quite Lutheran sounding. As Lutherans, we do not look into ourselves for salvation, for comfort, for assurance. Just like Mother Teresa, when we do look inside ourselves we do not see God, but death and despair. It is precisely at the point of despair that we see our helplessness, in the words of Mother Teresa "Even deep down there is nothing but emptiness and darkness. If there be a God — please forgive me." Here, after looking deep down, she did not find faith--a trust in what God promises in Jesus Christ, but nothingness. And at this point, she cried out for forgiveness. All the aesthetic discipline she endured in her life (and her works certainly dwarf mine, as I sit in my comfortable living room!) were not comfort. Her last refuge was Christ and his forgiveness.

That, in a nutshell, is Lutheranism.

What authority does typology have?

2007-07-26T22:07:00.000-04:00

Typology is a very common and useful way of reading the Scriptures. By typology, we usually mean an interpretation of a passage which, while not contradictory to the literal sense of the passage, is read to mean more than the bare words. Typology was used by the early Church, the Apostles and Jesus Christ himself. How much authority does a typological interpretation have though?

There is a difference between the authority of a typological interpretation of the Scriptures we make and ones contained in the Scriptures themselves. We are usually not dogmatically bound by a typological interpretation outside of the ones given in the Scriptures--but we read the Scriptures typologically. So, we should read the Scriptures typologically--in fact the whole Lutheran, and I would guess EO and RC approach to typology, is that the Scriptures typologically refer to Christ, even if they do not directly refer to him. The problem arises, though, when we see typology everywhere, like when Jacob was carrying wood, we see Christ carrying the cross. Dogma? I don't think so!

This is the kind of thing many an RC apologist does when he says St. Paul's Damascus road conversion is a type of prots, and I would guess EO, coming to realize that the RCC is the True Church ™. There is no Christological reason to read this passage typologically like that. And if St. Paul's experience can mean that, why can't it mean a host of other things--like the turning of Israel to Christ, or those who see will be made blind, as in John 9, or any other readings we can see in an event like that. These are not necessarily wrong interpretations or even a useless ones--they may be right and a very useful ones, but I would hardly base a dogma upon them. To do so comes off sounding a little trite.

Typology is the norm because a typological reading of the Scriptures is enjoined by Christ himself. But typology apart from the historical settings of God's recorded acts in history is Origenist, which I believe is dangerous. We need to be careful how we establish dogma--and if we can read the Scriptures typologically apart from their historical setting, why not allegorize the the Gospel itself? That is the road to Anglicanism,--a form of Gnosticism in my opinion as expressed in the ECUSA, where the only Church Tradition that matters is the one which says bishops cannot interfere in other bishops' diocese. (A similar thing happened in the Church of Sweden, a "Lutheran" Church, where the only requirement for being a minister is to receive communion from a women priest's hands, Trinity? Optional!).

So, we must not read the Scriptures as bare words, but we also must not give our imaginations free reign when we read the Scriptures. There is a continuum, and the guide, as always, is Christological and Incarnational. The dogma of the Incarnation, for one guards against the over spiritualization of Christianity. The idea of God becoming man throws all neo-gnostic ideas like "soul-mates" intothe garbage.

Blood of the Martyrs

2007-07-24T13:05:00.000-04:00

Let's hope their blood is not spilled!

In Afghanistan, 23 S. Korean Hostages, missionaries in fact, are being held captive by followers of the Religion of Peace. Let us pray for the hostages, that they might be freed, and for their captors, that they will see the Truth in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. This is a terrible thing, and I think we will see more and more of it.

Do we have faith when we sin?

2007-07-01T20:57:00.000-04:00

Do I still have faith, reflective faith when I sin? Am I still a child of God or not? And if I am a child of God, isn't it because I believe this despite my sin, and not because of my self reflection?

Faith does not always say "Amen!" Sometimes it says "Lord I believe, help my unbelief!" So faith is something we have even when we sin. In fact, it is faith which drives us to the foot of the cross for forgiveness-absent belief in Christ, we would fear God's righteous wrath against us.

That is the big difference between Lutheran and Reformed approaches to faith, and what having faith means. For Lutherans, Christ has objectively paid the price for all sins. It is by faith, i.e. believing the promise, what we break the cycle of self reflection and instead reflect upon the person and work of Jesus Christ.

God's Wrath and the River of Fire

2007-06-21T22:16:00.000-04:00

An "Orthodox" named Kalomiros wrote something called "The River of Fire", basically a polemic against "Western Christianity", claiming that we worship a vengeful, hateful god. His views are popular among converts to Orthodoxy. His views are not really orthodox, which is why I placed that word in scare quotes. In fact, he was not in fellowship with the "official" Orthodox jurisdictions. His views though, are also similar to many skeptics' and even "liberal" Christians' views of evil, and God's solution to it in Jesus Christ.

But why do men hate God? They hate Him not only because their deeds are dark while God is light, but also because they consider Him as a menace, as an imminent and eternal danger, as an adversary in court, as an opponent at law, as a public prosecutor and an eternal persecutor. To them, God is no more the almighty physician who came to save them from illness and death, but rather a cruel judge and a vengeful inquisitor.

You see, the devil managed to make men believe that God does not really love us, that He really only loves Himself, and that He accepts us only if we behave as He wants us to behave; that He hates us if we do not behave as He ordered us to behave, and is offended by our insubordination to such a degree that we must pay for it by eternal tortures, created by Him for that purpose.

Who can love a torturer? Even those who try hard to save themselves from the wrath of God cannot really love Him. They love only themselves, trying to escape God's vengeance and to achieve eternal bliss by managing to please this fearsome and extremely dangerous Creator.

Do you perceive the devil's slander of our all-loving, all-kind, and absolutely good God? That is why in Greek the devil was given the name of διάβολος ;the slanderer."

We fear God because we know deep down our deeds are evil, and we know what we deserve and that his wrath is upon us because of our evil deeds. This does not, however mean we worship a god of wrath out of fear, as some say. I understand that he gave this speech at a youth gathering; if that is true he gave a very distorted view of Western Christianity. This is the same fear we would have of a policeman who pursues us if we commit a crime. So, in a sense we do "hate" God, before we are reborn, because we run from the light as our deeds are evil. But Dr. Kalomiros leaves it at that, and in whom we know that God does indeed love us. This is a perfect example of a one-sided critique, which he, and some skeptics and liberals, use.

But God's wrath is real, he is a God of love, but he is also judge, and he will prepay us for all pour sins.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. (Romans 1:18-23, ESV)

We are in open rebellion against the King of the Universe, and we [b]know[/b] this, because we can perceive his power and divine nature. What would be the conclusion of rebellion against an omnipotent being? That he will set things aright, and we know we cannot stand against him.

And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. (John 3:19-20, ESV)

IOW, we fear God's judgment [b]because[/b] we know what we deserve, because we realize our unrighteousness--they are not logically separate as Dr. Kallomiros makes them out to be. We "hate the light" [b]because[/b] we know our deeds are evil. God is not any more a menace than a police officer is a menace to a fugitive from justice. Depending on one's relationship to the law of the land a policeman is either a helper or a "menace". Suppose you are stranded on a dark and stormy night and a police car comes along--you will likely feel relief. Now suppose you have a dead body in your trunk and a police car comes along--now you feel terror, you may even curse the police and hate them because your deeds will be exposed and you will receive punishment—not because of any quality of the policeman but because you know a severe "judgment" is coming soon. And why shouldn’t you feel terror at the prospect? It is not unloving for a police officer to arrest or even kill a fugitive who endangers others--it is in fact his calling or vocation. In the same way, God is not "menacing" sinners, he is acting justly and we know what that justice entails. The sinner knows what is coming and in his sin curses God--even though he knows he deserves what he has coming. But is God's wrath a sinful type of wrath, e.g. "I didn’t get what I demand so I am angry”? No, his wrath is because of his justice, and God's justice seeks to set everything right. Justice rewards evil with punishment, but it also rewards good with glory. So, what is unjust is the subject of his wrath, and those who are unjust fear his wrath, as they should.

He also fails to see that we see God as our Savior only when we are enlightened by the Holy Spirit. If we look at nature alone, without the enlightening of our minds by God the Holy Spirit, we perceive God is powerful but we also see a lot of suffering along side beauty and love, and so once again we fear our Maker--all due to our sin. For example, it is only through faith we can see salvation in Jesus' work on the cross--the "Greek" cries foolishness! Also, we cannot be subject to God's will at birth and so we are all condemned as sinners. When we are terrified by our punishment for our sins we cling to the cross, where we see God giving his own life for us so that we may be with him in fellowship forever. There is sweet forgiveness, new life and rebirth. This is what Dr. Kollimiros always seems to miss. In Lutheran terms it is 100% law with no gospel at all. As I said, one sided.

You see, the devil managed to make men believe that God does not really love us, that He really only loves Himself, and that He accepts us only if we behave as He wants us to behave; that He hates us if we do not behave as He ordered us to behave, and is offended by our insubordination to such a degree that we must pay for it by eternal tortures, created by Him for that purpose.

Where have we said God only loves himself? God gave his Son only out of unselfish love for us--he did not need to do that and he was within his rights to destroy the whole race. Instead he showed his love in Jesus Christ. I see a pattern here where Dr. Kalomiros talks only about the law and never the free gift in Jesus Christ. Without that balance he will never understand Lutheran (and I daresay Roman Catholic) theology--he will always be squinting at what he sees and drawing conclusions from his limited perspective. Without the forgiveness of sins God would punish us all for eternity; hence without that God is indeed someone to fear. however, at the foot of the cross we can see God's love for us. The Son condescended to come down and become flesh for our benefit, he shed his glory for us, soiled himself as a helpless child, subjected himself to being executed by the very people he came to save. That is love--an unselfish and perplexing love.

Who can love a torturer? Even those who try hard to save themselves from the wrath of God cannot really love Him. They love only themselves, trying to escape God's vengeance and to achieve eternal bliss by managing to please this fearsome and extremely dangerous Creator.

"Who can love a torturer?" This question can be turned around on the Dr. Kalomiros too--why does God allow people to be created if it is better for them that they were never born?

Regarding saving ourselves, no Lutheran says we can save ourselves; a complete misunderstanding of what and who he is speaking about! His psychoanalysis is also off--I don't only "love myself" and I approach my Savior in joy, and NO ONE HERE HAS EVER said that what we do in any way earns God's pleasure, we are all unprofitable servants, who actually fail quite often and so have to return to the foot of the cross, to our Baptism and receive his precious body and blood for renewal and refreshment.

What is evil? Is it not the estrangement from God Who is Life? Is it not death?

Evil arises from the privation of good. It does not have existence--it is always parasitic. This is the historic Western doctrine, as far as I know.

What does Western theology teach about death? All Roman Catholics and most Protestants consider death as a punishment from God.

Death arises from sin. God also punished people with death for sinning. As God himself said to our first parents "If you eat of the tree you will die".

God considered all men guilty of Adam’s sin and punished them by death, that is by cutting them away from Himself; depriving them of His live giving energy, and so killing them spiritually at first and later bodily, by some sort of spiritual starvation. Augustine interprets the passage in Genesis "If you eat of the fruit of this tree, you will die" as "If you eat of the fruit of this tree, I will kill you.

That God kills people is well attested to in Scripture, in the first place. But Lutherans certainly don't believe we are guilty of Adam's sin--we are guilty of our own sins. What we get from Adam is that separation from God, that will turned in on itself so that we do sin. So once again I think he betrays a woeful misunderstanding of Western Theology, and unfortunately these ideas are not limited to Orthodox converts, but are pretty common in our society. When I hear this, all I can do is say that the same God that is accused, became man to save us, and not because of any necessity, bit just because he loves us. no one can really say that such a God is merely a god of wrath who is to be feared. In fact, the gift of salvation is such a "surprise" that Jew and Greek stumble on the cross.

Our Bodies are not Shells

2007-06-12T22:18:00.000-04:00

A question was posed:

If the dead are already in Heaven or Hell , what is the point in the Resurrection??
Why be dragged down from Heaven, stuck in a body, judged and then sent right back?

Interesting question.

My crack at an answer is that our bodies are an integral part of who we are--so if "I" am apart from my body, in an important sense "I" am not really there--"I" am incomplete. God saves persons, not just souls.

I have heard a lot of Christians refer to the body as a sort of shell. That is more of a Greek, and possibly Gnostic (Gnostics are the "knowing ones" who have access to hidden "knowledge" which is not apparent to the fleshly), way of looking at person hood.

We can see the idea of the body as a shell or incidental in the idea of two or more people who want to be spiritually united--two "soul mates", whether man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, or possibly man-man-woman-dog etc. All that matters is that the individual realizes his potential, his divine spark within, and can share that with another enlightened Gnostic. The concentration on "spiritual" union apart from the physical is, unfortunately, a characteristic of our age. The idea is we should not get hung up on the physical equipment because those don't define the person, it is as if we defined a person according to the socks he wares. This strikes me as very similar to the way Gnostics looked at the body as accidental to the divine "spark", which is awakened by the esoteric gnosis imparted to the individual through various means, such as aestheticism or libertinism. This knowledge is esoteric because it has little to nothing to do with what any words actually say--words are mere vehicles for the individual to awaken the spark inside.

Such ways of thinking are antithetical to the doctrine of the resurrection, because for Christians, the body does indeed define the person, along with the soul. Revelation is not esoteric, it is a matter of history--"suffered under Pontius Pilate", the Scriptures, a Church composed of actual people, flesh, bones and souls. So even someone with little or no "knowledge" can be a Christian when his body and soul are washed together in the waters of Baptism, because in the waters of Baptism we are washed with God's Word, made his own, justified and born as a new creature, one who obeys God out of love and not fear as we did before.

Some questions about the Rosary

2007-06-11T21:53:00.000-04:00

I have some questions, and I think they are serious ones, regarding Marian dogmas. I came across this on the Internet and I found it, well, disturbing.

Quoth an RC apologist "You do know that the mysteries that you 'focus' on are the life of Christ as seen through the eyes of Mary?"

Now this is interesting. I find it difficult to focus on things seen through the eyes of another, because I cannot really see things through the eyes of another. I may be able to empathize, but I will always be one space removed from the one through whose eyes I try to see. Such a mystery has no promise associated with it, and is a bit Gnostic feel to it.

What I can focus on is the objective, hard facts of what God did through St. Mary--the Incarnation and all that followed from it. This event is revealed to us and it is truly mind-bending to meditate on the Incarnation. As Luther wrote:

All praise to Jesus' Hallowed name

He whom the world could not enclose
Doth in Mary's lap repose,
He is become an infant small,
Who by His might upholdeth all.
Hallelujah!

http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/luther/hymns/name.elhb

I can also focus in the mystery of Holy Communion--in Holy Communion I hear the words of Christ, that his body and blood are given to me for the forgiveness of my sins. I contrast this with attempting to see the through the eyes of another, and that promises are connected to this. I submit that these promises are pure speculation at best, and blasphemous at worst, and as a Lutheran I contrast this with the more tangible, explicit mysteries of the Gospel and the Sacraments.

Having spoken with several Roman Catholics about this, and thus having heard their explanations, it is still true that I find these things disturbing--not out of any anti-Catholic animus, but because these things simply sound wrong and they sound like they place our attention on someone besides Christ himself, who we receive in the Sacraments. I offer the following in the hope that a coherent explanation can be given, for the life of me, I cannot see how one can be given. The following is so foreign to a Jesus-centric approach to theology that I just cannot seem to bridge the two:

The Fifteen Promises of the Virgin Mary to those who recite the Rosary

(Revealed to St. Dominic and Blessed Alan):

1) Whoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall receive signal graces.

When I pray the Rosary, I serve the Virgin Mary? I know that Mary is supposed to lead us to Christ in Roman Catholic doctrine, but isn't it better to trust things that actually lead us to Christ, like his words in the Scriptures, like his Sacraments? So much of Roman dogma and practice regarding the Virgin seems to operate like this, St. Mary does something which we normally would say Go does..

2) I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary.

The Virgin offers protection? Isn't Christ our refuge? Maybe a RC will say that she intercedes for us and so we will be protected. I, however, cannot see how this is an orthodox promise, as once again we are entreated to seek Mary's protection and not Christ's. And if she was interceding, why couldn't she say that?

3) The Rosary shall be a powerful armor against hell, it will destroy vice, decrease sin, and defeat heresies.

I suppose this could be construed as the prayers of the Rosary to God will accomplish this--except most of the prayers are to St. Mary--10 Hail Mary's to one Our Father. So it seems that somehow Mary accomplishes this, but I don't see how one may say that these prayers accomplish this given the structure of the Rosary.

4) It will cause virtue and good works to flourish; it will obtain for souls the abundant mercy of God; it will withdraw the hearts of people from the love of the world and its vanities, and will lift them to the desire of eternal things. Oh, that souls would sanctify themselves by this means.

God's word sanctifies, the indwelling of the Holy Ghost sanctifies. Given that, as above, most of the prayers are to St. Mary, this implies that St. Mary sanctifies too. Again, I find this disturbing and blasphemous.

5) The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall not perish.

Again, this seems to place St. Mary in the place of God. Eternal life is given to those who are in Christ--even if they never heard of the Virgin Mary.

6) Whoever shall recite the Rosary devoutly, applying themselves to the consideration of its Sacred Mysteries shall never be conquered by misfortune. God will not chastise them in His justice, they shall not perish by an unprovided death; if they be just, they shall remain in the grace of God, and become worthy of eternal life.

7) Whoever shall have a true devotion for the Rosary shall not die without the Sacraments of the Church.

8) Those who are faithful to recite the Rosary shall have during their life and at their death the light of God and the plentitude of His graces; at the moment of death they shall participate in the merits of the Saints in Paradise.

6 sounds a little like "Name it and Claim it". 7 and 8 are not objectionable on their face, except that it still seems the agent is St. Mary and not god.

9) I shall deliver from purgatory those who have been devoted to the Rosary.

10) The faithful children of the Rosary shall merit a high degree of glory in Heaven.

11) You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the Rosary.

12) All those who propagate the Holy Rosary shall be aided by me in their necessities.

13) I have obtained from my Divine Son that all the advocates of the Rosary shall have for intercessors the entire celestial court during their life and at the hour of death.

14) All who recite the Rosary are my children, and brothers and sisters of my only Son, Jesus Christ.

I do not believe the Virgin Mary can deliver from purgatory (accepting arguendo that it exists), that if we pray the rosary and ask things of her that she can give things to us, or tat we should propagate the Rosary in lieu of the Gospel of Jesus Christ--the two are not the same because the Gospel has as its center the person and work of Jesus Christ on our behalf, while the Rosary mixes in devotion to St. Mary, who to all intents and purposes seems to be able to do things God alone can do. Furthermore, as above, if this is intercession by St. mary, why didn't she say that?

15) Devotion of my Rosary is a great sign of predestination.

What about free will? :-)

A Zwinglian sees the light

2007-06-08T21:24:00.000-04:00

Here is an excerpt from one man's account of his journey from a Reformed view of the Sacrament of the Altar to an Apostolic view. As a matter of fact, the doctrine of the Real Presence was key to his conversion to the Lutheran Church:

I never would have guessed that I would end up as an adult convert to Lutheranism. And I further would not have imagined how central the doctrine of the Lord's Supper would be to my conversion. My conception of denominations was typically evangelical. My understanding of Lutheranism was very vague. I respected the Lutheran church as the church of the Reformation, but I thought that my Presbyterian church had probably reformed things a little more completely.

The Presbyterian church of my childhood was the perfect setting in which to become a convinced Zwinglian (follower of the Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli who held that Communion was merely symbolic) without knowing it. I had no knowledge of the ritual until my early school years. I remember sitting in church and seeing a table up front on which were engraved the words "Do this in Remembrance of Me." This was like "Jeopardy!" on a deeper level, begging the question, "What is this that we do in remembrance of Jesus?" The answer was, Communion. Instead of the more usual case where a person is aware of Communion and later asks, "What does this mean?", I was told what this action meant without knowing what this action was.

I was blissfully unaware that anybody denied this interpretation, except for Roman Catholics. Then, in college, I remember hearing Sunday morning radio where Catholic Mass was followed by a Lutheran service. Both the priest and the pastor preached from John chapter six. From that passage the priest taught that the bread and wine were the body and blood of Christ. Then I discovered that that Lutheran pastor was to preach on the same text. I couldn't wait until he provided the correct symbolical interpretation of the passage. But it never came. To my chagrin, the Lutheran pastor taught that in Communion we receive the body and blood of Christ. I was shocked!

I had never been told that only a minority of the early Protestants held to a purely symbolic view of Communion. I had probably heard that the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation was invented in the year 1215, as if before that everyone believed it was a symbolic memorial. Then I thought that all Protestants rejected the Catholic view in favor of the memorial view. It was only later that I realized that while Transubstantiation was a recent invention (as far as church history goes), almost everyone—Lutheran, Calvinist, Roman Catholic—held to some kind of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Many of the early Protestants rejected Transubstantiation without rejecting the Real Presence.......

In a way that may not be understood by those who were not born evangelical, one fear occasioned by the Lutheran teaching on the Lord's Supper is the fear that to receive the Lord's Supper for the forgiveness of sins is to be saved by works. We perform an action and receive salvation in response. This is how I first understood the teaching. In one discussion, a Lutheran woman spoke of how we bring our sins to the Lord's Table and return forgiven. I thought this was odd. What would happen if you died on the way up there? (I know, this is the same question I asked of the Disciples of Christ view of Baptism. But it is a good question!) The difference is that in this case there is an answer. The woman knew her teaching. She assured me that my sins would be forgiven even then.

This did alleviate my misgivings, but I was still uncertain. The view did not violate known true doctrines. What I came to see, though, was how many other aspects of my Christian life in evangelicalism functioned in a similar fashion to the Lord's Supper. When I was aware that I had sinned, I had been taught to pray and ask for forgiveness. I was assured by the promise in I John that Jesus forgave when I confessed my sins. But I was also taught that I was already forgiven before I prayed. (Hence if I died before I prayed...) Yet I could not erase the passages that spoke of forgiveness following confession. The two truths had to coexist. The Sacraments were the same. They offered a forgiveness that most people who partook of them already possessed....

It is a common question asked among evangelicals whether or not they are in the will of God. The Lutherans can answer that question from another angle. "Yes, you are in the will of God," we can confidently say. "You are in his last will and testament. Knowing that he was going to die, God decided to have you written into his will. The legacy he left was his body and blood, along with all of the honors, rights and privileges appertaining." If we were to say this to someone, he or she might first think that we were guilty of a trick. We speak narrowly of a last will. Yet if God does not change, was not this his will all along? We have not skirted the question, but answered the deeper question that lay beneath it. We cannot place ourselves in the will of God through perfect obedience, for we are imperfect. To the extent that we fail, we must not trick ourselves into believing that this is mostly a matter of ignorance—that if we only knew the will of God we would do it. No, the matter is out of our hands. But God has placed us in his will, so that unworthy heirs though we are, we might receive life and salvation through the body and blood of his Son. Not only so. We know where to receive this gift: at an altar of a church that confesses that it has come together to receive the body and blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins.

Hoc est corpus meum! Read the whole thing.

Seven Things I have Learned in Life

2007-05-26T22:19:00.000-04:00

Pr. Weedon, who's blog I really like, tagged me for Seven Things I Have learned. Well, here they are:

1) When I looked at other communions, I always found the same or worse problems than I find in the LC-MS. This is how God taught me that the Church is under the cross, and though she is his spotless bride today, we are likely only to see her warts if we look with fleshly eyes, and every confession has warts.

2) Watching Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox argue over the fathers looks a lot like Protestant arguments about the Scriptures. In both cases, it comes down to first principles, and a Lutheran's first principle is Christ--i.e. we do not seek to set up an elaborate epistemology to justify our beliefs after the fact: papal infallibility, apostolic succession, hermeneutic assumptions etc. The starting point is faith in Christ and his promises, and his promises are as clear as we can expect.

3) Having your child greet you with a big smile when you come home from work more than outweighs the difficulties.

4) When I sin and seek forgiveness, the Sacrament of the Alter is very, very comforting. I mean, it is Christ giving himself to me again, even though I rebel against him.

5) Arguing with atheists can be dangerous to my faith. Not because their arguments are so powerful, but because the sinner in me likes tidy arguments, and these can subtly encroach on simple faith in the promises of God. I can sometimes place reason above faith ans the Scriptures.

6) "Better to remain silent and have the world think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" is a really good proverb. I should think before I speak, and read before I post. I get better at this all the time because I have learned from painful experiences.

7) When we moved and sought a local church, we learned that it is not always about our wants and needs, God sometimes has other ideas. The "best fit" for my life situation may not be where I am supposed to be.

So, who do I tag?

Chris Jones at http://pleroma.typepad.com/

Pastor Fleischmann at http://resqrev.blogspot.com