Palm Sunday

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

Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" and Apostolic Succession

This is from a post a while back on TWEB:

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

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

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

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

Against Heresies III 1-2

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Epistemological Modesty

I saw this here:

Epistemological Modesty [Jim Manzi]

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

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

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

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

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

"Nuking" Theology

"Nuking" Theology

A little background first.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The real Presence and Discerning the Body and Blood

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

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

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

Jack Fowler, a RC on National Review Online wrote:

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

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

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.

Binding the Strong Man

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

ESV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just wondering.

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.

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?

The Law seen through the Gospel

An end has come; the end has come; it has awakened against you. Behold, it comes. Your doom has come to you, O inhabitant of the land. The time has come; the day is near, a day of tumult, and not of joyful shouting on the mountains. Now I will soon pour out my wrath upon you, and spend my anger against you, and judge you according to your ways, and I will punish you for all your abominations. And my eye will not spare, nor will I have pity. I will punish you according to your ways, while your abominations are in your midst. Then you will know that I am the LORD, who strikes. (Ezekiel 7:6-9)

Passages like these can cause difficulties for believers and non-believers. What could be more frightening than an omnipotent being saying he will repay me, and pitilessly at that, for everything I have done? That this omnipotent being will strike at me, and do so because I deserve it? It is not a comforting thought to say the least. There has to be a way out!

There are three ways we may try to deal with this.

First is to deny what the words have to say. We may deny that this passage is applicale to us because our sins are not so bad, compared to the other guy's sins. We may also deny that these words are God's words, because God is love, and he is not actually wrathful against sinners, so this passage is not saying that he is really wrathful, that is contrary to his nature. Perhaps we may judge God, and ask why he would be pitiless, surely God has evolved enough to be beyond pity, and he always feels good and affirms others. Or we may say we would not deign to worship such a savage, tribal deity. Such a deity is not really worthy of our worship, so we will not worship him.

Second, we may realize that we deserve God's wrath, and redouble our efforts to obey him. Surely we can cleanse ourselves, surely we can obey what he commands, because he would not command anything we could not obey. And once we have cleansed ourselves, once we have removed the plank from our eye, we can go to our neighbor and teach him how to obey God as we do, because now we can see clearly. After all, our neighbor would not want to have an omnipotent being pitilessly pursuing him for his failures.

Third, we may simply despair. After all, if an omnipotent being is out to get us, where will we run? We may, as St. John said in Revelation, simply ask the hills to fall on us, because who can hide from God when the day of his wrath has come? (Revelation 6:15-17) This despair could also drive us away from even considering there is a God at all. Then in our unbelief, we will mock him and bring even more wrath upon us. Or we may simply go on sinning, as it doesn't make much difference, we are doomed anyway; eat drink and be merry!

The first is an attempt to explain the "difficult" passage away by changing their meaning. This is the path of "liberalism" and philosophy.

The second is an attempt to justify ourselves before God. When we try to justify ourselves and we tell ourselves we have attained a measure of righteousness often we turn this into legalism. This is the path of the Pharisee.

The third is an attempt to dull the pain by denying reality. We may simply throw our hands into the air, or grow angry at God because we cannot obey him. This leads to atheism, something Luther flirted with because he began to hate God.

These types of passages, being "law" in Lutheran parlance, do not need to be explained away, nor do we need to boot-strap ourselves to please God, nor do we need to see God as a monster because he is just and punishes sin and sinners. They stand as part of God's revelation, just like the passages we like, the ones which tell us God loves us, that he died for us, that he will forgive us for the sake Of Jesus Christ. The Gospel, or the forgiveness of sins for Jesus Christ's sake, does not change the meaning of a passage so much as change how we see it. Because of the promises God made, we see these judgements against us not so much as something we inevitably will suffer, but as something we rightly deserve which, for the sake of Jesus Christ, God will not apply to us. When we read of God ordering the extermination of the Canaanites, we do not see a viscous God, but think "Ah, if only they would have repented, then they would really know who the Lord is!" When we hear of our crucified Lord, we think "Ah, Lord, it was I who placed you there! Have mercy on me, forgive me so I might serve you as I ought!", not "Look what a cruel God he is!", "How can a good god do such a thing?" We should see the Scriptures as a testimony about Jesus Christ, which he himself said they were. That means we believe the law as well as the Gospel, neither one obliterating the other. God is indeed merciful, and his judgement against sinners is because of us and our open rebellion against him, not because of his cruelty. It is with the eyes of faith we see God's mercy in the sacrifice of his Son, and it is with they eyes of faith we see what God has revealed to us in the judgement passages of the Scriptures--not that he wants to punish us, but that he loves us so that he would stay his hand from this if only we would believe and repent.

We as Christians rejoice in God's unmerited mercy toward us, our God who dies for those who rebel against him, even while they rebel.

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.

The faith of a Child

When we were first married three years ago, my wife was interested in my religious beliefs because she had little or no knowledge about Christianity. Like most Russians, my wife was baptized, and so she was Russian Orthodox. Her mother and father brought her to the church to be grafted into Christ as is the custom in that country--my wife was baptized when the yoke of Communism was the ruling orthodoxy in Russia. After her Baptism, however, she barely ever darkened the steps of a church, which is another custom in Russia.

So, when she came to America she was very intrigued with my religious beliefs and practices; even in the North East, we are much more "churchly" than in Russia. She would ask questions and I would answer them as best I could. One day she asked "Why don't we pray before our meals?" I didn't have an answer, because the only reason I didn't pray was because I cared more about stuffing my face than with giving thanks to God for his gifts, with which I could sustain my body.

I felt embarrassed and we immediately started praying at every meal. How could I be so callous? I had a pretty good understanding of doctrine, of what was the "right teaching" or orthodoxy. I could answer questions, describe why the Lutheran teaching is actually what the Scriptures teach etc. But I had to be thought by my wife, who had little or no understanding of doctrine or right teaching at the time. All she had was a simple understanding that when someone gives you a gift, you should thank him for it. In this matter, she had the faith of a child and I had the faith of an intellectual, or, (gasp!) a scholastic theologian.

So now, we pray before and after every meal. And by doing so we teach our two year old son by our actions, and thus pass down what we received. So I want to thank God for my wife, who with a simple question helped me be a better disciple. But I also want to thank God for her parents, who presented her to the Lord for Baptism, which set in motion a train of events by which I could learn from my wife what it means to have the faith of a child.

"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.

Some more thoughts on the Incarnation

As I said in my previous post, the Incarnation is mind-boggling. If we believe God has come in the flesh it sort of challenges a lot of pop-evangelical assumptions about "images" and "spirituality". My brother was an evangelical Christian and he would always solemnly warn me about the crucifix over the altar in my church. I believe this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Incarnation. When the Logos became man in the person of Jesus Christ, he sanctified all the material things of our bodies. Matter matters. Another way to say it is that the human form is holy and good because, though fallen, it is created by God and it is sanctified by the Son's assumption of a human form. So to give a nod to the enfleshed God is not idolatry, but a rightful veneration of of the One who is God in the flesh.

The Incarnation also is a safeguard against an over-spiritualization of our faith. Because matter matters it is not true that "only spiritual things really matter" or "we can only understand the Words of Institution spiritually". With the advent of our Lord in the flesh we have God's promise that the material world matters too.