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.

This made me think of pomo worship

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/

Universalism

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.

Faith in Christ precedes Trust in the Bible

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.

Mother Teresa said some Interesting Things, Lutheran Things

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.

God's Wrath and the River of Fire

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.

Some questions about the Rosary

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? :-)

Papal Infallibility Raises more Questions than it Answers

Suppose papal infallibility is true as a theory. How can we use it?

A strictly theoretical infallibility is pretty useless, it is just an idea one keeps in one's head until one applies it. When we try to apply papal infallibility and development of doctrine, it seems they cannot go together. To wit, if I cannot know what the pope teaches infallibly, how can I really know what the pope teaches and hence what the truth is? A good example is Unam Sanctam and Lumen Gentium which seem contradictory on their face. I know there are harmonizations online, but I think even if the harmonizations are true there are still a lot of issues.

Unam Sanctam stated that unless one is in fellowship with the pope, one is outside the Church. Lumen Gentium states that e.g. Protestants are separated brethren, with defective fellowship with the pope. Now, assuming that these can be reconciled, I have the following questions:

1) Were all those RC theologians and believers wrong when they took Unam Sanctam as meaning what is says for 700 years, that those not in fellowship with the pope are outside the Church? If they were not wrong, where are the theologians from the middle ages who said those not in fellowship with the pope have a real though defective relationship with him, and were they widely accepted if they did say so?

2) If so many got this infallible document wrong because the pope really mean the e.g. EO are in the Church, but are "true particular churches" with a defective fellowship with the pope, and that the Prots are really "separated brethren", how can we be sure we really understand what the pope's teaching is now, that it will not "develop" into something quite the opposite of what we believe today based on his teaching tomorrow, given what Unam Sanctam states, to wit "herefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd."?

3) If certain parts of Unam Sanctam are infallible while others are not, how do we separate the infallible wheat from the fallible tares?

These are honest questions BTW.

If we try and pick out this or that particular tare, we will raise questions about other tares--whether they are really wheat or not. And if questions are raised more word chopping will occur, until we cannot be sure of what the words mean without an infallible interpreter. And I suppose we have come full circle. In a way, the justification for papal infallibility requires the same concept of an infallible interpreter it attempts to justify. If the words ""Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd'" really somehow mean the Greeks have only a defective fellowship with the pope, why couldn't an infallible interpreter simply say that?

I believe this is a real problem with how the RC presents itself as an authority, because ultimately the authority is not clear as to what it teaches, things can develop no matter how clearly worded. Just read Unam Sanctam and see what I mean. Its meaning seems clear, and the Medieval Church seemed to take the view that the pope really did have temporal authority over the princes, the spiritual sword over the profane sword--just ask the German Emperor who's vassals' vows were unilaterally revoked by the pope. If this was not the true Tradition of the RCC, were are the contrary views, and if they exist, why didn't a pope or two say "Yes, that is what we really meant!"?

Annulments are a bit of Sophistry

Now that Lent is over, I can continue my scurrilous attacks on heresy. :-)

1629 For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed.132 In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Yup, I got into another discussion with a follower of the esteemed Bishop of Rome, this time about indulgences. As the link says, an annulment states not that the marriage is dissolved, but that there was never a real marriage in the first place. If the Church declares a marriage a nullity, it never really happened. This is true even if the couple had children, were together for decades etc. So, because there was no marriage, there is no divorce. In this way, RCs who remarry..er, marry into a sacramental union, can have conjugal relations with their second.., I mean spouse. The key to a real marriage is a sacramental union--no sacramental union, no marriage. No marriage, no divorce. In this way, the RCs believe they avoid the prohibitions against divorce from Jesus' own teachings. However, i believe this bit of sophistry has an unintended consequence,undermining the trust the husband and wife have in their marriage.

Now, to be fair, we too have "annulments"--we do not recognize polygamous unions, "marriages" between those of the same sex, incestuous marriages etc. This is true, and my interlocutor brought this up to point out that it is not only the RCC which annuls improper "marriages". As I said, this is a fair point. But it also obscures my point. No Christian church wants to recognize polgamous marriages, for example. The problem I see with RC annulments is the after-the-fact declaration that a normal marriage was nothing of the kind. As a Lutheran, I believe sacraments should have an objective character, and absent that they are much less practical. (I know we do not cosider marriage a sacrament in the same way as Holy Baptism and Holy Communion). So, if the Church can declare a marriage a nullity decades later, how can the ones exchanging vows have any real confidence they are in fact in a Sacramental Union, and hence are in a real marriage? No one can really know, because if one partner fulfills one of the "requirements" for annulment--e.g. he or she did not really realize what marriage is, then the marriage is nullified. It appears that more than a few RCs left the Church because of annulments--probably because they saw the sophistry too.

In any case, it is word games like " we don't have divorce, we really believe marriage is for life...but maybe you weren't really married in the first place..." that make me glad I am a Lutheran, even though the philosophers laugh at us. :-) We are definitely less prone to fancy word play on issues like this, and I thank God for that.

Some thoughts on N.T. Wright

I am drawn to polemical discussions of doctrine, especially with the two big "traditional" churches, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church. I have been posting recently in Fr. Kimmel's pontifications blog in the "Justification: declarative or transformative?" thread. In this thread, N.T. Wright, and by extension the "New Perspective on Paul" have been brought up to prove that the Reformation was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Pauline epistles, traced back to St. Augustine.

I don't want to get into the details of the New Perspective on Paul, but I do want to point out that in at least one place, Bishop Wright has not understood the fullness of what Lutherans believe. In fact, he said something very Lutheran while denying that it is Lutheran.

Lutherans believe that we are justified by faith, forensically justified in fact. But this justification brings with it benefits, including victory over sin, death and the devil. In other words, Lutheran justification entails more than merely God's declaration we are just for Christ's sake. It is not simply a legal fiction, it is an active declaration, just like the declaration God made when he said "Let there be light..and there was light". There is no justification without works--though works are not the cause of our justification. When we are justified, we are transformed, because we are reborn. Any way, bishop Wright wrote:

When he (St. Paul) describes how persons, finding themselves confronted with the act of God in Christ, come to appropriate that act for themselves, hr has a clear train of thought, repeated at various points. The message about Jesus Christ and his cross and resurrection--the "gospel", in terms of our previous chapters--is announced to them; through this means, God works by his Spirit on their hearts; as a result, they come to believe the message; they join the Christian community through baptism, and begin to share in its common life and its common way of life. That is hoe people come into relationship with the living God.

If you say this is what you mean by justification by faith, I reply that we must take note of the fact that when Paul is setting out this train of thought, as he does (for instance) in 1 Thessalonians 1, he does not mention justification.

Again, leaving aside bishop Wright's broader critique of the Western/Augustinian/Lutheran reading of St. Paul, it is a fact that we believe faith comes by hearing the Gospel, or the cross and resurrection proclamation as bishop Wright says. When we believe that proclamation, we are justified before God. And interestingly, when we are justified, we are of the children of Abraham, or, the ones to whom the promises pertain. In other words, that is what we mean by "justification by faith".

This is a quibble to be sure, as Bishop Wright's teaching does not depend on this particular statement being true. None the less, it seems a lot of non-Lutherans try and place a template upon Lutheranism which does not fit.

Newman, I hardly knew you

Sometimes we can know that there is just something wrong with an idea, we can even explain why we believe it is wrong. We can see that it is not workable. Perhaps we cannot see the depth of its wrongness until we get to its cleanest exposition. That is what happened when Ken pointed me to Cardinal Newman's "Faith and Judgement". I believe CardinalNewman is simply wrong about faith. I actually found some themes I agree with in this essay, for instance that we do not start with knowledge, but with faith. I do believe, however, that he is wrong when he equates faith with submission to authority, indeed faith consists of that for him.

I read this essay, expecting some pretty tough arguments in favor of the preferred apologetic against anyone who disagrees with the pope: that only those who are in the RCC and submit to the authority of the Majesterium (or the EOC, depending on the individual RC) truly have faith, because their faith is based on authority, and not on what they themselves decide. All else is "private judgement", a mere opinion held, and as that is not really faith at all. If one's faith is based on "private judgement", one cannot believe in the Words of God, and one does not have the same faith as that of the early Christians, who all believed based on the authority of the ones preaching to them and not on the message they preached.

First, I will say that Cardinal Newman seems to be arguing against a naive view of the Scriptures as something from which we are free to extract whatever teachings we wish, and when a new idea pops into our heads, we are free to believe that is truth too, abandoning our previous truth in light of our new interpretation. This is not the Lutheran way of using the Scriptures, though. Newman writes:

...he who believes that God is true, and that this is His word, which he has committed to man, has no doubt at all. He is as certain that the doctrine taught is true, as that God is true; and he is certain, =because= God is true, =because= God has spoken, not because he sees its truth or can prove its truth.

That pretty well sums up the Lutheran way of understanding the Scriptures--first we are Christians, then we can understand what the Scriptures teach us. In other words, we believe the Scriptures are true because they are God's Word, because they testify of the same Christ we believe through the proclamation of the Gospel--the proclamation of his life, death and resurrection and the remission of sins and felowship with the Father that flow from that. Our certainty starts with the promises God made throughout history, as recorded in the Old and New Testaments. That we do not start with the Scriptures or any other plain text, Lutherans and Cardinal Newman agree, we are not to read the Scriptures and start extrapolating ideas about God and the world apart from faith. Where the difference lies is in Newman's idiosyncratic way of using the word "faith".

Lutherans believe faith is trust in God, "He who believes and is Baptized will be saved", and for Lutherans, the object of this faith is the person and work of Jesus Christ, true God and true man, born of the Virgin Mary; who was crucified, died and was buried and rose again as Lord of Life. He who believes these things will be saved. For Lutherans, belief in the message preached by the preacher is faith. Faith in this promise is the gift of God, and not the product of "private judgement" or one's decision, or even of gleaning truth from the Scriptures. It is primarily a spiritual thing, a reorientation of the will. In fact, for Lutherans, "deciding to follow Christ" is ruled out until we are awakened by the Gospel through the Holy Ghost. We don't "decide" anything until we are reborn.

For Cardinal Newman however, it is not enough that one believes the promises, it is not enough even to believe this faith is a supernatural gift; one must believe the promises based on the authority of the one preaching, or one does not actually believe the promises because one does not have the faith of the first Christians. Newman writes:

Now, is it not certain that faith in the time of the Apostles consisted in submitting? and is it not certain that it did not consist in judging for one's self....

...how then were men to receive it? why did so many embrace it? on the word of the Apostles, who were, as their powers showed, messengers from God. Men were told to submit their reason to a living authority...

...The simple account of their remaining as they are, is, that they lack one thing,--they have not faith; it is a state of mind, it is a virtue, which they do not recognise to be praiseworthy, which they do not aim at possessing...

First, it seems that that Newman changes the focus from the message to the messenger, for even if one believes the message, it makes no difference unless one believes in the messenger's authority. He goes even further and says that any Protestants who believe in e.g. the Flood, do so out of habit and not because they actually conform their views to God's revelation in the Scriptures, whereas the Catholic believes these things because of faith, defined as submission to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. (It seems to me it would be hard to find a Catholic who believes in the Flood through faith these days, but I digress). Where we agree with him is that God's message of salvation needs to be spoken by people, we are saved through means, not unmediated action by God; he uses his creation to bring us to faith in him. However, Newman is wrong to imply that faith comes because of submission to a teacher. Indeed, he goes on to say that unless one is in submission to authority, one does not believe in anything when he writes "..that since they have not this faculty of religious belief,no wonder they do not embrace that [the RCC], which cannot really be embraced without it [faith]. They do not believe any teaching at all in any true sense..." So, another difference between Lutheran doctrine and Newman's teaching is that for Newman, faith is in an important way a command, whereas for Lutherans, the Gospel proclamation is an invitation to believe in Jesus Christ, so we may live. There s a huge gulf between starting with power and authority and starting with God's invitation to eternal life in glory.

When the Apostles preached, according to Newman, people believed their message because of the authority of the Apostles, because of their miracles, because they perceived their words came from God. I will leave aside for the moment the semi-Pelagian implications of a hearer "deciding" someone's words are from God based on their assessment of the person, and instead describe why I believe Cardinal Newman's use of "faith" is just plain wrong. If anything, the message the Apostles preached was a story about a man who was executed and put to shame; yet this same man is God, rose again and will give eternal life to all who believe in his message of salvation. That is all they seem to be about, unless they have to face some controversy. Faith did not consist of submission to the Apostles, but belief in their message of salvation in Jesus Christ. Faith consists of belief in the person and work of Jesus Christ, we "submit" because we become his sheep when we believe the message they bring of Jesus Christ. The Gospel is a stumbling block to the Greeks because it does not conform to reason, it is an offense to the Jews because the idea of God hanging on a tree to die, i.e. suffering humiliation, is utter nonsense. No human authority is able to overcome these objections to the Gospel, only God can do that. Finally, when Jesus said "Repent and believe the Good News", are we really to believe that the Good News is submission to authority? Shouldn't the "good news" be good news?

From Fallible Intermediaries to Infallible Truth

There seems to be a thread on Pontifications, Parasitic Catholicism, which never ends. Partly due to the fact I find the discussion fascinating and challenging at the same time.

Time and again, It was stated in various posts that the Church must be infallible, because if an interpretation in infallible, there must be an infallible interpretor.

Nathan, a Lutheran, brought up an idea that I think is worth pursuing though. The point is, if an infallible interpreter is required for an infallible interpretation, how was God's promise of a Savior transmitted from his promise made to to Eve (Genesis 3:13), or the other promises of a Messiah up to Jesus' day? Where is the infallible interpreter? It cannot be those who sit in Moses' seat, because they condemned Jesus, in other words, they rejected truth in the flesh--hardly something an infallible institution would do. So, if the promise was fallibly passed down, how can we have any confidence in it if an infallible interpreter is required to interpret infallible truth? How can we trust the Gospel,?

Now, it is true that the Prophets were infallible, but Prophets had to be tested, and there were false prophets as well as true prophets. This means the Israelites had to "test the spirits" like we do. Not only that, we read that in King Josiah's time, the people apparently had forgotten he covanent and had to rededicate themselves to the covanent God made through Moses (2 Chronicles 34). So it seems to be unremarkable that there were times when there were no infallible interpreters of the traditions handed down. Yet, somehow the promise was handed down, because the Israelites were able to recognize the Law of Moses when it was rediscovered; and in Jesus' day there were those who recognized him as the promised Messiah. There were also those who recognized the proclamation of his Apostles, for instance the Bereans. The Bereans even tested St. Paul's proclamation of the Gospel against the Scriptures; a thing which would be impossible if an infallible interpreter is required to transmit infallible truth, because there was no infallible interpreter in OT days, and the Bereans were not infallible.

So, where does this lead us? It leads us away from the idea that we need an infallible interpreter to believe in the infallible truth of Jesus Christ, because an infallible interpreter is not necessary, nor does one exist here on earth. What is infallible though are God's promises to us, his creatures, throughout history. That promise, first made to Eve, that God would, through her descendant, crush the serpent, and redeem mankind from bondage to sin, death and the devil. In OT days, the promise was infallible even though the ones preserving it were obviously fallible. Today the promise is infallible even though some groups obscure the Gospel by pointing to the body instead of the head, and claim that outside their authority there is no true faith, only subjective opinion. (The body is necessary, i.e. we come to faith through the Church, but we have faith in the Church because we have faith in Christ, not the other way around). It is the promise, the invitation by the Lord to repent and return to him, so he might heal us and renew us, which is infallibly revealed in the Scriptures. Jesus is the very embodiment of this promise, so it is right and good to say that the Scriptures testify of him, and do so infallibly--even if the ones passing the message down are fallible.

Where is Christ in all this?

Recently, I have been posting on Pontifications in the "Parasitic Catholicism" thread. As is usually the case, things come down to authority. Thanks to this discussion, I have a better understanding of what the RC at least mean when they speak of "private jugement". They start with authority, and only then can they be sure of orthodoxy. Their critique of "protestantism" is that we start with orthodoxy and then establish authority. Now, I think this a distinction without a difference--how would one know the authority is really orthodox without evaluating its teachings, for example.

That is not my main point though. I was wondering, where is Christ in all this? St. Paul said he resolved to know nothing among the Corinthians but Christ and him crucified. It seems to me some Apologists resolve to know nothing but epistemology. (I do not say they are not Christians, or that philosophy is wrong or useless) As often happens in these discussions, I thank God I am Lutheran, where I can start with faith in Jesus Christ through the objective means of the Sacraments, and then trust the Bible because I trust in Christ. My faith is not grounded in philosophy, but in objective tools God uses to save me. When my pastor says "In the stead and by the command of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I forgive you all you sins, in the Name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen!" I do not have to get all my philosophy in order first, and only then justify my faith in Jesus Christ. I have to faithfully receive what Christ himself offers me in Absolution, Holy Communion and in the preaching of the Gospel. It is a wonderful comfort to know that with simple words, some written down thousands of years ago, my Savior snaches me from the jaws of death and lets me partake in his life, unto life everlasting. And he does this to infants, who I think we can agree don't have a very intellectualized faith. He does this do adults, with hos word which breaks harts of stone into pieces, replacing them with hearts of flesh.

That is a much more potent thing than philosophical arguments divorced from any sense of God's omnipotent Word.

Your opinion is private while mine is not!

Fr. Alvin Kimel, an ex-Anglican priest who became Roman Catholic, wrote a critique of “Protestantism” I have seen several times before.

First, his response was to an Anglican priest, so not everything there is applicable to Lutheran doctrines. What I write here is from a Lutheran perspective, so it does not respond to all of Fr. Kimel’s points.

One of the most common critiques of “protestantism” is that protestants are, by definition, guilty of “private judgment” while Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (if one is Roman Catholic), or the Eastern Orthodox alone (if one is Eastern Orthodox) are not guilty of private judgment, because they are under the authority of the pope, or the Church. Protestants are guilty of private judgment because they do not have an ecclesiastical structure to resolve doctrinal disputes.

Fr. “WB” at the Whitehall Blog basically repeats the common “protestant” response to this—that any prot who moves to a non-prot denomination has done so through logical reasoning and “private judgment”, so why is that OK but another’s decision not?

Now, when I discuss this with EO/RCC apologists, I cannot seem to get a clear answer as to why one person’s choice is private, while another’s is not. And Fr. Kimel, in my opinion, does not give a clear answer either. The answer always seems to boil down to “because we are right”.

Fr. Kimel wrote “All parties agree that private judgment must be exercised in the decision to become Catholic or Orthodox. As Cardinal Newman wrote to Mrs. Helbert in 1869, “Private judgment must be your guide, till you are in the Church. You do not begin with faith, but with reason, and you end with faith.” But what does Newman mean by ending with faith? Helbert was already a believing Christian. She was struggling not whether to believe in Christ but whether to become Catholic. The solution is to be found in the difference between the Church as a magisterial community that authorizes binding doctrines in the name of God and the Church as denomination that projects theological opinions.”

It seems that one’s decisions are private until one decides to join the RCC (or EO) church. When one joins the Church, one is under authority and hence one’s beliefs are no longer private. This belief is not a rational belief, but a product of the faith of the RC convert, as Fr. Kimel states “the Catholic gives his assent because he believes that the Catholic Church has the authority to propose irreformable doctrine.” What this boils down to, in my opinion, is that the RC simply believes his choice is right, based on faith, and so he is no longer “guilty” of private judgment. Since the “protestant” makes a different choice, he is guilty of private judgment, because he does not conform to the choice of the RC convert.

This way of reasoning seems a little convenient for the RC convert to me. I do not see how there is any difference between the “protestant” and the RC convert—except of course their choices individually determined! Another issue is that the individual RC believer must still interpret what the RCC teaches—and he does this individually and conforms his views either to a greater or lesser extent to the actual teachings of the RCC.

Finally, all these questions about epistemology—how can we know what to believe?—miss the point, in my opinion. I believe they are ultimately futile. In a sense, Fr. Kimel is right, we perceive these things through faith, not reason alone. The problem comes when we try to dress up our faith in intellectual garb to make it sound as if another should follow one’s own private decision because of logical necessity.

"Are Protestants Heretics"

I saw this post on Cyberbrethren, and I find it fascinating. Martin Luther (I think it was him) said that quite a few people "get" the Gospel on their death bed. And what do we read about St. Therese? Have a look!

"I am very happy that I am going to heaven. But when I think of this word of the Lord, “I shall come soon and bring with me my recompense to give to each according to his works,” I tell myself that this will be very embarrassing for me, because I have no works. … Very well! He will render to me according to His works for His own sake."

Can you believe it? I suppose death does really focus the mind.

And if you like conspiracy theories, these passages were suppressed for over a century.(Please see update below)

Now, her writing here sounds very, very Lutheran to me. The author of the article, Edward T. Oakes, S.J., agrees.

The overall point of the article is that many RC people throw the "heretic" label around a little too liberally, as to many prots who can never seem to find Christ inside the RCC--even though he is there in the Sacraments.

Anyway, I suggest anyone who reads this blog read the whole article, it is really pretty interesting.

UPDATE:

I am revising this post because Fr. Oakes removed the reference to suppression of St. Therese's works; Rusty pointed out this never happened. There was no suppression of St. Therese's works because they sounded too Lutheran, in fact there was no supression at all. Upstate Lutheran regrets the error.

"Private Interpretation" as a rhetorical tool

This is a slightly modified post I made on TWeb, a theology discussion forum. Here are some tactics I see among RC and EO apologists. Not all of them, but I see these as a tend, and I think they are illegitimate:

Just because you believe your church is "the" Church, doesn't mean others agree

You will not get anywhere if you just assume you are correct, that your choice of a church is correct without even acknowledging that others make the same claim about their church, often using exactly the same types of arguments you do--e.g. Apostolic Succession. You are entitled to believe your interpretation of the Scriptures, or that of the church you chose, or that of Charles Taze Russel is the correct one. What you are not entitled to is to expect me to agree with your interpretation based on the fact your church is "the" Church, nor can you expect me to accept your own self description as following "the" Church while everyone else is not. I do not believe the RCC is "the" Church, I do not believe the EO churches are "the" Church, and I am not alone--since those two are not even in communion with each other.

Just because Luther said it, doesn't mean we believe it

We are not bound by everything Luther believed. You are free to find something within the Lutheran dogmatic corpus to refute me on that, but you are not entitled to assume that we are so bound in the face of Lutherans' statements otherwise without some kind of evidence. Luther said a lot of things, as did the Fathers, as has the pope. Are you bound by every single statement by any of the popes, of the Fathers? If not, don't expect me to be bound by every word Luther wrote, and for many of the same reasons you would not want to be bound by every statement by any pope. We are bound to Christ as revealed in the Scriptures.

Yes, you are a denomination too

Every church is a denomination, and the way the RC/EO apologists use the term is another example of an attempt to steal a base, so to speak. It is a neat rhetorical trick to put someone else on the defensive by asserting "we are the Church while you are merely a denomination". It just happens not to work very well with me as I am familiar with this stratagem. It is a false argument, and when too many false arguments are advanced it should make one wonder about the truthfulness of the thing being argued.

Mere assertion proves nothing

So, do you have anything besides your choice to follow the teachings of the pope or the "consensus of the Church", or will you merely say our use of Scripture is by definition "private interpretation" because we don't follow your authority--which you privately determined to follow I might add-- so you really don't have to deal with the substance of what we believe?

Words have meaning

What the Scriptures, the Fathers, or any other writings or speeches say has meaning. Words are not play dough to be conformed to what "the" Church says they mean, God did not give us a cipher text, nor does he deal with us in obscure language when he wants us to know something. If God's wrath is really the experience of God's love by the ungodly, he would have said so.

Should women receive Holy Communion? Should infants be baptized?

Quite often, we hear that because there are no examples of infants being baptized in the Scriptures we should not baptize infants. Whole households which are baptized don't matter, because we would be assuming infants are present. This is something which "decision baptizers" will hold to at all costs. We should not follow a custom of men without God's warrant.

Now, for communing women. A while back, I asked a friend who who follows the above principle whether, if we have no examples of women receiving Holy Communion, we should be communing women. After all, there are no explicit examples, and we are not allowed to assume anything or we are not following the reformation principle of "Sola Scriptura"--we may not substitute our judgment for that of the Scriptures.

I thought his head would explode, as he frantically tried to change the subject.

Anyway, my point is not to give debating points to my Lutheran brothers and sisters, but to question whether the "Regulative Principle" has any practical use. How does one decide if we should make Communion a Passover meal or not?. It seems to me that my friend above, if he really followed his principle consistently, should refuse Communion to women. I can't think of a single group who does this, and it makes me wonder of the arguments against infant baptism are not, on some level, really special pleading.

The Word of God, and other word problems

Some times the words get in the way.

For a variety of reasons, many people think we Lutherans believe that the Bible is the word of God in the sense of it being Christ himself. Here is an example.

No one I know believes that. But I do think that often our "technical" terms get in the way of communication; after all, don't we also call Jesus Christ the Word of God? The same is true of the reformation slogan "Sola Scriptura" (Scripture Alone), which many take to mean the Scriptures totally divorced from any sense of tradition or continuity with the past.

Now, think about "Sola Fide" (Faith Alone). Some may think that just by trusting in Jesus Christ we are saved--which is true except that some believe this means we must merely have the right opinions about Christ and have a vague idea of the sin for which he paid. We are not saved because we have the correct opinions but because we are reborn when we receive the gift of Christ's work on our behalf. we receive this gift through faith and not because we have certain opinions.

We need not abandon our historic vocabulary, but when we speak of Christ to others we should try and avoid sloganeering, as there is a good chance we will be misunderstood. I don't remember who said it, but he said something like "When we speak of justification by faith, we must say it without using the words justified or faith".

More on Confidence in the public square

As I stated in my previous post, the Orthodox (and to a lesser degree the RC apologists) have much more confidence in their claims than we Lutherans do in ours when we discuss contentious issues. This confidence is very useful in contentious debate as in effect the real debate often becomes one over authority when post-modern assumptions--"How can you know what this says?" come into play. When the Lutheran says "St. Paul says we are forgiven for Christ's sake and so God's wrath is turned aside" the Orthodox (or RC) apologist only has to assert, with perhaps some citations froma Church father, that the text does not really mean that because the Church interprets it differently, and if you persist in your interpretation you are against the whole Church throughout history.

As I said, this confidence that the EOC is the Church is very useful. Notice that the discussion will shift from "What does the Holy Spirit say in the Scriptures?" to "How can you even know what the Holy Spirit says if you are not one of us?"--i.e. who has authority to interpret? If one believes one really has authority, one will be more confident--and confidence is attractive.

Now, as a Lutheran I have a problem with this. Do we really want to believe that the Scriptures are basically a cipher without an interpreter? I would like to point out that I believe one can understand what the Scriptures say with reason alone, but one can only believe what they say through the Holy Spirit. I also believe that implicitly stating that the Scriptures have what amounts to an esoteric meaning, only accessible through the good offices of the infallible interpreter--be it the bishop of Rome or the "consensus of the Church throughout history", is a bit gnostic in my opinion. (I hasten to add that this does not make the one advancing these ideas gnostic!)

So, in the future, we should have more confidence the revelation of the prophets, priests, kings and apostles in the Old and New testaments. We should also have confidence that ours is indeed an historic faith, and not something cooked up by Fr. Martin Luther in a tower.

Confidence in the public square

First, a happy and blessed New Year to all.

Second, I am often involved in discussions with Eastern Orthodox lay people on the theology "debate" site http://www.theologyweb.com/

What I would like to point out is that the EO people there are very confident in their beliefs and traditions. This confidence means they have an almost automatic upper hand in discussions. Indeed, they often just baldly state that while they are the Church, Lutherans are a denomination named for a guy named Luther. There have been several conversions of people from various Western communions to Eastern Orthodoxy there, and I think this confidence has something to do with it.

To be honest, we Lutherans are strongest in these types of discussions when we stick to Christ, the Sacraments, and the Scriptures. The last two testify about what God has done for us in the person of Jesus Christ, and isn't that what Christianity is centered upon? So, why not start with what is really important--instead of historical pedigrees. (those are important too, but they are not nearly as important as Christ, the Sacraments and the Scriptures).

More tomorrow.