Galatians 1:6-9: I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
St. Paul writes in his epistle to the Galatians that there is indeed only one Gospel. He goes even further and says that those who pervert it are accursed. In this brief post, we will examine how our friends in two different theological systems - Calvinism and Arminianism - flirt with this line.
Let us use another passage from St. Paul to guide us in our definition of the Gospel. Here it is:
1 Corinthians 15:1-5: Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.
Notice what St. Paul preached to these people. Notice that this is the Gospel by which they are saved. He preached to them that Christ died for them and rose again for them. He tells them that this is what is saving. Notice also that St. Paul says that the Gospel is all about Christ. In other words, St. Paul refuses to mingle law in with Gospel.
Calvinism messes with the Gospel with its doctrine of limited atonement. Calvinism cannot preach consistently to the sinner that Christ died and rose for them until after they are certain that the person is truly saved. But in Calvinism, how does one know who is truly saved? The only way one can make a judgment on this is by looking for a totally changed life. But then, who is to say that the person is not deceived if they fall away and reject Christ later in life? Calvinism desires to uphold monergism, but due to the doctrine of limited atonement, they rip the heart out of the Gospel. There is no surety of Christ for you no matter what in Calvinism. How do they know that Christ died for them? How can they objectively know this, with 100% certainty, if Christ only died for the elect? Pretty much they have to be certain they are elect. And in Calvinism, without a 100% certainty in Word and Sacrament and the atonement, they must look to their own faith to an extent.
Arminianism messes with the Gospel by inserting law into the Gospel, thereby diluting it and making it something other than pure grace. They do this by making a person's choice via their own free will the dominant factor in salvation. Christ's work is never enough in Arminianism and the will of the person must be exercised in order to make it effective. Hence, Arminianism adds something we must do to the Gospel. This is a grave error indeed! Arminianism, no matter what cute theological terminology is used, is a form of works salvation due to turning faith into a meritorious work. Not to mention all the off shoots of Arminianism such as Wesleyanism, Open Theism, and free will Baptist theology.
Ironically, these two bitter theological opponents ultimately put the sinner right back in the same place. Neither one can objectively put the sinner at the cross and in the pure grace of the Word and the Sacraments. Calvinism cannot objectively say that Christ is for you. Not at Calvary, and not in word and Sacrament. Reformed Sacramentology does not allow for this. Arminianism says that you must do something in addition to Christ's work and grace freely given.
Ultimately, both theologies put the sinner right back at themselves. Both have the sinner asking themselves if they are really truly saved.
In the end, both theologies have a problem with Christ's objective promises, despite one being monergist and the other synergist.
In Calvinism, Christ is for the elect. Period.
In Arminianism, Christ is for you, but only if you ____.
In Scripture, Christ is for you. Period. End of story. In His death and rising. In the Word. In the Sacraments.
Christ for you. That is pure Gospel.
+Pax+
In Scripture, Christ is for you. Period. End of story. In His death and rising. In the Word. In the Sacraments.
Christ for you. That is pure Gospel.
+Pax+
I am sure I'm not understanding sonething, but supposing I grant what you say about Calvinists not being able to know "with 100% certainty" who Christ died for, and that Lutheranism entails that Christ died for all men, it still seems you can't have "100% certainty" who Christ died for unless you know, "with 100% certainty" that Lutheranism is correct--and a healthy dose of the noetic effects of sin coupled with the fact of epistemic peer disagreement makes that prospect look bleak, to say the least. Generally, if you claim to be certain that p, and your reasoning for believing p is q, then you need to be certain of q too. Less abstractly, you can't believe a conclusion with certainty if you don't or can't know the reasons supporting the conclusion with certainty. So we're in the same boat *epistemologically* speaking, or at least it seems to me.
ReplyDeleteWhoa! Paul, that was a mouthful! I don't agree with your logic here though. Well, I do, (logically of course what you are positing is sound) but not the way in which you're using it.
DeleteI don't need to know with 100% certainty that Lutheranism is true. I need to know with 100% certainty that Scripture is true. Considering Christ rose from the dead and He gave us a infallible view of Scripture in His own words, I can certainly be 100% certain of the truthfulness of Scripture. Pretty sure you agree with that in principle at least.
The next thing I would say is that one really has to be certain when interpreting a Scriptural passage other than it's plain and clear and obvious reading. That's where, as a former Calvinist myself, I can't get around passages like 1 Timothy 4:10 or 1 John 2:2. I simply cannot see any good reason to interpret them in any way other than a universal atonement.
I appreciate your comment. Good stuff. Makes me think. ;)
And the other thing I would say is this - and I will always say this.
DeleteShow me where Lutheranism is wrong. I want the truth and nothing but the truth. and as a Christian brother, I am sure you're in that same boat.
For instance, give me a reason to believe limited atonement. Give me one to believe that the Words of Institution should be interpreted in any other manner than they read. Give me a reason to interpret passages about Baptism to mean something other than Baptism...now saves you. ;)
DeleteI'm open to discussion. I like that sort of stuff. You might be above my head on a logical and philosophical level, but I do enjoy chatting about it nevertheless.
Hi Andrew,
DeleteI don't think you have "100% certainty" that Christ rose from the dead, or that (your interpretation of) the Scriptures are correct. How could you? It doesn't seem that either are indubitable. On the indubitability view of epistemic certainty, we'd say something like: S is epistemically certain that p just in case there is no other proposition q, such that q would lower (even to a minimal degree) S's warrant or justification for believing p if q were added to S's set of beliefs. Here, q only needs to be epistemically possible. It certainly seems there are propositions such that if they were added to your belief set it'd lower your warrant for believing Christ rose from the dead or that (your interpretation of) the relevant scriptures are correct. For example: (i) we found Jesus' bones, (ii) you're delusional and your theological beliefs are a product of your delusion, (iii) you've been dreaming all along, (iv) Calvinism is true, (v) Arminianism is true, (vi) RCC is true, (vii) EO is true, etc. Certainly I'm not claiming that your beliefs don't have positive epistemic status, just they they don't have the strongest possible positive epistemic status. That's, at best, typically reserved for beliefs like, (viii) I exist, (ix), I'm being appeared to in a red-ball-y way, etc.
But suppose you opt for a standard of epistemic certainty along these lines: S's belief that p is epistemically certain just in case p is maximally warranted for S. And we can cash this out thus: S has maximal warrant for believing p just in case S is warranted in believing p and there's no other proposition, q, such that when q is added to S's beliefs, q has more warrant than p. But of course there seem to be candidate q's that meet this criteria, e.g., (viii) and (ix) above. It's hard to see how your belief that Christ rose from the dead has *more* by way of warrant for you than does your belief that you exist. These sorts of beliefs seem to entail their just simply in virtue of the fact that *you believe them*. Again, this does not seem to be the case with your theistic beliefs.
So, no, I don't think you have "100% certainty" if those beliefs you cited.
Put another way, you say that the Calvinist can only say, "I am certain Christ died for me and that I am saved only if I am certain I am elect." So you're essentially arguing that *the epistemic possibility* that I'm not not elect is sufficient to defeat my "certainly knowing" that Christ died for me and I am saved. But then, you have a similar problem. You have to say "I am certain that Christ died for me and that I am saved *only if* I am certain that Calvinism, Arminianism, etc., aren't true." That's because, the *epistemic possibility* of any of them being true is sufficient to defeat the epistemic certainty of your belief that Christ died for you and that you're saved (and this is admitted by you, since you argue that only on the Lutheran system can we be certain that Christ died for us and that we're saved). So if the mere *epistemic possibility* that I'm not elect defeats my claim to certainty that Christ died for me and so I am saved (and it does), then the same applies to you: the mere *epistemic possibility* of Calvinism, Arminianism, etc., is enough to defeat your claim to *epistemic certainty* that Christ died for you and so that you're saved.
Any reason my comment isn't getting published?
Delete- Paul M
Yes. I work a lot and I only now got to get online. ;)
DeleteGotcha :)
DeleteIf we aren't certain that Christ rose from the dead, what are we doing? That sort of sounds like we're banking our life on a probability. Look, I like logic, and I won't dispute the logic you're putting forth. I have a degree in Physics and I used to teach Physics as well as Mathematics. So, I'm not against logic to be sure. The problem I have is using it in a magisterial manner in regards to Scripture. Lots of Systematic Theologies do so and end up saying things like "Jesus didn't die for the whole world" when Scripture says He did. Or, "baptism doesn't save you" when Scripture says it does. Of course, we can go the other (and for my money, worse) direction and posit Open Theism just in order to protect our freedom to choose.
DeleteAt the end of the day, we all must be under God's Word, even if we can't jam it into a perfect little box, logically speaking.
Hi Andrew,
DeleteYou ask, "If we aren't certain that Christ rose from the dead, what are we doing? That sort of sounds like we're banking our life on a probability."
It seems that you're hinting that there's some sort of problem here but you don't explain what exactly it is. First, note I gave *arguments* against the idea that we have "100% epistemological certainty" about the sorts of things you mentioned. Your reply that this is a troubling state of affairsis consistent with the soundness of my arguments.
However, as far as the allegedly unsavory position we find ourselves in goes, I'm not sure matters are as bad as you seem to suppose. First, I'll note that when you say our life is "banked on a probability," this is ambiguous. it could mean (a) our life is banked on an *epistemic* probability or (b) a *metaphysical* probability. Nothing I have said implies that God's existence or Christ's death has an objective probability < 1.
As far as epistemic probability being < 1, what's the problem supposed to be? We convict people of murder and kill them based on epistemic probability < 1. We believe our friends and family are persons and not cleverly constructed robots with an epistemic probability < 1. Beliefs with an epistemic probability < 1 can still be strongly warranted, and more rational to believe than their denials. The mere epistemic possibility that you're wife is a robot, or that you're a delusional patient in a psych ward are not enough to shake your confidence in believing negation of those propositions.
So I don't think this worry of yours amounts to much. But you site another worry. You say that my arguments are pretty good as far as they go, but then "The problem I have is using it in a magisterial manner in regards to Scripture." So apparently my arguments can be dismissed because I'm "using reason in a magisterial manner."
I don't think this is right; in fact, I think it's you who's doing this, and so your response is ironical. Here's why I think that: you're the one who is bringing up "100% epistemological certainty." But that's not a notion I find in the Bible. Essentially, then, you're claiming that Calvinism has a problem in that it can't meet some argument from reason, and that reason is absent from the Bible." Now, to be sure, the Bible does speak about certainty at times, but we can't just infer from this that *epistemological* certainty is at issue. Turretin, for instance, notes that there are three kinds of certainty: mathematical, theological, and moral. He denied that theological propositions had mathematical certainty. Speaking for myself, I don't see what's wrong with interpreting the kind of certainty the Bible often talks about, and the kind that Christians can have, as moral certainty. A morally certain belief is beyond all reasonable doubt, though not beyond all possible doubt. That is, such beliefs are highly probable. Morally certain beliefs entitle is to have assurance that our beliefs our true, and when other conditions are met, this can amount to knowledge.
Finally, I get the feeling that you conclude that I'm using reason in a "magisterial" sense because I'm using it to disagree with what the Bible says. but I trust you can see that that is nothing more than begging the question. Moreover, we both agree, outwardly, with what the Bible says. I am not using reason to deny what I think the Bible teaches. I am using it, however, to critique certain *inferences* you're drawing from the passages we outwardly agree on. Surely this is not to use reason in the "magisterial" sense. I am prepared to submit to Scripture's teaching. In fact, I'm using it to defend the Bible from unbiblical inferences you're drawing. Therefore it seems to me that I'm using reason in a ministerial sense.
I'm always open to discussing Scripture...my comment above was simply to point out that if a Systematic Theology ends up saying things that directly contradict Scripture, it's the ST that is at fault and not the Scriptures.
DeleteJesus did not die for the whole world vs. 1 John 2:2.
Baptism doesn't save you vs. 1 Peter 3:21
And so on.
Now of course I agree that where there are very clear passages elsewhere we must dig some and find the meaning. (James 2 is an example of this) But where there are no passages that even hint otherwise, we must take the Scriptures at their clear and plain meaning.
They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy. Jonah 2:8 (KJV)
ReplyDeleteWhat does this verse have to do with the post?
DeleteIt appears to me that if one holds to limited atonement they are forsaking the mercy that can be found in the objective Word of God. Thus believing a lie can be damaging to faith.
DeleteOne issue about Calvinism that many Lutherans miss is that it is just as synergistic & works righteousness as Arminianism, it’s hidden. The way find it is how Luther saw Zwingli’s synergism/works as in the papacies.
ReplyDeleteThe normal mode of synergism/works most identified is superficial & attaches to Arminian synergism/works is simple. How do I get to God, be like Christ, show I’m saved, etc.
Calvinism’s “total depravity” which leans in the Matthias Flacius' heresy direction regarding human nature after the fall is addressed in BOW by Luther as much as Erasmus as having synergism/works. Arminianism can be said to be overt synergism/works, while Calvinism is more covert synergism/works.
How do we unveil it? How did Luther easily see this in Zwingli and later Calvin?
The distinction between Law & Gospel. The Gospel is not just Christ died for you information. It is the real presence of Christ that is precisely for you. This is why in the sm. cat. Luther says regarding the sacrament of the altar that “this sacrament IS the Gospel” and elsewhere the same thing in another way, “Christ is the true sacrament” – these are the same thing. A Lutheran should get this immediately because the bread is what & the wine is what? A mere sign, symbol, etc… of Christ’s body and blood? No his actual body & blood right now in time & space put in the mouth at our altars (the reformed & Baptist do not really have the sacrament of the altar, they do not have the Lord’s Supper at all). Christ’s presence is the Gospel is the Sacrament that is the “For you” in Word and Sacrament (God came down, incarnate). No presence, meaning his person & natures, no gospel, no for you & all is law even if they preach the cross.
Luther saw this in the Law/Gospel distinction & it extends even to the concept of idea/ideal being law, no presence. An idea of Christ, raw news of Christ as only an idea, even crucified for you in the past, is pure law & no Gospel. No presence, no Gospel. This allowed Luther an exceedingly bright light that pierced through both the Papacy, the enthusiast & all their successors down to our day & age. This is pregnant in the OT, the presence of God savingly as the kavod or glory was always indication of His saving presence for the pre-cursor church Israel. When He departed, when His glory/kavod departed it was “Icabod”, cursed, law.
It is easy to use Luther’s diagnostic to see what he saw in Zwingli & Calvin (what Marburg was about), the cryptic & covert but very real synergism/works. In Calvin’s supper the real body and blood presence is not put into your mouth for you. You either have it as a memory/symbol/sign (Zwingli) or you have to elevate yourself up into heaven where Christ is to there then spiritually partake in Christ’s saving work (Calvin). Bingo! There’s the poison as Luther put it. If Christ is not there as he said where he said in Word and Sacrament (this is My body), then the revelation of the Father alone, Christ, is not down here, FOR me/you. If He’s not then the bridge to God is back to the infinite, Luther well understood this folly, you are left to “bridge the gap”. First you have to identify the “way” (e.g. Zwingli or Calvin’s supper), then traverse the way identified. This is what Luther so clearly saw in the L/G distinction. Back to square one, no Christ present, no Gospel, the way is something you traverse even if by spirit. Keep in mind overt works such as with my hands are works, but an idea/ideal is a WORK & PRODUCT of the mind. Thus a speculative synergism/works uncovered in Calvin’s supper. The reward (merit in RC lingo) in this speculation is nothing less than the very forgiveness of sins which is nothing less than the very kingdom of heaven itself. Now, we at last see, Calvin’s dirty little secret and self delusion of synergism/works righteousness.
Thus, “this sacrament IS the Gospel” &“Christ IS the true sacrament”.
Yes, I have made the same connection/argument regarding Calvin and the Lord's Supper. If the bread and wine is not Christ coming down for you, in your mouth, it is not the Lord's Supper.
DeleteAndrew,
ReplyDeleteExactly! and what is MOST telling is how it shows Calvin’s cryptic works/synergism. Many easily associate synergism when we are talking about hand works, moral works, fruits, dos and don’ts and all that Arminian, Erasmusian, Roman kind of synergism. One thing R. Prenter points out in his land mark “Spiritus Creator” is how the concept of idea/ideal is law and leads to the same synergism/works, even if one is preaching Christ crucified as idea/ideal or to be imitated. At first blow that’s not “obvious” until one realizes that an “ideal” is a work of the mind and an “idea” is the product of that work. That’s where Calvin’s work/synergism comes in; speculative idolatry or speculative works or speculative synergism to “reach up/go into heaven” where one arrives at Christ to receive forgiveness and thus heaven (the reward merited for the speculative work). This is why Calvin/Calvinist say the unbeliever receives nothing in his mouth. Why? They didn’t do the (speculative) work fueled by the “spirit”. The merit, though they’d not use that term, is then of course the absolution having made the speculative trek. That’s the very opposite of the incarnation coming down, all the way down, and being put into my/your mouth. Luther once visualized this as God being infinitely far away and the folly of man trying to bridge the difference in speculative and non-speculative ways.
Thus, it is not that they just don’t have the supper but what goes with it, the forgiveness of sin in their mouths received…all the way down, just like the incarnation, in fact the very body and blood of God. AND, the speculative works, works, just like moral works though, how do you know you did it, enough, right, correctly, etc…so that you GOT forgiveness of sins. This is a works – merit scheme it just does not use the terms, but if a duck quakes, has webbed feet, feathers it’s a duck no matter what you call it otherwise.
It is similar to the same issue the Baptist have in baptism, the other sacrament, where it is speculative idolatry/works/synergism, any Baptist that’s walked and rewalked the aisle half a dozen times knows the works involved, “Did I believe rightly, enough, the right way, surrender all, etc…”. The speculative synergism shows for Baptist in Baptism and for the Reformed in their supper.
And that’s great irony because any good Calvinist, which I use to be, will die on the hill that they are monergistic. They don’t see their hidden synergism, but some sense it who are in it and cannot quite put their finger on why they despair or doubt their election…well it’s the synergism. If there is doubt/no assurance occurring synergism is occurring in a theology no matter what the words say to the contrary. If monergism truly is occurring in a theology, the Cross is maximally offensive to reason.
The sacraments will always reveal their denial of the Gospel and justification by faith alone, while they affirm those words because the sacraments are the Gospel and thus the real presence of Christ Who is the Gospel. If you change/deny them as such, you are point blank denying the Gospel and thus justification by faith alone. The difference between them and Rome is a matter of how they go about denying it somewhere in the Word and Sacrament real presence train of the Gospel as GIFT delivered.
Once a Calvinist sees this and gets it, because in theory synergism is the enemy, once they see there's is synergism and that the Luther of BOW is the Luther of the Sm. Cat. is the Luther at Wittenberg is the Luther at Marburg and the theology he uncovered is absolute, severe, ultimate, utter monergism - then the game is over regarding Calvin's hypnotic hold.
"In Scripture, Christ is for you. Period. End of story. In His death and rising. In the Word. In the Sacraments."
ReplyDeleteWow, the last three words there just erased everything that came before them.
Cary - What specifically are you objecting to? That Christ is present in the Sacraments?
DeleteIf you need the performance or work of sacraments to be saved, then you must believe your works have a part in your salvation.
DeleteI'm not sure what you mean by Christ being present in the sacraments. The apostles certainly didn't think Jesus was being literal with He said the bread was His body that would be given up for us or the wine was His blood that would be shed for us. How could they take Him literally regarding His death when they weren't expecting it? Far from it. They were in shock after Jesus died.
Obviously, Jesus knew they weren't taking His works literally and was still okay with them eating and drinking.
Perhaps you have fallen into the same mistake Catholics make, and Luther never quite overcame, of confusing John 6 as being about the bread and wine of communion. Do you accept that Jesus meant it when He said nobody has ever gained eternal life without being nourished by His flesh and blood, or do you believe that's only true for those who have a communion service presided over by special individuals who can summon Christ presence into the bread and wine?
Cary - the bottom line here is that we (Lutherans) have a very different understanding of what the Sacraments are than you do. I'll explain...
DeleteYou say, //"If you need the performance or work of sacraments to be saved, then you must believe your works have a part in your salvation."//
No no no no no no no no. The Sacraments are not works. Nowhere does Scripture call them as such. On the contrary, they are works and gifts of God to us. Pure means of grace. Everyone believes there are means of grace - ways in which God gives His grace to us. We hold that the Word and the Sacraments are the only means of grace.
//"I'm not sure what you mean by Christ being present in the sacraments. "//
I mean that the Sacraments are means of grace and that the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist are truly the body and blood of Christ by sacramental union. Not transubstantiation as Rome teaches, as that "theory" goes far beyond Scripture and tries to rationalize something that can't be explained in some sort of metaphysical manner.
Why do we believe that this is so? Simple. Jesus said so, and there are no other passages about the Eucharist that say otherwise. Not only so, but Jesus said it is for the forgiveness of sins. Hardly a work done by us. It is grace and forgiveness received.
Your view (Zwingli, Baptists) essentially believes that the bread and wine are mere symbols and are works performed by us. Show me somewhere in Scripture that speaks of Holy Communion in this manner and we can talk. ;)
Holy Communion is the Gospel. In your mouth. It's not the bread and wine that give it its power, but the Word of Christ. Same with Baptism. It's not the water that gives it its power, but the Word of Christ.
DeleteAnd to say that water, bread, and wine are just natural things and can't do anything is to miss the point. When the powerful Word of Christ is given, God uses the natural world to save the natural world (us). To separate natural means of grace out from salvation and deny that they exist is essentially a very heavy handed form of Gnosticism.
Given the fact that those who believe they have special grace because of sacraments without showing any evidence of being in any way affected by the sacraments pretty much says it all.
ReplyDeleteSo what would you say to Cary Driscoll's post above? I'm wrestling with this.
ReplyDeleteI would say that the Gospel is a unilateral one-sided promise. I would also question Cary as to what evidences he wants? And of those evidences, how many are good enough to assure the person they are saved?
ReplyDeleteI am assuming he is referring to fruits of the Spirit and so on. But here is the thing: Fruits of the Spirit are not the Gospel. They are part of sanctification, not justification. Secondly, I would posit that our evidences are never good enough to assure us of anything, because our fruits and works are always tainted with sin and never meet the perfect standard of righteousness.
Cary's stance puts the Christian on a treadmill of works, always wondering if they really truly love God and are saved.
On the contrary, the Gospel says that Christ died, rose and actually saves you, at Calvary and in time and space through His Word and Sacraments. And we can add nothing to this.
Lastly, I would challenge him to prove that these people he is talking about have no evidences. What does he even mean by that? Does this mean that Cary is doing better somehow, or what?
It's really something that we all struggle with, precisely because our Old Sinful Adam is law-driven. We want to do, do, and do some more. But the Gospel says done, not do. The law says do and it is never done.
ReplyDeleteThe Old Sinner in us always wants to add ifs and buts to the Gospel. We want to see proof, as it were. And that is really what Cary is asking for and demanding.
ReplyDeleteThe Gospel is never enough in this sort of theology. Jesus is never enough. It's Jesus and the Gospel, but then we must do x, y, and z.
I guess I'm just an unbeliever. I can't see someone like me being accepted and forgiven.
ReplyDeleteChrist died for you, along with every other person in the world. Even Adolf Hitler, Pharaoh, and the Romans who crucified Him. No matter what you have done and no matter how bad it was or is, there is always forgiveness. Christ died for YOU.
ReplyDeleteIts just hard to get past the idea that there should be some change in my life. Maybe its years of hearing and reading as such. Thanks for replying.
ReplyDeleteAndre
Put it this way Andre, the only thing you have to give Jesus is your sin.
ReplyDeletePart I of V
ReplyDeleteAndrew I might approach it this way. Bear with me and I’ll try to break this up in 5 short parts.
From a 50,000 foot neutral point of view the reason some don't see it or are confused is in a sense progress. What do I mean? Well, clearly they see something different being preached and taught even if their response is a sarcastic "your special grace" and "what about changes". They may not agree with it but at least the difference is revealing itself and that is progress. It's kind of like the atheist that responds to "what if Christ did rise to the dead what does that mean for your present beliefs", response from the atheist, "Well, that would change everything." This is a good leaping off point. Once we have distinguished the differences we can at least say what X versus non-X is. Until then all is confusion.
The same applies here. One of the disservices I think some Lutherans do the other confessions is to NOT say we are speaking of an entirely different religion we say is Christian. It's not that they just have a different view on the sacraments but grace itself. And that's the difference they are seeing even if the response is sarcastic. Sarcasm and the like comes about when one does see a different thing than what one believes themselves, that's the reason it happens. E.g. "Oh you think political conservativism is better than liberalism", or vice versa. The sarcasm is because AT LEAST one sees a different thing and THAT is progress. Seeing the difference even if you don't agree with it or believe it, is at least half the battle. It's like the atheist that at last reject the forgiven Jesus as opposed to the moral "Jesus", he still rejects Christ but at least now it is the REAL Jesus and not another jesus that is not, progress has been made in this sense.
The big problem is all other confessions (and religions for that matter) think salvation is “becoming righteous” as an inherent quality, which ironically IS RC doctrine, as opposed to the declarative word “take eat/drink…this is my body/blood…given/shed for the forgiveness of your sins” and “be baptized for the remission (forgiveness) of your sins…”, etc… That God attaches this absolving Word, which IS salvation to be forgiven, to creation is Him merely attaching the specific salvation of forgiveness to things He Words into being in the first place. The “take eat/drink…this is my body/blood…given/shed for the forgiveness of your sins” is the same thing as “let there be”, it’s a declarative creative ex nihilo word that creates out of nothing what it will love.
As Luther well points out to think that you have to become and try to become inherently righteous to be righteous in the eyes of God is in fact original sin and idolatry and to heap sin upon sin. In other words first to realize that you are not inherently righteous is to recognize you are lacking and are in fact fallen short and in a state of being of damnable sin. Then to take the law or something falsely called sanctification and then try to BE righteous is nothing less the self deification. The WHOLE POINT of the Genesis narration is that God alone narrates the creation into being ex nihilo, He speaks, “let there be” and it is and then declares the benediction of “it is very good”. Then the fall happens with a different false narrative replete with false sacraments when the serpent re-narrates “the way” to righteousness and being like God. The same thing happens in salvation, the devil’s method does not change. When Christ says, “take eat/drink…this is my body/blood…given/shed for the forgiveness of your sins” the devil and false theologies and our own inherent fallen selves immediately go to work with the same initial tempting whisper of “hath God really said”, “hath the Son of God really said… take eat/drink…this is my body/blood…given/shed for the forgiveness of your sins”. Well yes he did, exactly that, just like God said “eat of every tree…except this one”.
Part II of V
ReplyDeleteThis cannot be divorced from the second part of what Christ did and Who He is. It really is part of Christology, “Who do you say that I am”. A problem with the sacraments is in truth and reality a problem with the two natures of Christ. Calvin’s problem with the sacraments (Baptist, arminians, RCs, etc…) is in reality a problem of fundamentally denying Who Christ Himself is in His two natures and one person. It’s not as crass as say JWs or straight Arianism, but nonetheless yields the same problem. Christ work was not “just” forgiveness of sins but also to be our righteousness for us. That’s what alien righteousness is and what Paul is speaking of in Romans where he states that righteousness apart from the law has (now) been revealed (i.e. apocolypsed). The law demands two things forgiveness for trespass committed, but that is not enough to stand before God, it demands righteousness that avails before God. This second work is the work and person of Christ too, HIS alien righteousness given to us. Nothing is inherent in us as righteous, not even a post conversion “fruit plan”. That’s why Christ is two nature in the one divine person and the two nature communicate one to the other in the divine person and thus for us. Forgiveness was “gotten” for us in which in the divine person suffering on the cross was communicated from the human nature to the divine nature so that it was for all and could bear the wrath of the eternal God, the human nature by itself could not do this. AND the divine nature communicates its holiness to the human nature in the one divine person of Christ so that NOW man is holy. Only God is holy and only God can give this holiness that avails before Himself. It is not and never was, is or will be an intrinsic quality or property we possess. In fact to “possess” such a righteousness is, again, original sin. We exist as Luther states, “I am Christ sin as He is my righteousness”, and only the righteousness OF Christ will avail before God at the judgment.
When those who do not believe or have different doctrines on the sacraments (ordinances) have these differences it is linked to a false doctrine, at the base, even if only implied, about Who Jesus Christ truly is as the God-man. This is the scandal. This is why Luther said those who convert and see themselves “getting better” as it were as “proof” they are Christians, they are greatly deceived and in fact pretend sinners (now in their own minds) with a pretend or fake Jesus. A real sinner is one who is confessionally in the forever present tense damnable sinful and unclean by nature right now, this is the state of the baptized in this life.
Part III of V
ReplyDeleteWhen one becomes a Christian & gets baptized & so forth one is absolved. But suddenly a crisis happens, sin keeps happening. One initially hears at baptism about its washing of forgiveness or of the supper being his body and blood for the forgiveness of sins. Immediately the Genesis temptation and voice of the devil/serpent begins anew. Not a crass repeat of what we read in the account but a variation or even implied “hath God really said”. Hath God, being Jesus, really said, “this is My body…” and so forth. Has God really said you will live this way and otherwise die you will die? Man’s strength, faith in the Word, is attacked first. As Luther points out, nothing really new here from the devil. Other theologies or a self developed one then say, but these pious post conversion fruits of the faith, surely, it is not wrong to have these & when you eat of it you will not surely die, for God knows in the day there of when you produce & eat of this fruit you will become like God himself (call it theosis, wrong sanctification, growth in the faith, imitating Christ, etc…all mean “like God” in terms of righteousness). Then we do just like Eve, we say, “yea that makes sense (looks right, good for food, sounds true to make one wise and PIOUS even!)”. And then we eat the fruit by not trusting in the sacrament, the tree of life, but this fruit produced. We produce the fruit by some work of our own hand or mind, then we eat it to prove we are saved to ourselves to rely upon it. Christ is gone now, for His presence, “take eat/drink…this is my body/blood…given/shed for the forgiveness of your sins”, has been eschewed for this fruit.
The same old temptation just worded different. Luther warns of this, that the devil never really changes tactics. He’s still turning us from the Word (Sacraments) and to something that looks wise. It is very similarly here that is what Satan the old serpent does in the church. Note how we speak of “fruit of the faith” and that that becomes the thing we eat into for assurance when we turn away from the absolving word and sacrament! To put it bluntly & obviously the devil is saying, “here is a fruit to eat!”, FRUIT of the faith (fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) & repeating the entire fall of man again. It is a very “Louis Cipher” moment & one does not wish to find this out too late, that all along this looks to make one wise fruit & is good for food is the very poison that murders the soul, while the life giving Word/Son of God to eat and drink has been over here!
It was also very natural for the disciples to understand what Jesus said at the supper. For they realized now as Hebrews they had God in front of them, the Son no less, and God is saying to them “Here is My Kavod, glory, really present to/for you” (take eat…this is…for the forgiveness of your sins). For OT Israel well understood that salvation is where the divine presence, glory or Kavod is said to be. They didn’t have any philosophical hang up on “how God” could do this. When Christ ascended to the right hand of the Father, the enthusiast understand that as X miles away from earth, it is not, He illocal now. And the right hand of the Father means His rule by which He rules all things, and that includes the communication of the deity through the person with the humanity that is now and forever, and alone Jesus Christ, the Son of God/Son of Man. The answer of faith to “take eat/drink…this is my body/blood…given/shed for the forgiveness of your sins” is simply, “Yes Lord, it is most certainly true (i.e. Amen)”. Asking how God does this is the very fall of man questioning Him.
Part IV of V
ReplyDeleteThis is a teachable moment on Romans 9. Luther writes in his preface to Romans one of the most outstanding but overlooked paragraphs in all his writings. His entire theology is in its lines. He writes:
“You, however, follow the reasoning of this letter in the order in which it is presented. Fix your attention first of all on Christ and the Gospel, so that you may recognize your sin and his grace. Then struggle against sin, as chapters 1-8 have taught you to. Finally, when you have come, in chapter 8, under the shadow of the cross and suffering, they will teach you, in chapters 9-11, about providence and what a comfort it is. [The context here & in Paul's letter makes it clear that this is the cross and passion, not only of Christ, but of each Christian.] Apart from suffering, the cross & the pangs of death, you cannot come to grips with providence without harm to yourself and secret anger against God. The old Adam must be quite dead before you can endure this matter and drink this strong wine. Therefore make sure you don't drink wine while you are still a babe at the breast. There is a proper measure, time and age for understanding every doctrine.”
We see now that if you come to Romans 9 as a Calvinist/Arminian one cannot possibly read Romans 9, this strong wine, unless you’ve suffered under the foot of the cross & seen just how strong your sins really are & what your state of being really is.
In Luther’s HD he uses Rome’s mortal/venial concepts against each other. Rome like Geneva, et. al. sees the present state of the Christian in this kind of partial unrighteous/righteous calculus that is not the “in re” “in se” reality of the simul. Luther warns that to see oneself that way is to perilously surrender the true fear of God. How? Mortal sin always means damnable & venial not damnable, Rome saw it in these certain sins/works Vs. these others. Protestantism does the same thing they just don’t use the same terms. Luther says a truly mortal sin (i.e. damnable) & work is that which is not confessed as mortal & a truly venial sin (i.e. forgiven) is that which is confessed as damnable. This is why we confess in the present state of being as a baptized Christian that, “I AM sinful & unclean by NATURE, & deserve (right now) Your present & eternal punishment”. Its in our catechism everywhere this “who I am in palpable reality a real damnable sinner. Luther makes the point that the Christian can & must confess he/she is reprobate for that is to confess in, in accord/concord with, the will of God, to agree to perdition. Thus, under this alien work of God arises His proper work, the absolution. For the absolved, elect, is the reprobate! Calculus conversion cannot do this. If a Calvinist says, “I’m elect & here is why…”, he/she cannot confess himself NOW in mortal/damnable/reprobation and this says Luther is a perilous surrender of the true fear of God – he cannot fear this. This is “pretend sinner” & not a real sinner.
Part V of V
ReplyDeleteLuther’s advice in Romans makes perfect sense, “recognize your sin & His grace” & suffer at the foot of the cross (empty entirely, damned sinner, reprobate) because without this you are in one of the protestant states of Calvin or Arminian theology. If you then go to Romans 9 you will harm yourself into despair or arrogance of necessity because you’ve not really been emptied & had the true fear of God. Such a pretend sinner approaching Romans 9 of necessity must devise a logic to solve “who gets saved & who does not” & that’s how they think they understand “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and I will harden whom I will harden”. They read it as a group eternally saved, and a group not eternally damned (they already misunderstand God’s alien work) & then they devise the logic: Either something you did God saw into the future elects you or God himself damns/elects from eternity the elect Vs the reprobate. When the reprobate is to be your ever present confession so that you are elect, simul reprobatus et electus. Proof? You & I will die & be buried one day, death is not a “natural part of life”. The fact that we still die is proof positive that no man becomes intrinsically righteous by some kind of post conversion fruits.
The one who can confess, “I AM sinful and unclean by NATURE, and deserve (right now) Your present and eternal punishment”, sees his sin and God’s grace, suffers at the foot of the Cross, can then come to the strong wine of Romans 9 and providence much differently because he can confess “I will have mercy…I will harden whom I will harden” rightly. Instead of reply, “but why did you make me this way…who can resist His will”, which is an admission of resisting His will & desire to do so unto personal righteousness…he can confess yes, yes it is most certainly true “I AM sinful & unclean by NATURE, & deserve (right now) Your present & eternal punishment”, & confess the alien work of God for himself unto God’s proper work. He can in Luther’s words confess the “odium sui”, concurrence with the self damnation & reprobation & as such as Luther points out is IN the will of God & cannot remain in that state of being but the proper work of God now speaks, “I forgive you”.