God is all-powerful. God is omniscient. God can reveal Himself when and where He wants to, completely at His own discretion.
So, we can certainly say that God can reveal Himself however He wants to. After all, He is God.
But, where should we look for God? Where can we find Him? Where has He told He will be and promised to be?
Has He promised us to be present in signs, wonders, and miracles? Well, no, He hasn't. Although those things certainly did happen in Scripture.
Has He promised us to be present in a still small audible voice in our heads? Well, no again. Although that happened in Scripture as well.
But Jesus does not promise to meet us in those places. And indeed, many times people are completely deceived into thinking that He has.
But there are certain and sure places where we know God is present and gives Himself to us. They might seem boring to some people, but in God's infinite wisdom and providence, He has provided us with sure and objective means of grace. He uses the natural world, not a personal revelation whispered in your ear.
A personal revelation whispered in your ear is majorly subjective. First of all, how do you know it's even God? Could it be a voice in your head? Yeah, it certainly could be.
You see, God knows we are fragile creatures and our faith is bound to fail. So He gives us Himself objectively so we can know with certainty that we are receiving Him.
He gives us these natural means of grace to save the natural world. Simply put, the only places we should be looking for God are the places He has said He will be present in grace and not judgment. And not randomly and only for some people, but all the time, for everyone.
What are they? Word and Sacrament. Alone. Christ comes to us in His Word, and His Word is given to us by preaching, absolution, baptism, and the Eucharist.
He comes to us by natural means. The Word proclaimed by the pastor, the Baptism administered in the Name of the Triune God, and the true Body and Blood of Christ given to us in His Holy Supper, which by the way is for the forgiveness of sins.
Look nowhere else. Receive your Lord by the means in which He promises to be present, all the time.
+Grace and Peace+
But that's boring, Andrew....
ReplyDeleteBoring and guaranteed! Completely objective. Christ for you, outside of yourself.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't find God so I pretended to drink blood. Whew! Found Him!!!
ReplyDeleteSt. Matthew 26:27-28
ReplyDeleteAnd he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Scripture 1
Sacramentarians 0
Yes, Lutherans take Jesus literally, except that they don't.
ReplyDeletehttp://reformation500.com/2014/01/23/this-is-my-body/
http://reformation500.com/2014/01/30/this-is-my-body-pt-2/
http://reformation500.com/2014/05/07/this-is-my-body-pt-3/
You successfully refuted consubstantiation. Congratulations.
ReplyDeleteWhat I have done, although I am nowhere near the first to do so, is demonstrate that the Lutheran claim to take Jesus' words literally is a canard. "Is" and "Is present with" are not synonymous. Nor is "is" synonymous with "in" "with" or "under".
ReplyDeleteThe Lutheran position does not deliver what it promises or what it demands from everyone else.
As for consubstantiation, I'll let you guys worry about what the difference is really between a word that means "with substance" and a theology that says that the body and blood of Christ is substantially present with the bread and wine.
I myself grew tired of trying to convince myself that I was just taking words literally when I knew I had to change the definition of most of the words I was using in order to make the theology work. But if you folks can live with it, I guess I shouldn't bother about it.
No, you haven't proven anything other than showing how you either don't understand the Lutheran Sacramental Union position or have confused it with consubstantiation.
ReplyDeleteChrist is *bodily* present. The bread IS His body and the wine IS His blood. But they're still bread and wine too. We don't need to go further than that. Christ is there, bodily. Because He said so. Period. And that is enough.
ReplyDeleteKeep your sacramentarian 'grace falling like manna from heaven' on the elect alone stance. We'll continue to be Sacramental. Scripture is.
Oh, I forgot, "is" literally means "is sacramentally united to". Silly me. Why CAN'T I just take the bible literally like you guys?
ReplyDeleteIf you want to build strawmen, be my guest. Our stance is that...the bread IS His body, because He said so. But it's also bread, because once again, He said so.
ReplyDeleteWe don't need shenanigans to prove that. We believe what He said. Period. End of story.
It really IS His body. And it really IS bread. Both/and. No rationalism needed. Done.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I'll bite. What straw-man have I built? I've read your confessions, I've read Mueller, I've read Chemnitz (whom people think was profound for some reason), I've read Sasse (whom people also think was profound for some reason). So be specific. What did I miss? What have I misrepresented? Despite the fact that I am being not very nice, I am all ears.
ReplyDeleteYou've tried to say that "is" means "is present with." And even so, "is present with" would be better than "is not," which would be a direct contradiction of Christ's words and a serious form of unbelief. We believe that the bread IS His body. Because He said so. We don't need any more wrangling or shenanigans than that.
ReplyDeleteI could care less who people think is "profound."
Likewise, in my opinion, the "in, with, and under" language that Lutherans sometimes use is unfortunate.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, your confessions themselves use that language. It is not a plain, natural reading of Jesus' words. He didn't say "My body is truly and essentially present with this bread" or "My blood is truly and essentially present with this wine". I'll say it once more and then be done.
ReplyDeleteYou don't take the words of institution, as is often claimed by Lutherans, in their natural sense, as they read. Because they don't read that way. You redefine words and invent concepts like "sacramental presence" to try and rescue your allegedly literal reading; but whatever your reading is, it is not literal. Like it or not, you believe that the substance of the bread and body accompany each other. If only there was a word for that...
Christ said "This is My body." That is enough for me. It IS His body. He said so. We truly receive the body and blood of Christ in the Supper. Done. End of story.
ReplyDeleteYou're good at playing word games, but all you've really done is to assert that "is" means "is not."
ReplyDeleteAnd saying that "is" means "is not" or "symbolizes" is nothing more than believing what the texts never say, anywhere.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way around it, it's a form of unbelief.
I asserted that "is" means "is not"? That's either ignorance or a lie. Which is it?
ReplyDeleteNeither. If you reject that the bread and wine truly are the true body and blood of Christ, then you believe that they *are not* the body and blood of Christ.
ReplyDeleteThus, This IS My body is false to you. Because This really is not My body. "Symbolic of" also means "is not."
Because it's not His body, it's just a symbol.
ReplyDeleteJesus says "This is My body."
Andrew says "Is not. It just represents it."
There is no via media between the "est" and the "significat." Calvin tried to make one, but ended up with Nestorianism and a wacky elevator theory taught nowhere in Holy Scripture.
ReplyDeleteThat is a big problem with you guys. You seem to think that anyone who thinks Jesus might be speaking metaphorically just doesn't believe Jesus. You argue that scripture nowhere says that the bread represents his body; but that is how a metaphor works.
ReplyDeleteYou are free of course to reject the notion that He was speaking metaphorically.
But you are not free, not in a moral sense, to accuse others of rank unbelief because they see a metaphor where you see literalism. It accomplishes nothing to simply point to the word is. State of being verbs are essential to metaphor. So that argument is unconvincing to us. At issue is whether "is" is being used metaphorically or not.
So what you've got is a false dichotomy. Either I believe that Jesus was being completely literal or I am calling Jesus a liar. Why can't it just be that I am wrong in my understanding but really believing what I actually think Jesus said?
Can you admit that metaphors do function that way? If not, why not? I have encountered more than one Lutheran, including a pastor, who have denied that in the context of this argument. That gets a little tough to take seriously.
The bigger problem is that if the Lord's Supper is only a metaphor, why should we take it seriously? Likewise, in 1 Corinthians, why were people getting sick and dying because of the Lord's Supper?
ReplyDeleteThe whole metaphor interpretation doesn't make any sense in that light.
I grant that the metaphor interpretation is better than Calvin's attempt.
And I know it's not Scripture alone here, but church history is very much against you as well. No one held to the metaphor interpretation until quite recently in church history (Zwingli, et al).
ReplyDeleteBut I am sure you'll reject that line of thought, because hey, Calvinism really does not have church history on their side, especially Calvinistic Baptists.
And then there is baptism. If baptism is just a metaphor too, what's the point? It's all just pure law in both cases that point to me and my pious remembrance and my obedience and not the promise of Christ. Why would Christ give us these Sacraments just as commands to follow and not gracious means of giving us Himself?
ReplyDeleteIt just doesn't make sense. It turns Christianity into a law-based religion in a big way.
http://lambonthealtar.blogspot.com/2013/10/in-in-with-with-under-under-is-is-ba.html
ReplyDelete"The bigger problem is that if the Lord's Supper is only a metaphor, why should we take it seriously?"
ReplyDeleteIs that a real question? Ever read Ezekiel 4? Should those metaphorical actions by Ezekiel have meant anything to those in Jerusalem? Or should people have said "Well, it's just a metaphor. Why take it seriously?"?
The reason it is to be taken seriously is because of who instituted it and what it means.
"Likewise, in 1 Corinthians, why were people getting sick and dying because of the Lord's Supper?"
Because they are coming unworthily. Pay attention to the context. Paul is talking about sectarian strife, the exclusion of some from the supper, and others getting drunk there. In other words, people coming to the supper unrepentantly and concerned for only themselves. The body not being discerned is the church. It is very clear form the context.
"The whole metaphor interpretation doesn't make any sense in that light."
Well, yes it does because we're talking about the sacrifice of the Son of God. It isn't "only" a metaphor, whatever that means. It's a picture of Christ's broken body and shed blood. To come to the supper without repentance and faith is to come with a false "amen". What could be worse?
"And I know it's not Scripture alone here, but church history is very much against you as well."
ReplyDeleteIt was very common in the early church to think that if one sinned after baptism he couldn't be saved. Should we believe that too? We would have church history on our side. Or should we let church history be what it is and admit that the fathers are useful but fallible?
"But I am sure you'll reject that line of thought, because hey, Calvinism really does not have church history on their side, especially Calvinistic Baptists."
Does the New Testament count as church history? If so, shouldn't the primary question be "what does the word teach" and not "what did a guy say later"?
"And then there is baptism. If baptism is just a metaphor too, what's the point?
Again with the "just a metaphor" stuff as though your use of minimizing language is a real argument. Is baptism a metaphor? Yes? Is it "just" a metaphor? Well, whatever that means, no it isn't. I read John 6 today. Is "Whoever comes to me will never hunger and whoever believes in me will never thirst" just ink? Of course not. Stop being silly.
"It's all just pure law in both cases that point to me and my pious remembrance and my obedience and not the promise of Christ."
You might want to read a Reformed confession or two before you go tossing that sort of stuff around.
Heidelberg Catechism, Q 67:
Question 67. Are both word and sacraments, then, ordained and appointed for this end, that they may direct our faith to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, as the only ground of our salvation?
Answer: Yes, indeed: for the Holy Ghost teaches us in the gospel, and assures us by the sacraments, that the whole of our salvation depends upon that one sacrifice of Christ which he offered for us on the cross.
1689 London Baptist Confession on Baptism:
Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the person who is baptised - a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins; and of that person's giving up of himself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
On The Supper:
The Supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by Him the same night on which He was betrayed to be observed in His churches until the end of the world for the perpetual remembrance, and showing forth of the sacrifice of Himself in His death. It was also instituted by Christ to confirm believers in all the benefits of His death; - for their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him; - for their further engagement in and commitment to all the duties which they owe to Him; - and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him and with their fellow believers.
Both documents speak of assurance or confirmation in faith in the sacraments. Swing and a miss.
"Why would Christ give us these Sacraments just as commands to follow and not gracious means of giving us Himself?"
Your continued misrepresentation of the "sacramentarians" aside, incredulity is not an argument.
"It just doesn't make sense."
If a Calvinist objected that something didn't make sense, you would dismiss him as a rationalist immediately.
"It turns Christianity into a law-based religion in a big way."
It's pretty clear to me that this is just false, and a bit hysterical as well.
I'm beginning to wonder if you have anything of substance to add here or if you're still just the same old Andrew, bitter and asinine toward everyone who doesn't agree with you...
ReplyDeleteI've read Reformed Confessions. I was a Calvinist for a long time. Although I wouldn't consider anything Baptist Reformed...but that's another story for another day.
"Both documents speak of assurance or confirmation in faith in the sacraments. Swing and a miss."
Which means that Reformed Theology rejects the metaphorical interpretation. Granted, I don't think the Reformed interpretation makes much sense, but to be fair, they're not memorialists. It's the later radical movements, following in the example of Zwingli (who was a big time heretic, for what it's worth), who were memorialists.
And I was not directing my criticisms at the Reformed or their Confessions on the Sacraments. Not directly anyways. I was directing them at the memorialists, which is what you *seem* to be espousing here. The Lutheran disagreements with the Reformed Confessions on the Sacraments are a bit different. But hey, you're a smart guy, you know all that. And you know Lutheranism better than all of us too evidently.
ReplyDeleteMemorialism turns the Sacraments into bare symbols and acts of obedience (i.e. Baptists). Reformed Theology concocts explanations that are way beyond Biblical texts (OK, their explanation for Baptism is not too bad)...specifically as regarding the Lord's Supper. Calvin's theory of the Lord's Supper is a pure Christological heresy (Nestorianism).
ReplyDelete"Does the New Testament count as church history? If so, shouldn't the primary question be "what does the word teach" and not "what did a guy say later"?"
ReplyDeleteBy the way, this sounds like SolO Scriptura or Nuda Scriptura...not Sola Scriptura as the Reformers argued for. You're essentially rejecting 1500 years of Church interpretation of Scripture.
Were you going to interact with the arguments I offered or just continue to make assertions based on your assertions? If the latter I will save us both the time and do something else.
ReplyDeleteConsidering your arguments are a drastic misrepresentation of Lutheran theology, I'm not even sure how to interact with them. I get it, you're not Lutheran. That's cool. No angst from me for that. Perhaps I'll interact with your arguments in a few blog posts in the future. But from what I did read, I'm not even sure where to start.
ReplyDeleteI mean, my point is, you can quote Lutheran Confessions and authors all you want. That's good. I give you credit for doing so. But then interpreting them to mean things outside of what they say...it just aint right, grasshopper.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, I don't believe I have misrepresented Lutheranism. But I am done here. Please read this:
ReplyDeletehttp://reformation500.com/2014/06/22/mea-culpa/
Of course you don't think you have misrepresented Lutheranism. You're not a blatant liar. Yet, I'm pretty darn sure you have. Like I said...in the future when I get some time to pour through what you've written a little more than I can now, I'll address it...
ReplyDeleteI read your post. No worries Andrew, I can be the same way. Big of you to write that.
ReplyDeleteOK Andrew, I'll bite. I am going to address your 3-part series on the Lutheran understanding of the Sacrament. I'll be nice, I hope. ;)
ReplyDeleteI will be discussing it in person with a Lutheran pastor and a well educated elder in the same LCMS church as well.
ReplyDeleteInteresting conversation. Thanks for all the input. I'm glad to see the last comment. Will pray for you about that, Clover.
ReplyDeleteMany blessings in, with, and under Christ ...pun lol,
Tam
Andrew - I addressed your blogs on Reformation 500. I have my own little 3 part series posted here now.
ReplyDelete