Literal Interpretations of the Scriptures

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.

The teachings of men....

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.

Missing organic relationships between Reformation churches

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?

Taking Luther out of Context

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.

Here we stand

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.

Jesus Christ--a divinized man

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"

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

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"

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

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".

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.

A simple analogy for the Eucharist being the Gospel itself

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?

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

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"

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....

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.

Authority Claims

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?

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.

Luther says to form Christ within ourselves

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

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....

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