That Pesky Friendly Atheist Just Debunked Christianity - Part 3

This will be the final installment in a three part series regarding a video posted by Mr. Hemant Mehta (AKA the Friendly Atheist) on youtube. This is the video:

Now what has become apparent to me is that Mr. Mehta is definitely being a bit sarcastic in this video. He's actually a pretty smart dude. That being said, these questions he is asking are much of the same tripe I have actually heard from atheists in the past. So, while he certainly is being sarcastic, there are many underlying truths in his questions, insofar as that these are real challenges that atheists erect against Christianity. In the first two posts, I briefly addressed questions #1-45 in the video.

46. Why is God playing hide and seek with all of humanity?

He has not and is not. Jesus came into history as a man. The evidence of His existence is irrefutable, despite anti-Christians attempts to discredit it 2000 years after the fact. But I'm not going to bite on the whole "He changed my life" argument. Just like the atheist, I don't think that one holds up. But the fact that creation exists should be enough, even to the scientific mind. There are these things called the laws of physics, and yeah, they plainly state that something cannot come from nothing. Yes, I know there have been attempts to prove this is not the case lately, but sorry, redefining a quantum vacuum as nothing won't fly around here, and it shouldn't fly to any honest scientist.

47. Do you believe that Jesus is coming back to earth during your lifetime?

That's a completely irrelevant question. No one knows the day or the hour. He'll come back someday, but those who think it will be this day or that day and make predictions are guilty of major wrecking of what the Bible actually says on the matter.

48. If you do, what do you say to all those people who have been saying the same thing for centuries and are no longer with us?

They're wrong. And they were wrong for speculating.

49. Why is the story of Jesus' birth and life so similar to mythological figures who lived before His time?

It's not. Sure, you can find one overlapped thing here and there. But you can find way more overlapped things between the life of Hitler and Mr. Mehta (how is that for a reduction ad hitlerum? hey, Mr. Mehta did it in a later question. Fair is fair). This tactic is just another dishonest attack to discredit the uniqueness of Christ.

50. How do you decide which sections of the bible are literally true and which ones are just metaphorical?

It's really pretty easy. There are historical books and didactic (teaching) books. And there are also highly symbolic books (Revelation, anyone?). Then again, I see the point here, because many Christians get this incorrect. But that is not an argument against Scripture or Christianity. It's an argument against people. And it actually supports what Scripture says on the topic, that people are fallible sinners. Imagine that.

51. What are the minimum requirements for being a Christian?

Well, I'll go with the Gospel According to St. Mark, the 16th chapter. "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." Granted, there are some nuances there. If a person believed in a false Christ who is not God incarnate, for instance. But it's not that tough. Mr. Mehta wants us to base it on works which seems to be what his understanding of Christianity is.

52. And who falls under that definition?

St. Mark, the 16th chapter.

53. Fred Phelps? 54. Pat Robertson? 55. James Dobson? 56. President Obama?

53. Don't know. 54. Don't know. 55. Yes. Dobson is mainly orthodox and Trinitarian in his beliefs. But ultimately, still don't know. 56. Don't know.

57. Do you really believe Mary was impregnated without ever having sex?

Yes. If God does exist, there is no problem here. Likewise, Christ proved over and over again His divinity.

58. If someone came up to you and said she was pregnant but she was totally a virgin, would you believe her?

No, and I would not have believed Mary either at the time. Of course, Christ proved all that true time and time again.

59. Why did God have to rape a teenage girl in order to become human?

And heeeeeerrrrrreeeee is the 21st century postmodernist shock tactic. And likewise, if you actually read the Scriptures, St. Mary consented to this.

60. If you could go back in time to when Jesus was crucified, would you try to save Him, or would you stand back and do nothing because your entire faith depends on Him being crucified?

Of course I would try to get Him off and save Him. But God's ways are a lot wiser than mine. In weakness, God is most strong. Through that weakness, He saves the whole world. But this is once again irrelevant. I wasn't there.

61. What would it take to change your mind about God's existence?

Prove to me that the laws of physics are changeable and are not really laws, and something can indeed come from nothing. This would prove that scientific laws don't really exist and nature is not uniform and orderly. If it is uniform and orderly, the only logical conclusion is that there is a law-giver. You cannot have order and uniformity from nothing. Nothing is quite as irrational as that.

62. Do you think it's a little strange when someone says they're going to believe in something no matter what even when all the evidence points in the other direction?

A little strange? No, it's not a little strange. It's downright silly. This is precisely why I think it's downright silly to be an atheist. The evidence most certainly does not point to that.

63. What is something your pastor has said in church that you totally disagree with?

I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but I know it has happened in local churches I have attended in the past.

64. And when that happened, did you confront your pastor about it, or did you just let it slide?

As long as the pastor is not saying something outright heretical, it's not my job to confront him on it.

65. Why are there so many Christian denominations?

Because people are not infallible. We're sinners.

66. Are the people who are in those denominations bad Christians? Are they wrong?

Are they bad Christians? We're all bad Christians. We fall short every minute of every day. That's why we need Christ, and that is why it's all about Christ.

67. Which denomination is right?

The ones who preach Christ crucified for the forgiveness of all of your sins and keep that as the central focus. That's the simple answer anyways, and I am not going to write a book on the blogosphere.

68. Or, which group of denominations is right?

See #67.

69. Who, or what, do you think is responsible for natural disasters like earthquakes or tsunamis?

Your mom. No, really, it's hard to say anyone is directly responsible for them, God included. Although I will say that God certainly did set things up in this manner and man wrecked it.

70. Can you pause the video right now and tell me what the ten commandments are?

Yes I can.

71. And if you know them...why do so many Christians believe that the first four of them belong on government property and in the classrooms?

Because they are true. That being said, I am indifferent to that cause.

72. Would you feel comfortable saying the Pledge of Allegiance every day if the words were: One nation, under no God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all?

No. But to be fair and honest here, I'm not a big fan of pledging allegiance to a country anyways.

73. Do you think it's just a coincidence that different religions are popular in different parts of the world?

No, not really. If God exists, would you agree that He is immutable and His plan is always the best plan? In short, this question is pretty much a non-issue.

74. Do you believe if you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would be a Muslim rather than a Christian?

Completely and totally irrelevant. Why? Because I wasn't born in Saudi Arabia.

75. Is it possible that religion has less to do with what's true, and more to do with the circumstances of where and when you were born?

Not really. I mean, this question is best aimed at different religions and the foundations of what they believe, not at the location of them. That's really a non-argument.

76. Do you believe childbirth is an example of a miracle?

No. Childbirth is the way children are brought into the world in the natural way. Childbirth is natural, not supernatural. The problem is, too many Christians are constantly seeking after miracles. When they don't find them, they say pretty much anything is a miracle. It's an example of bad theology and completely missing the point of the actual miracles that did happen and what they were for.

77. Does that mean that Hitler was once a miracle baby?

Reductio ad Hitlerum! I'm kind of a sucker for this. I think it's funny...

78. And if childbirth is a miracle, how come that miracle happens thousands and thousands of times every week?

Because it's natural, not a miracle.

Hopefully it has been shown that the vast majority of these questions are based on faulty assumptions and the ones that aren't are easily answered. Of course, atheists are always going to attack Christianity. That is what they do. I do wonder though: Why? If God does not exist, why go through all this trouble to attack Christianity? It makes very little sense. Likewise, if you are going to attack Christianity, it makes the most sense to try to actually understand Christian teachings before you do it. Instead of lighting up straw men, learn what Christianity actually has to say on these topics, and then proceed. Mr. Mehta's video, sarcastic or not, has done just that. He has assumed much regarding Christianity which is not true, and then proceeded to erect questions based on these untruths. For a worldview that champions itself as rational, logical, and free thinking, you would think that this reason and logic would actually be used when debating Christians, but it's not.

But then again, atheism is the most irrational worldview in existence. It simply cannot account for anything in the ultimate sense. Nor will it ever be able to do so, unless the law of physics do not exist and things in the natural world are completely random. But of course, that would demolish their starting point and presuppositions (if nature were random and the laws of physics were changeable).

What is funny to me is that they try to use science to prove that God does not exist. Well, as a scientist (I have a degree in Physics), I find that comical. How can a tool (yes, science is a tool) that exists to observe the natural world be used to disprove the existence of a supernatural God? To be short, science cannot do that. It's not intended to do that. It's kind of like using a fork to measure how fast an airplane is traveling. Not to mention, just the existence of science points to the existence of God. The uniformity of nature, the laws of logic, the laws of mathematics, the laws of Physics. The consistency and truth of these things point to the irrefutable fact that someone made it this way. Matter and nothingness cannot create laws and order. Until then, the dry hay will continue to be burnt up by the atheists.

Romans 1:18-20: 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.

Grace and Peace


That Pesky Friendly Atheist Just Debunked Christianity - Part 2

I began this series of posts on a video posted on youtube by the popular Friendly Atheist. In it, he poses 78 questions for Christians. I went through questions #1-22 yesterday. I didn't go into much depth, but I did endeavor to show that the video presents a vast misunderstanding of Christianity in general. The blog can be found here:

Friendly Atheist - Part 1

The video is here:

I will begin with question #23 and answer another handful of them.

#23: Is there anything in your life right now that makes you doubt God's existence?

#24: If you did doubt God's existence, how would your life change?

The clear and easy answer here is no. I don't doubt the existence of God. There is simply way too much proof in creation that He exists. Plus you have the whole resurrection thing, the historicity of Christ, and so on. On the other hand, for sure, I too am a sinful man and I do doubt Him sometimes. But that is not because of anything He has done or not done, but because of our inherent human  nature to suppress the truth about Him.

#25: Was Jesus white?

Got any more stupid questions? No, really. This is a really dumb question. I'll indulge it anyways. Jesus was a Jew. Are Jews white? I'll let you decide.

#26: Why does it seem that God is more likely to help someone who is a talented athlete than a starving child overseas?

He does? This is based on what assumption? That money and fame are somehow the goal of Christianity? Because they're not. Both the starving child overseas as well as the rich and successful athlete need Christ to save them from their sins.

#27: Why does God seem to hate Africa?

Wow, we're only to #27, and Mr. Mehta is really starting to stretch for content in his video. Why does God hate Africa? Really? I mean, how do you answer this one? God doesn't hate Africa and He doesn't hate America and He doesn't hate Iran either. He hates sin. And we're sinners. As we stand, in and of ourselves (I am talking about all humanity universally) we are under the wrath of God. We simply do not add up. That is why there is this whole Jesus guy. And stuff.

#28: If a group of people came to your community...and tried to convert you...would you listen to them...or dismiss them?

Of course I would listen to them. Why do you think I am a Christian? Because I just willy-nilly decided to be one? A lot of Christians are pretty knowledgeable about other religions.

#29: Does God speak to you, personally?

Yes, through His Word. AKA The Holy Scriptures. Does He personally whisper in my ear? No. And look at the results from people who claim that He does? They all hear different stuff and believe different things. So, along with Mr. Mehta, I will stand opposed to this idea.

However, when you look at Scripture in context, it all comes together. Dozens of books written by dozens of men over thousands of years all pointing to the same exact guy. Coincidence?

#30: If God spoke to you and told you to kill your child, would you do it?

He wouldn't do that. Yes, He did that with Abraham and Isaac in Genesis. But He then provided a ram, did He not? Plus, to treat that narrative as God being a capricious murderer is to completely miss the point: it points to Christ.

#31: If God told you to kill me, would you do it?

Nope. Thou shalt not murder. But then, God wouldn't tell me that.

#32: Is God always watching over you?

Yes. It's called the omniscience and omnipresence of God. He's watching you too.

#33 How about when you're on the toilet?

Yes. But then I really don't need to go any further with this question. It's nothing more than a shock tactic.

#34 What do you say to Muslims who believe the Quran is the Holy Book?

I really don't interact with Muslims much, if at all. Let's just put it this way. Allah contradicts himself in matters of morality repeatedly in the Quran.

#35: Are they wrong?

Yes. Historically, Islam is nothing more than a Christian heresy. It's a reaction against Christianity.

#36: Have you read the Quran?

Not all of it, but I have read some good sized chunks.

#37: And why do you so easily dismiss their Holy Book?

Oh I dunno...maybe because it says that Islam affirms the 10 commandments (without directly stating them) and then Allah tells Muslims to murder the infidels? Would that count as a big problem?

#38: And why do you get upset at atheists who dismiss yours?

I don't get upset with atheists who dismiss Scripture. But I have yet to see one actually deal with Scripture in it's proper context or even attempt to interpret it for what it is telling us. If an atheist did try to do such a thing, I would certainly hear them out.

#39: Is acting on one's homosexuality a sin?

Yes. but so is acting on coveting, stealing, lying, and heterosexual things.

#40: Is homosexuality itself a sin?

Yes. But again, so is lusting after my neighbor's wife.

#41: Do you believe gays and lesbians should have the right to get legally married?

No I do not. That being said, here is my stance. If the government wants to sanction same-sex marriages, go for it. Why do I say that? Because the government does not get to define what marriage is. Marriage is a Christian religious institution, not a state mandated partnership. The state only gets to sanction marriage insofar as they affirm what marriage actually is.

#42: Would your church ever marry a gay or lesbian couple?

No, my church would not. I am a Confessional Lutheran, we do not recognize gay marriages.

#43: If not, and you believe that they should have the right to marry, why do you remain in that church?

This one really doesn't apply to me, but the reverse does. If my church were to have gay marriages, I would leave. Absolutely.

#44: Why would God create people who are gay and then punish them?

This is not a good question. First of all, homosexuality is a sin among millions of other sins. God did not create sin. Scripture says that He created Adam good (and sin is not good). People are the sinners, not God. This question is a fallacy.

#45: If God is already sending gay people who act on their homosexuality to hell, why do so many Christians feel the need to persecute them while on Earth?

Define persecute. Are Christians killing homosexuals? I certainly hope not. If you're going to define persecution as refusing to bake them a cake or arguing that they shouldn't be married...well, that's just weak. That's not persecution.

Likewise, let us be clear. Christ died for the homosexual too. He died for all the sins of every person ever. Christ even died for Mr. Mehta's refusal to acknowledge Him.

I think this Friendly Atheist is grasping at straws with pretty much every question he poses. In essence, he is simply assuming that Christianity holds the same moral standards as (postmodern and becoming very liberal) American culture. Likewise, he is also assuming that his underlying moral convictions and standards are correct and should be held by everyone, including Christians.

I ask again, on what basis can he assume these cultural norms and moral standards? I posit that he simply cannot for the sole reason that he has no standard by which to impose these standards and questions.

I'll continue soon...

Grace and Peace


That Pesky Friendly Atheist Just Debunked Christianity - Part 1

I came across a video on youtube the other day by Hemant Mehta, otherwise known as "The Friendly Atheist." I think the moniker is a good one for him, to be honest. His tone is very amicable and, well, friendly. The video is titled "78 Questions for Christians." Here it is:

78 Questions for Christians

After watching the video all the way through, I am completely and totally convinced that pretty much every argument Mr. Mehta is making or assuming here are reactions against American cultural Christianity and not Christianity proper. In short, Mr. Mehta is burning down a lot of scarecrows and he assumes way too much. Not to mention, he is unwittingly stealing from the Christian worldview. I'll try to show why as I answer some of his questions.

He begins:

1. Is Anne Frank burning in hell right now?

2. How about Mahatma Gandhi?

3. Is Fred Phelps in heaven because he believed in the divinity of Jesus?

These three questions belong together. Here is my answer:

1. I don't know. But I do know that all those who repent and believe the Gospel are saved. I do know that baptism now saves you. I do not know if Anne Frank was a Christian by the end of her life. I also know that Anne Frank did nothing to deserve to go to heaven. And neither did I, for that matter.

2. Same answer as #1.

3. Still, don't know. Fred Phelps did some stupid stuff and had some stupid bad teaching.

The biggest problem though is that Mr. Mehta assumes that Anne Frank and Mahatma Gandhi were overall better people than Fred Phelps. There are two major problems with this.

First, none of them are good people from the standpoint of Christianity. Neither am I and neither is Mr. Mehta; even though he seems very friendly and calls himself such. Heck, I would love to sit down and shoot the bull with the guy. We would probably get along just fine.

But here it is: Romans 3:23. We're all sinners, including Anne Frank, Gandhi, and Freddie boy. Oh, including Mr. Mehta and myself too. Certainly Mr. Mehta may have an argument against this because most likely he does not believe in sin. But that is kind of irrelevant to the topic at hand because he is using these questions to inadvertently attack Christianity.

The other problem Mr. Mehta has is: On what basis does he judge Anne Frank and Mahatma Gandhi to be overall better people than Fred Phelps? This is clearly what he is implying. I know from another video by Mr. Mehta that he does not like the question "Where do you get your morals?" OK, fine and dandy. But what I am asking more specifically is: What is the foundation for his moral judgments? What specifically in his worldview allows him to say that Anne Frank and Mahatma Gandhi are morally superior to Fred Phelps? Ultimately, he is left with his own opinion, or the opinion of the culture. Both of these will get a person into deep trouble eventually. Some people openly condone murder and other things. Some cultures openly condone genocide. Who is to say they are incorrect for this, based on a worldview (atheism) that has no ultimate standard for truth? Mr. Mehta may protest here and argue that those things are wrong, but all he is really doing is stealing from a worldview that has an absolute standard that actually says those things are wrong and tells you why: Christianity. All Mr. Mehta is proving here is that law is written on his conscience. Read St. Paul's epistle to the Romans, chapters 1 and 2. Back to the questions:

4. Should a killer who genuinely repents be able to go to heaven?

Yep. This is why it's called grace and forgiveness. This is why Christ died for sins. St. Paul and Moses were killers, and according to Christianity they were in Christ.

Here Mr. Mehta exposes another fatal flaw in his worldview. He implies that being kind and friendly and not killing people should allow a person to go to heaven. Here is what Christianity teaches: Mr. Mehta and myself are no better than that killer. Ultimately, although he has no religion per se, in reality he is posing questions towards a religion of law and works and not grace. Which is completely not what Christianity is.

Likewise, Christ died for the killer just as He did for Mr. Mehta.

5. Should a kind-hearted atheist be forced to go burn in hell for all eternity?

6. What about any non-Christian, good person? Should they be going to hell?

More flawed thinking here. First of all, there is no such thing as a "kind-hearted atheist." Heck, there is no such thing as a kind-hearted person. And I point the reader back above: On what basis does Mr. Mehta call people good?

Here it is: God's standard is Himself. His requirement is absolute perfection. Every atheist in the world does not meet up to that. Guess what? Every Christian in the world does not meet up to that either. That is why Christ died and rose for us. Because we can't do it. It's impossible.

7. Would you be happy in heaven if someone you loved was in hell?

It only took him seven questions to get to a decent one. But this is a tough one that I might have a harder time answering. I will say yeah, I will be happy in heaven, since Scripture says that God will take away all our sorrow and tears and so on. But the thought of someone I love in hell is terrifying, to be sure.

8. If your son or daughter were dying...would you just pray for them or would you take them to a doctor?

9. And if you say you would do both, which one do you think has more of an impact?

Both. God can use miraculous means, but He usually doesn't. Likewise, God uses the natural world to save the natural world, physically as well. I also think that Mr. Mehta is assuming an un-Christian theology of prayer here too. He seems to imply that Christianity teaches that prayer is a magical formula to change God's mind into giving us physical healing and all sorts of benefits here on earth. Well, that is simply not true. Prayer is essentially thankfulness to God for what He has already accomplished at Calvary on our behalf.

The "more of an impact" question is in the same vein. It assumes a sloppy theology of prayer.

10. Whose prayers, does God answer?

11. And if it's ultimately God's will what happens, why even bother praying?

12. If you have cancer right now, what's going to help you more? Drugs or prayer?

13. Let's say you had an amputated limb. Would prayer ever bring it back?

14. If you've heard stories about an amputated limb growing back, how come there are never any cameras around when anything like that happens?

15. How come there are never any cameras around when any miracles happen?

16. If you had an exam coming up, what do you think would help you get a higher score? Prayer or studying for the test?

17. If you prayed for me over youtube right now, do you think I would know it somehow?

18. What matters to God more, the quantity of the prayers or the quality?

19. If it's the quantity that matters, how come the most popular team doesn't always win the Super Bowl?

20. And if it's the quality that matters...how come people close to us die no matter what we say to God?

21. Is it possible that your prayers have no supernatural effect and only serve to make you feel better?

22. And if that were true, would you ever admit it?

OK, I am going to try to answer all these questions on prayer in one fell swoop. Again, Mr. Mehta assumes that prayer is a way to get God to act on our behalf in the physical realm. But this is simply not what prayer is. It's our chief means of thankfulness. Do we pray for people? Yeah, of course we do. But what is our biggest prayer for them? Not physical healing. Not money. None of that, because none of that really means a darn thing in the end. We pray for their salvation; their deliverance from the bondage of the law and the reception of the forgiveness of their sins.

Many of these prayer questions really miss the point. Who gets their prayers answered by God? Well, first properly define prayer and properly define what it means for God to answer a prayer. Why bother praying if God's will is always done? In short, you have to learn some theology in order to answer this. Christianity is not fatalism and we are commanded to pray. That is enough for us. If I have cancer right now, drugs will help me more physically and prayer will help me more spiritually. If I had an amputated limb, no, my prayer would not bring it back. God is concerned with saving sinners, not giving us our arm back. How come there are never any cameras around? Ask the phony Pentecostal money grubbers who make these false claims in the first place. Your question here is not an argument with Christianity, it's an argument with false teaching. Heck, I'll attack that stuff much more strongly than Mr. Mehta will. How come there are never any cameras around when miracles happen? Because the purpose of miracles (in Scripture) was to show that Christ is true God and His Apostles are teaching the truth about Him. They were (past tense) a validation of Christ's ministry. Hebrews 1:1: ...in these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son... This is to say that miracles served a very specific purpose and that purpose was to show that Christ is truly the God-man who has authority over everything and that He is the Truth.

If I prayed for you over youtube, would you know it somehow? Nope. Next question.

What matters to God more, quantity or quality? How about a repentant and regenerated heart? This is kind of an irrelevant question and thus #19 and #20 are as well. Although I will say regarding #20, everyone dies. It's called sin. Christ saves us from that. Hence the resurrection at the last day.

Is it possible my prayers have no supernatural effect? Perhaps. But it also depends on what is being referred to. If what is being asked is why doesn't God bring back the legs of war veterans when we pray for that, then no, they have no supernatural effect. But if we're talking about Christ growing His church, then yeah, they do.

Would I admit it? Yes I would.

Ultimately, Mr. Mehta is lighting up a bunch of dry hay. But sure, burn them suckers down if you want to. Carry on.

I'll get to more in my next post. 78 questions is a lot.



One of the major differences between the Calvinist wing of the Reformation and the Lutheran wing of the Reformation was and still is the various approaches to the use of logic and reason when it comes to the faith. This also touches upon the differing views of the Church and Her Sacraments, the approaches to catholicity and the Bible, and other issues.


Perhaps more than anything the Reformed approach to reason is seen in its approach to the historicity and catholicity of the thought of the Church. Instead of bowing the knee to the Church as nursing Mother, Calvin (and Zwingli) started with an individualistic approach to the Bible, rejecting 1,500 years of church history and the Church's thought and unanimous agreement on the Sacraments (and on other issues). For 1,500 years, the Church always confessed and believed that Holy Baptism washed away sin and gave the Holy Spirit. For 1,500 years, the Church always confessed and believed that Christ's True Body and True Blood were *physically* present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Ironically, in starting from scratch, the Calvinist approach does not even let the Scriptures speak for themselves. If one takes even a simple reading of all New Testament texts having to do with Baptism, it would be very difficult to come away thinking anything other than that Baptism saves, Baptism gives the Spirit, Baptism clothes us with Christ and unites us to Him, and that Baptism forgives sin.

Notice how Reason in an individualistic approach to the Scriptures ironically ends up clouding the Scriptures and not letting them speak for themselves.


Whereas in Reformed theology there is a rejection of much of the historicity and catholicity of the thought of the Church, in Lutheranism one finds that there is a connectedness to the past and to the thought of the Church through the centuries. Luther was very reticent to get rid of anything that the Church had established that did not contradict the Gospel. He simply realized that Rome had added new doctrines and had dropped certain doctrines, and that Rome had turned the Gospel Sacraments into law. Instead, everything that the Lutheran movement believed and confessed can be found in the Fathers, the Creeds, and the Councils of the Church.

One can even compare the Reformed confessions with the Lutheran Confessions summarized in the Book of Concord. Whereas the Reformed confessions simply give Scripture proofs, the Lutheran Confessions give Scripture proofs as well as the Fathers, Creeds, and Councils of the undivided Church.

Lutheranism bows the knee to Holy Mother Church as our nursing Mother. Instead of starting with the tyranny and restlessness of individualistic Reason, Lutheranism asks, "What has the Church thought?"

There is something very refreshing about not having to reinvent the wheel or figure everything out for yourself. Christ promised that the Spirit would lead His Church into all truth. His Church is the Pillar and Foundation of all truth because She has the Gospel in Word and Sacrament.


It is the worship of the law that has the mentality of "what can I do for God?" Under Reformed theology, since there is no objective presence of Christ in the Sacraments--He is only present *if* one has faith--one is turned back to one's faith. The movement must be upwards--indeed, the Reformed confess that at the Supper, we "ascend to the heavenlies" to partake of Christ up there. Christ does not come down in the Reformed view of the Supper. Later folks took this and brought it to the conclusion of turning the sacraments into something we do for God, or covenant renewal. The focus is placed upon us, and what we are doing for God in worship. Perhaps we need to come up with intellectual arguments to convince ourselves and convince others? Ironically, even though Reformed theology affirms total depravity, it nonetheless still places much focus on intellectual argumentation. Is it possible that this is because of its interest in the hidden god? Or placing the hidden god on the same plane as the Revealed God in Christ?


Under Lutheranism, the Sacraments are pure Gospel. They are not mixed with Reason or trying to bring them or present them to God. They are all what God does for us. God comes down. We do not offer the Eucharist to Him. He comes down to us as pure grace and forgiveness and makes Himself vulnerable for us. It is not based upon how we feel. Even our service is called the "Divine Service" because it is *God*--and not us--doing the work of the liturgy. God comes down to us and gives us the Word preached from the minister in Persona Christi. "Christ came to you and preached peace to those of you who were afar off." Notice--Christ preaches *peace*! And He Himself is our Peace. The Divine Service is all about Good News! And God comes to us in the Sacraments, forgiving our sins in Holy Absolution and giving us His Body and Blood for the forgiveness of all of our sins in the Sacrament of the Altar.

Reason, however, bases itself upon feelings. "I don't "feel" forgiven. Maybe I need to do something. Maybe if I just offer myself up to God. Maybe my good works. Or maybe I can offer the Eucharist up to Him. Or penance. Or my worship. Maybe that will please God. Maybe....."


God doesn't need your good works. Your neighbor does.

Your sins are forgiven.

Yes, the same sin you committed for the seventy times seventh time.


I am convinced that people will not come to Lutheranism via the Whore of Reason. Reason is quite akin to the theology of glory and law and the hidden god. People love them some law. It makes them feel better about themselves. In fact, intellectual argumentation is of course connected to reason and glory. After all, it must inevitably look at faith as something we can muster up in ourselves or through intellectual arguments.

But Lutheranism confesses total depravity. The Reformed do as well, but from our perspective, and given the above, we believe they confess it in spite of their theology.

Lutheranism is for the weak and the doubting. It is for those who are weak in faith. It is contrary to reason. The law must do its killing work for people to come to Lutheranism. God kills first before He makes alive. As one brother said, no one likes to be weak or to see themselves as weak. The mask would must be ripped off, and people don't like that. Reason is a theology of glory and for the "strong." The Gospel is for the weak. For the doubting. For the wretched.

The weak know they need the pure Gospel of the Sacraments. Christ *for them* in Word and Sacrament.

Those who come to Lutheranism because of intellectual arguments will probably go to Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy, where the sacraments are perverted into something we do for God, or simply aids in helping us climb our way to God.

Lutheranism sees the Sacraments for what they are: pure grace, pure Christ, pure forgiveness of sins and mercy for the weak.

The Sacraments are pure Gospel.


Reason can only cause us to speculate. "Am I of the elect?" "Do I have true faith?" "Have I conquered sin enough?" We can only go inward with Reason. Reason is foreign to faith, and the law is not of faith. Faith, indeed, even weak faith, clings to Christ's Promise in the Word and in the Sacraments.

The law can only show us our sin. It cannot save us. Creation and general revelation and law and reason and hidden god are all connected.

We need the Revealed God in Christ, present for us where He has promised to be as for us.

He is not for us in creation.

He is not for us in reason.

He is not for us in the law.


He is for us in the Revealed God in Jesus Christ.

He is for us in the Word preached as Gospel.

He is for us in Holy Baptism, washing away our sins and placing His Name upon us and giving us His Spirit and clothing us with Christ. He is for us bringing us into union with Him at the Font.

He is for us at the Sacrament of the Altar, giving us His True Body and True Blood in our mouths, forgiving us our sins, uniting Himself with us, making Himself vulnerable for us.

***The Gospel of God's universal saving grace in Christ, delivered in Word and Sacrament, is where the weak and doubting and wretched will go.*** It is not for those who muster up intellectual arguments or strength.

Reason is tyranny.

The Gospel is for the weak. Sacraments are for the weak.

Intellectual arguments will never lead a person there.

The law must do its killing work.

God kills first before He makes alive.

Faith is a gift, given in the Sacraments. Antithetical to reason.

Reason says "you have to give justification for your reasons all the time."

The Gospel says, "Rest."

Reason says, "Why?" "How?"

The Gospel says, "It is so."

Reason is tyranny because it never arrives.

The Gospel refreshes and brings us to the real world and says "It is finished."

Rest your intellect. The Gospel is where strivings and intellectual futility cease.








Martin Luther Was A Calvinist!

It's true! Luther was a full-blooded, limited atonement preachin', 5-point TULIP sniffin' Calvinist. Just read Bondage of the Will, that'll show ya.

Martin Luther, Calvinist

Plus, look at that beard! Calvinists all have beards. John Calvin had a long one. Heck, Doug Wilson has a good beard too. Even Charles Spurgeon had a beard. Luther must have been a Calvinist.

The Small Catechism is a Calvinist document, for sure. Look at these Calvinistic dogmas Luther lays down.

What does Baptism give or profit?--Answer.
It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.
And then,
How can water do such great things?--Answer.
It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.
And more Calvinist thought here...
What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.
What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?
That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.
How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?
It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.
All of this stuff from the Small Catechism is exactly what Calvinism teaches.
But it's not. These teachings are considered damnable heresy by many Calvinists.
Martin Luther was definitely not a Calvinist.
If only he would have lived longer he would have been; they say.

Uh, no.