What exactly is a "bible" church? They seem to be everywhere. What do they believe? I will endeavor to show, in this post, that so-called "bible" churches aren't really faithful to what the actual bible teaches.
To begin, a bible church is typically non-denominational and independent. This is to say, the spectrum of beliefs in bible churches varies to an extent, since individual bible churches are not committed to any catechism or confession of faith. Generally speaking, a bible church will have an independent statement of faith developed by the elders or deacons of their church that is in accord with the bible, but is independent of any other church.
This being said, bible churches do have a specific large influence and, perhaps, starting point. Hence, bible churches, commonly, have specific beliefs that are in common with the vast majority of other bible churches, despite each individual church concocting its own unique statement of faith.
That influence is Dallas Theological Seminary, the classic American dispensational seminary.
A bible church will nearly always believe the following doctrines and openly teach them as biblical Christianity.
1. Premillennial and Pre-Tribulation Eschatology
This is not, I repeat, absolutely not, a Lutheran belief. This is the commonly held belief in a secret rapture where Christ whisks away his church and leaves all the unbelievers behind to endure seven years of God pouring out His wrath on the Earth, before Christ returns in judgment and sets up an earthly 1,000 year kingdom where Christ rules humanity from His throne in Jerusalem. This belief was popularized by authors such as Hal Lindsey (Late, Great, Planet Earth) and Tim Lahaye and Jerry B. Jenkins (Left Behind series).
The problem is, this theology was never taught in early church, nor did it have any adherents until very recent history. Certainly there were some premillennialists in the early church - Justin Martyr is an example of one - but no pre-tribulation teachers.
More so of a problem is that to get pre-tribulationism out of the bible, one must impose a systematic theology on to the Scriptures. Namely, dispensationalism. Dispensationalism would claim that theirs is the plain, literal reading of the Scripture, but as we shall see, it's not.
2. Expository Preaching
This is the method of preaching that works its way verse by verse through Scripture and explains and expounds on the passage being read. On the surface, this really isn't a bad thing. However, what gets lost in expository preaching quite often is a clear proclamation of the law and the gospel. This is not to say that bible church pastors and teachers reject the law and the gospel, but it is to say that when they preach, the law and gospel are not always clearly proclaimed, in distinction from a Confessional Lutheran sermon.
3. Credobaptism as an Act of Obedience to God
That is to say, bible churches are nearly always Baptist in their theology of baptism. The vast majority, I dare to say almost all, of bible churches will only baptize believers who can articulate their faith. They will not baptize infants. Also, they outright reject baptismal regeneration. Baptism is, in their theology, an act of obedience done by the believer as a response to a command of Christ.
The problem here is, their theology of baptism is not at all how the bible speaks of baptism. Here we could rattle off Scripture after Scripture that speaks against the bible church doctrine.
4. Holy Communion as an Act of Obedience
And by the way, it's just bread and grape juice, there is no bodily presence of Christ. Their theology tells them that the Eucharist is nothing more than a remembrance meal done in obedience to Christ. It is not, as Christ says, "...for the forgiveness of sins." (Mat 26)
I would argue, as a Lutheran, on the basis of Scripture, that numbers 1, 3, and 4 are outright wrong because Scripture says so - and the entire history of the church agrees up until recently - and number 2 runs the risk of shielding and hiding the gospel when in reality believers and unbelievers alike need to hear the gospel as often as possible.
The conclusion is that bible churches are not really bible churches in their beliefs. Certainly there are many things they also have right. They're trinitarians, for instance. They also affirm the inerrancy of Scripture and justification by faith alone (albeit a bit of a different idea than Luther).
However, at the end of the day, a bible church rejects all sorts of core biblical truth as a Lutheran understands Scripture.
+Pax+
10/1/19
9/30/19
Lutheranism and the Problem of Evil
I desired to learn more about the problem of evil as a refutation of the existence of God and some of the solutions put forth by numerous theists of varying stripes. To my dismay, much of what I found and read - scholarly articles and non-scholarly articles alike - was unhelpful. What I ended up coming across were endless philosophical proofs and arguments for and against the problem of evil. Seemingly the most common defense from the Christian side is to argue in some form for libertarian free will. To be sure, on a philosophical level, this argument does offer a solution to the problem. Yet, I am equally convinced it misses the point in some ways. In its most basic form, the problem of evil states that;
1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god does not exist.
Basically, that's what it argues at its simplest level. Despite premise one being solvable philosophically, I argue that this is an off the rails adventure of missing the point, for some major reasons.
First, with a tip of the cap to presuppostional apologetics, the terms "good" and "evil" can't even be used without the existence of an objective unchangeable standard for what constitutes such things. Namely, the God of the bible, who gives these terms objective definition.
Second, theologically, the existence of the problem of evil argument at all shows clearly the law of God written on the hearts of all people everywhere; as unbelievers reject God on the basis of things that God alone can define in an objective manner. Hence, why do these persons even object when their rejection of God, by definition, makes good and evil wholly subjective? If this be the case, according to their own worldview, these terms themselves are nothing more than preferences and subjective opinion, which reduces their arguments to nothing more than irrational mumbo jumbo - that is, if their worldview is correct.
Get it? The argument of the problem of evil not only presupposes that "good" and "evil" are real, but for them to be real, it also presupposes the existence of God: the very thing it seeks to disprove!
Whereas this response and argument shows clearly the irrationality of an atheistic worldview, it too, is not the point.
The point is Jesus. That may sound reductionistic and may be dismissed as unscholarly, but it is the Christian answer to this issue. How so? Because in the Incarnation of Christ, God Himself not only suffers, but also swallows up evil in Himself by dying on the cross. (Isa 53, 2Co 5:21)
You've suffered? God knows what that is like. Jesus suffered and died.
You've been wronged by evil? So has God. Read the Passion narrative in the Book of John.
Sadly, the mainstream Christian message being taught and heard today is not Christian at all. Jesus is viewed as a means to make your live better or to make us all happier. It's a therapeutic message, but it's not the Christian one. It's what Martin Luther (and Lutherans today!) would call a theology of glory. In stark opposition is the Christian theology of the cross.
Mankind and Satan brought evil into the world in the garden, but Christ has done all that is needed to solve it. He has borne our sins in His body on the tree. He has suffered, died, and risen.
With all due respect to Christian philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga and his free will defense as a philosophical solution to the problem of evil, their arguments steer us away from the cross and are thus nothing more than the triumph of reason and a theology of glory. Fun to read and dissect, but the world needs Christ suffering, dying, and rising for them.
Christ has done it all. The problem we brought to this world is solved fully and completely in Christ and His work.
+Pax+
1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god does not exist.
Basically, that's what it argues at its simplest level. Despite premise one being solvable philosophically, I argue that this is an off the rails adventure of missing the point, for some major reasons.
First, with a tip of the cap to presuppostional apologetics, the terms "good" and "evil" can't even be used without the existence of an objective unchangeable standard for what constitutes such things. Namely, the God of the bible, who gives these terms objective definition.
Second, theologically, the existence of the problem of evil argument at all shows clearly the law of God written on the hearts of all people everywhere; as unbelievers reject God on the basis of things that God alone can define in an objective manner. Hence, why do these persons even object when their rejection of God, by definition, makes good and evil wholly subjective? If this be the case, according to their own worldview, these terms themselves are nothing more than preferences and subjective opinion, which reduces their arguments to nothing more than irrational mumbo jumbo - that is, if their worldview is correct.
Get it? The argument of the problem of evil not only presupposes that "good" and "evil" are real, but for them to be real, it also presupposes the existence of God: the very thing it seeks to disprove!
Whereas this response and argument shows clearly the irrationality of an atheistic worldview, it too, is not the point.
The point is Jesus. That may sound reductionistic and may be dismissed as unscholarly, but it is the Christian answer to this issue. How so? Because in the Incarnation of Christ, God Himself not only suffers, but also swallows up evil in Himself by dying on the cross. (Isa 53, 2Co 5:21)
You've suffered? God knows what that is like. Jesus suffered and died.
You've been wronged by evil? So has God. Read the Passion narrative in the Book of John.
Sadly, the mainstream Christian message being taught and heard today is not Christian at all. Jesus is viewed as a means to make your live better or to make us all happier. It's a therapeutic message, but it's not the Christian one. It's what Martin Luther (and Lutherans today!) would call a theology of glory. In stark opposition is the Christian theology of the cross.
Mankind and Satan brought evil into the world in the garden, but Christ has done all that is needed to solve it. He has borne our sins in His body on the tree. He has suffered, died, and risen.
With all due respect to Christian philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga and his free will defense as a philosophical solution to the problem of evil, their arguments steer us away from the cross and are thus nothing more than the triumph of reason and a theology of glory. Fun to read and dissect, but the world needs Christ suffering, dying, and rising for them.
Christ has done it all. The problem we brought to this world is solved fully and completely in Christ and His work.
+Pax+
8/19/19
Gnesio Philippist Calvinists and Stuff
Oh the Calvinists. So much misinformation and bearing false witness. I'm not sure if their foolishness is intentionally misleading or just misinformed. I'll assume the latter to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Lutherans and Calvinists have been linked together in many ways since the days of the Protestant Reformation. Suffice it to say, from a Lutheran standpoint, we do not believe the same things as the Calvinists, nor are we very close to believing the same things; much less be in communion together.
Here is a prime example of Calvinist misinformation, which, if a person were to do an historical study of what actually happened, would immediately see that this misinformation is just plain wrong.
The recently deceased Reformed pastor and theologian R.C. Sproul stated the following:
While discussing the Reformed doctrine of predestination in his book Chosen by God, Sproul gives a list of theologians in history who affirm predestination and those who deny it. He states: "We cannot determine truth by counting noses. The great thinkers of the past can be wrong. But it is important for us to see that the Reformed doctrine of predestination was not invented by John Calvin. There is nothing in Calvin's view of predestination that was not earlier propounded by Luther and Augustine before him." (Sproul, p. 167) So far, so good. The early Luther, while as yet an Augustinian monk in the Roman Church, did hold to double predestination. No Lutheran should dispute that, since Luther is quite clear that he did. He (Luther) did, however, hold to a doctrine of single predestination later in life, which the Calvinists cannot bear to admit in many cases. However, that is not what this post is about. Rather, it is Sproul's next statement that throws up all sorts of misinformation.
He continues, "Later, Lutheranism did not follow Luther on this matter but Melanchthon, who altered his views after Luther's death. It is also noteworthy that in his famous treatise on theology, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin wrote sparingly on the subject. Luther wrote more about predestination than did Calvin." (Sproul, p. 167)
Nope. Wrong. Incorrect. The part of the statement to which I refer is Sproul's claim that Lutheranism followed Melanchthon and not Luther on this matter. This is simply false. It is well documented that this is not the case. The most important documentation that refutes Sproul's statement is actually our Lutheran Confessional documents the Epitome of the Formula of Concord and the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord. In fact, these documents were written in view of Melanchthon's compromising and synergism, among other controversies that had crept in to the Lutheran church.
Indeed, the Evangelical Catholic Church (Lutheran) did struggle with this issue in the 16th century. The same issue popped up in the United States in the 19th century, with the first president of the Missouri Synod, C.F.W. Walther, staunchly defending the classic and Confessional Lutheran stance on predestination and monergism.
Back to the 16th century. From the years 1555-1560, the synergistic controversy was fought in the Lutheran churches. The wavering and compromising Melanchthon had written that there are three reasons people are saved. Per Melanchthon, these three are the Holy Spirit, the Word of God, and the nonresistance of a person's will. It is this third reason put forth by Melanchthon that is a problem, since it teaches synergism.
Against Melanchthon, there were the Gnesio, or genuine, Lutherans, who espoused the biblical form of monergism, even opposing Melanchthon. Sadly, one of the Gnesio Lutherans in the monergism camp named Matthias Flacius, over-reacted and ended up teaching error regarding original sin, saying that original sin is the very substance of fallen humanity, which would cause God to be the author of sin.
Enter the Formula of Concord. The first two articles of both the Epitome and the Solid Declaration are on Original Sin and Free Will, respectively. The first article regarding Original Sin corrects Flacius' error while also strongly upholding the Biblical doctrine of Original Sin. The Epitome states, "We believe, teach, and confess that there is a distinction between man's nature and original sin. This applied not only when he was originally created by God pure and holy and without sin [Ge 1:31], but it also applies to the way we have that nature now after the fall. In other words, we distinguish between the nature itself (which even after the fall is and remains God's creature) and original sin. This distinction is as great as the distinction between God's work and the devil's work." (Ep: I, 2)
Here is a clear rejection of Flacius' error.
However, the Epitome also states, "On the other hand, we believe, teach, and confess that original sin is not a minor corruption. It is so deep a corruption of human nature that nothing healthy or uncorrupt remains in man's body or soul, in his inward or outward powers [Ro 3:10-12]" (Ep: I, 8)
The Epitome and the Solid Declaration have much more to say about Original Sin, but this will suffice for the purpose of this blog.
Likewise, the Formula of Concord also formally adopted Luther's -not Melanchthon's- view of the will of man.
"This is our teaching, faith, and confession on this subject: in spiritual matters the understanding and reason of mankind are <completely> blind and by their own powers understand nothing, as it is written in 1 Corinthians 2:14..." (Ep: II, 2)
"Likewise, we believe, teach, and confess that the unregenerate will of mankind is not only turned away from God, but also has become God's enemy. So it only has an inclination and desire for that which is evil and contrary to God, as it is written in Genesis 8:21, 'the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth.' Romans 8:7 says, 'The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.' Just as a dead body cannot raise itself to bodily, earthly life, so a person who by sin is spiritually dead cannot raise himself to spiritual life. For it is written in Ephesians 2:5, 'even when we were dead in our trespasses, He made us alive together with Christ.' And 2 Corinthians 3:5 says, 'Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God.'" (Ep: II, 3)
"For without his grace, and if He does not grant the increase, our willing and running, our planting, sowing, and watering (1 Co 3:5-7) -are all nothing. As Christ says <in John 15:5>, 'apart from Me you can do nothing.' With these brief words the Spirit denies free will its powers and ascribes everything to God's grace, in order that no one may boast before God (1 Co 1:29[2 Co 12:5, Jer 9:23]). (Ep: II, 6)
These Confessional statements are a clear rejection of Melanchthon's synergism and a clear affirmation of monergism. The Formula of Concord has much more to say on these topics, especially in the Solid Declaration. If the reader would like more information, go to http://www.bookofconcord.org or pick up a copy of the Book of Concord; the Epitome and the Solid Declaration are the last two Confessional documents in the book. I heartily recommend the Reader's Edition of the Book of Concord edited by Rev. Paul McCain. It can be found and purchased at http://www.cph.org.
Hence, it should be quite clear to the serious student of history and reader of the Lutheran Confessional statements that R.C. Sproul's statement that Lutherans follow Melanchthon and not Luther is in error. Frankly, we follow Scripture alone, but we happen to agree far more theologically with Dr. Martin Luther than we do with the wavering and compromising Philip Melanchthon after Luther's death.
I find it hard to believe that these statements and issues still exist in Calvinist circles and it makes me wonder why. Lutherans are not synergists, at least not Confessionally. Per Scripture, as well as the Book of Concord, we are monergists.
Not only that, but we also strongly affirm predestination. However, we affirm, with Scripture, that predestination and election pertain to believers, not unbelievers. If the reader would like to see what the Lutherans believe regarding predestination, read the Epitome XI and the Solid Declaration XI.
Nope, sorry R.C., we disagree with the post-Luther Melanchthon in the strongest manner possible.
+Pax+
Lutherans and Calvinists have been linked together in many ways since the days of the Protestant Reformation. Suffice it to say, from a Lutheran standpoint, we do not believe the same things as the Calvinists, nor are we very close to believing the same things; much less be in communion together.
Here is a prime example of Calvinist misinformation, which, if a person were to do an historical study of what actually happened, would immediately see that this misinformation is just plain wrong.
The recently deceased Reformed pastor and theologian R.C. Sproul stated the following:
While discussing the Reformed doctrine of predestination in his book Chosen by God, Sproul gives a list of theologians in history who affirm predestination and those who deny it. He states: "We cannot determine truth by counting noses. The great thinkers of the past can be wrong. But it is important for us to see that the Reformed doctrine of predestination was not invented by John Calvin. There is nothing in Calvin's view of predestination that was not earlier propounded by Luther and Augustine before him." (Sproul, p. 167) So far, so good. The early Luther, while as yet an Augustinian monk in the Roman Church, did hold to double predestination. No Lutheran should dispute that, since Luther is quite clear that he did. He (Luther) did, however, hold to a doctrine of single predestination later in life, which the Calvinists cannot bear to admit in many cases. However, that is not what this post is about. Rather, it is Sproul's next statement that throws up all sorts of misinformation.
He continues, "Later, Lutheranism did not follow Luther on this matter but Melanchthon, who altered his views after Luther's death. It is also noteworthy that in his famous treatise on theology, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin wrote sparingly on the subject. Luther wrote more about predestination than did Calvin." (Sproul, p. 167)
Nope. Wrong. Incorrect. The part of the statement to which I refer is Sproul's claim that Lutheranism followed Melanchthon and not Luther on this matter. This is simply false. It is well documented that this is not the case. The most important documentation that refutes Sproul's statement is actually our Lutheran Confessional documents the Epitome of the Formula of Concord and the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord. In fact, these documents were written in view of Melanchthon's compromising and synergism, among other controversies that had crept in to the Lutheran church.
Indeed, the Evangelical Catholic Church (Lutheran) did struggle with this issue in the 16th century. The same issue popped up in the United States in the 19th century, with the first president of the Missouri Synod, C.F.W. Walther, staunchly defending the classic and Confessional Lutheran stance on predestination and monergism.
Back to the 16th century. From the years 1555-1560, the synergistic controversy was fought in the Lutheran churches. The wavering and compromising Melanchthon had written that there are three reasons people are saved. Per Melanchthon, these three are the Holy Spirit, the Word of God, and the nonresistance of a person's will. It is this third reason put forth by Melanchthon that is a problem, since it teaches synergism.
Against Melanchthon, there were the Gnesio, or genuine, Lutherans, who espoused the biblical form of monergism, even opposing Melanchthon. Sadly, one of the Gnesio Lutherans in the monergism camp named Matthias Flacius, over-reacted and ended up teaching error regarding original sin, saying that original sin is the very substance of fallen humanity, which would cause God to be the author of sin.
Enter the Formula of Concord. The first two articles of both the Epitome and the Solid Declaration are on Original Sin and Free Will, respectively. The first article regarding Original Sin corrects Flacius' error while also strongly upholding the Biblical doctrine of Original Sin. The Epitome states, "We believe, teach, and confess that there is a distinction between man's nature and original sin. This applied not only when he was originally created by God pure and holy and without sin [Ge 1:31], but it also applies to the way we have that nature now after the fall. In other words, we distinguish between the nature itself (which even after the fall is and remains God's creature) and original sin. This distinction is as great as the distinction between God's work and the devil's work." (Ep: I, 2)
Here is a clear rejection of Flacius' error.
However, the Epitome also states, "On the other hand, we believe, teach, and confess that original sin is not a minor corruption. It is so deep a corruption of human nature that nothing healthy or uncorrupt remains in man's body or soul, in his inward or outward powers [Ro 3:10-12]" (Ep: I, 8)
The Epitome and the Solid Declaration have much more to say about Original Sin, but this will suffice for the purpose of this blog.
Likewise, the Formula of Concord also formally adopted Luther's -not Melanchthon's- view of the will of man.
"This is our teaching, faith, and confession on this subject: in spiritual matters the understanding and reason of mankind are <completely> blind and by their own powers understand nothing, as it is written in 1 Corinthians 2:14..." (Ep: II, 2)
"Likewise, we believe, teach, and confess that the unregenerate will of mankind is not only turned away from God, but also has become God's enemy. So it only has an inclination and desire for that which is evil and contrary to God, as it is written in Genesis 8:21, 'the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth.' Romans 8:7 says, 'The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.' Just as a dead body cannot raise itself to bodily, earthly life, so a person who by sin is spiritually dead cannot raise himself to spiritual life. For it is written in Ephesians 2:5, 'even when we were dead in our trespasses, He made us alive together with Christ.' And 2 Corinthians 3:5 says, 'Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God.'" (Ep: II, 3)
"For without his grace, and if He does not grant the increase, our willing and running, our planting, sowing, and watering (1 Co 3:5-7) -are all nothing. As Christ says <in John 15:5>, 'apart from Me you can do nothing.' With these brief words the Spirit denies free will its powers and ascribes everything to God's grace, in order that no one may boast before God (1 Co 1:29[2 Co 12:5, Jer 9:23]). (Ep: II, 6)
These Confessional statements are a clear rejection of Melanchthon's synergism and a clear affirmation of monergism. The Formula of Concord has much more to say on these topics, especially in the Solid Declaration. If the reader would like more information, go to http://www.bookofconcord.org or pick up a copy of the Book of Concord; the Epitome and the Solid Declaration are the last two Confessional documents in the book. I heartily recommend the Reader's Edition of the Book of Concord edited by Rev. Paul McCain. It can be found and purchased at http://www.cph.org.
Hence, it should be quite clear to the serious student of history and reader of the Lutheran Confessional statements that R.C. Sproul's statement that Lutherans follow Melanchthon and not Luther is in error. Frankly, we follow Scripture alone, but we happen to agree far more theologically with Dr. Martin Luther than we do with the wavering and compromising Philip Melanchthon after Luther's death.
I find it hard to believe that these statements and issues still exist in Calvinist circles and it makes me wonder why. Lutherans are not synergists, at least not Confessionally. Per Scripture, as well as the Book of Concord, we are monergists.
Not only that, but we also strongly affirm predestination. However, we affirm, with Scripture, that predestination and election pertain to believers, not unbelievers. If the reader would like to see what the Lutherans believe regarding predestination, read the Epitome XI and the Solid Declaration XI.
Nope, sorry R.C., we disagree with the post-Luther Melanchthon in the strongest manner possible.
+Pax+
8/12/19
The Eucharist Also Gives *Bodily* Healing. Here's How.
The Eucharist gives forgiveness of sins.
And where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.
Yesterday when I partook of the Sacrament of the Altar, I was especially aware of my weakness in body and soul. I have plantar fasciitis in my left foot, and I was in a lot of pain. I am also divorced, and I still feel the pain of that, not to mention my own sinfulness.
All of the above made me aware yesterday as I partook of Christ's Body and Blood that His Flesh and His Blood not only give spiritual healing and forgiveness, but also physical healing.
The Resurrection is physical, and our resurrection is physical.
Christ restores all things, and He gives that pledge and testament by giving to us His Body and Blood in His Holy Supper.
And the priest after distributing says the following:
"May this true Body and true Blood of Christ preserve Thy body and soul unto everlasting life."
*Body* and soul.
Romans 8 speaks of the hope in the redemption of our *bodies*.
This fat man with plantar fasciitis in his left foot will be healed on the last day.
This broken man with his heart broken and his sins ever before him will see restoration and eradication of his sin nature on the last day.
We thank You, Lord, that You have refreshed us with this most salutary Gift.
Lord, now lettest Thy servant depart in peace. For mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, which Thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples.
This nightmare of a life is almost over.
And our present sufferings are not worth comparing to the glory that will be revealed in us.
But even now we get a taste of the restoration of all things in the Most Blessed Sacrament.
Therefore with angels and archangels, and all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify Your glorious Name.
Blessed is He Who comes in the Name of the Lord.
And Christ comes to us in the Sacrament of the Altar, giving us His Body and Blood to eat and to drink for the forgiveness of sins, and giving us a foretaste of the inheritance which is to come.
The inheritance where all death, pain, and sorrow will be wiped away forever.
The inheritance where everything will be restored.
The inheritance where this nightmare will be over, and it will be as if only a dream.
Now we see through a glass darkly, but soon we will see face to face.
And when we see Him, we will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is.
And he who has this hope in Him purifies himself, even as He is pure.
This Blessed Hope is realized in His Holy Supper, as He continually comes to us and for us.
We don't have to wait for the last day to experience this. We experience it now, as Christ comes to us in His Supper.
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
And where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.
Yesterday when I partook of the Sacrament of the Altar, I was especially aware of my weakness in body and soul. I have plantar fasciitis in my left foot, and I was in a lot of pain. I am also divorced, and I still feel the pain of that, not to mention my own sinfulness.
All of the above made me aware yesterday as I partook of Christ's Body and Blood that His Flesh and His Blood not only give spiritual healing and forgiveness, but also physical healing.
The Resurrection is physical, and our resurrection is physical.
Christ restores all things, and He gives that pledge and testament by giving to us His Body and Blood in His Holy Supper.
And the priest after distributing says the following:
"May this true Body and true Blood of Christ preserve Thy body and soul unto everlasting life."
*Body* and soul.
Romans 8 speaks of the hope in the redemption of our *bodies*.
This fat man with plantar fasciitis in his left foot will be healed on the last day.
This broken man with his heart broken and his sins ever before him will see restoration and eradication of his sin nature on the last day.
We thank You, Lord, that You have refreshed us with this most salutary Gift.
Lord, now lettest Thy servant depart in peace. For mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, which Thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples.
This nightmare of a life is almost over.
And our present sufferings are not worth comparing to the glory that will be revealed in us.
But even now we get a taste of the restoration of all things in the Most Blessed Sacrament.
Therefore with angels and archangels, and all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify Your glorious Name.
Blessed is He Who comes in the Name of the Lord.
And Christ comes to us in the Sacrament of the Altar, giving us His Body and Blood to eat and to drink for the forgiveness of sins, and giving us a foretaste of the inheritance which is to come.
The inheritance where all death, pain, and sorrow will be wiped away forever.
The inheritance where everything will be restored.
The inheritance where this nightmare will be over, and it will be as if only a dream.
Now we see through a glass darkly, but soon we will see face to face.
And when we see Him, we will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is.
And he who has this hope in Him purifies himself, even as He is pure.
This Blessed Hope is realized in His Holy Supper, as He continually comes to us and for us.
We don't have to wait for the last day to experience this. We experience it now, as Christ comes to us in His Supper.
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
8/3/19
Unrepentant Christians?
There are, unfortunately, some theologies out there that affirm the existence of an unrepentant Christian. Some branches of dispensationalism do this, separating the number of saved persons into carnal Christians and spiritual Christians. Some proponents of this view, Zane Hodges being one example, go to such an extreme that a person who has accepted Christ may fall away to such a point that they totally reject Him and become completely anti-Christian, yet still be saved the entire time.The topic can be tricky, because it is God who brings a person to repentance, and God will do this in his own manner, by His Word. However, I think the Scriptures speak pretty clearly on this topic.
One massive stumbling block to the doctrine of repentance and the biblical report is the doctrine of once saved always saved; or in Reformed Theology, the Perseverance of the Saints. These doctrines generally state that a person who is saved by grace will always stay saved, no matter what. In American Evangelical circles (i.e. Baptist), once a person has made a decision for Christ, they are saved for all eternity with no chance of ever falling away and being lost. the Reformed version of this argues that God will bring the elect person back to repentance in His time.
But is this the biblical report? I do not think it is, although I have much greater sympathy for the Reformed version than I do the American Evangelical version, since the Reformed version at least affirms the necessity of repentance.
I think we can look at three passages and see what Scripture has to say on the topic. Two of the three passages are from Jesus, and one is from the book of Hebrews.
In the Gospel of St. Luke, Jesus speaks of the Tower of Siloam and repentance. The passage can be found in St. Luke 13:1-5. Twice, our Lord says, "...unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." (v. 3, 5) Hence, Christ says that no repentance ends in death. Clearly He is also not speaking of physical death.
The second passage, also from the mouth of Christ, is the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant, found in St. Matthew 18:21-35. Christ concludes the parable with the following words: "Then his master summoned him and said to him, you wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you? And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from the heart." (v. 32-35) Here we see Christ being very clear that a servant who does not forgive will not be forgiven. Unless the servant repents.
Finally, we have in the book of Hebrews the following warning: "For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries." (Hebrews 10:26-27) Strong words.
We should be able to see quite clearly that a person who does not repent is not in a state of grace. They are unsaved. This applies to non-believers as well as persons that were previously believers. An unrepentant Christian is an oxymoron. An unrepentant person is not a Christian. They are unsaved; not in a state of grace.
Luther writes, in the Smalcald Articles, "It is, accordingly, necessary to know and to teach that when holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed from them [they cast out faith and the Holy Ghost]. For the Holy Ghost does not permit sin to have dominion, to gain the upper hand so as to be accomplished, but represses and restrains it so that it must not do what it wishes. But if it does what it wishes, the Holy Ghost and faith are [certainly] not present. For St. John says, 1 John 3:9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, ... and he cannot sin. And yet it is also the truth when the same St. John says, 1:8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." (SA III, III, 43)
The Lutheran Church has always taught that repentance is needed for all sin, for everybody. Repentance has two parts. They are contrition and faith. The Augsburg Confession states:
"Of Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance. Now, repentance consists properly of these two parts: One is contrition, that is, terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ's sake, sins are forgiven, comforts the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance." (AC XII 1-6)
One massive stumbling block to the doctrine of repentance and the biblical report is the doctrine of once saved always saved; or in Reformed Theology, the Perseverance of the Saints. These doctrines generally state that a person who is saved by grace will always stay saved, no matter what. In American Evangelical circles (i.e. Baptist), once a person has made a decision for Christ, they are saved for all eternity with no chance of ever falling away and being lost. the Reformed version of this argues that God will bring the elect person back to repentance in His time.
But is this the biblical report? I do not think it is, although I have much greater sympathy for the Reformed version than I do the American Evangelical version, since the Reformed version at least affirms the necessity of repentance.
I think we can look at three passages and see what Scripture has to say on the topic. Two of the three passages are from Jesus, and one is from the book of Hebrews.
In the Gospel of St. Luke, Jesus speaks of the Tower of Siloam and repentance. The passage can be found in St. Luke 13:1-5. Twice, our Lord says, "...unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." (v. 3, 5) Hence, Christ says that no repentance ends in death. Clearly He is also not speaking of physical death.
The second passage, also from the mouth of Christ, is the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant, found in St. Matthew 18:21-35. Christ concludes the parable with the following words: "Then his master summoned him and said to him, you wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you? And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from the heart." (v. 32-35) Here we see Christ being very clear that a servant who does not forgive will not be forgiven. Unless the servant repents.
Finally, we have in the book of Hebrews the following warning: "For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries." (Hebrews 10:26-27) Strong words.
We should be able to see quite clearly that a person who does not repent is not in a state of grace. They are unsaved. This applies to non-believers as well as persons that were previously believers. An unrepentant Christian is an oxymoron. An unrepentant person is not a Christian. They are unsaved; not in a state of grace.
Luther writes, in the Smalcald Articles, "It is, accordingly, necessary to know and to teach that when holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed from them [they cast out faith and the Holy Ghost]. For the Holy Ghost does not permit sin to have dominion, to gain the upper hand so as to be accomplished, but represses and restrains it so that it must not do what it wishes. But if it does what it wishes, the Holy Ghost and faith are [certainly] not present. For St. John says, 1 John 3:9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, ... and he cannot sin. And yet it is also the truth when the same St. John says, 1:8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." (SA III, III, 43)
The Lutheran Church has always taught that repentance is needed for all sin, for everybody. Repentance has two parts. They are contrition and faith. The Augsburg Confession states:
"Of Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance. Now, repentance consists properly of these two parts: One is contrition, that is, terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ's sake, sins are forgiven, comforts the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance." (AC XII 1-6)
Here, in these two quotes from the Lutheran Confessions, we see the proper use of both the Law and the Gospel. Contrition is a Godly sorrow for sin, both original and actual. This is a function of the Law. Faith is a function of the Gospel, which receives the good gifts of God; namely, the forgiveness of sins via Word and Sacrament.
As we can see, per the Scriptures and the Confessions, there is no such thing as an unrepentant Christian who is in a state of grace.
Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. St. Matthew 3:2
+Pax+
7/28/19
Nonsense and Paradox!!!
I had a really hard time swallowing Lutheranism for a very long time. This time occurred, of course, before I became a Lutheran. You see, the Lord has given me what you would call a very logical and analytical mind. I'm always searching for the reason behind the reason. I like everything to make perfect sense on a logical level. I have an undergraduate degree in Physics, and once upon a time I taught high school Physics and Mathematics. Those two disciplines make sense! You can work out how things function, and come to an unchangeable answer; written in stone. 2+2 is always 4, according to the rules of addition. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and so on.
Coming into an interest in theology, I applied this methodology to Scripture. I remember vividly in years past my coming out of the closet (no, not like that, ya perv) moment theologically speaking. After months of pouring over the Scriptures and trying to make it all make sense (logically), I proudly announced that I was a 5 point Calvinist. The TULIP all fit together in a nice little system that made sense to me. If the Father elected some, the Son by logic must have only atoned for those same people, and the Spirit, by logic, must only regenerate those same people as well. And of course, it makes no logical sense that God, in His infinite wisdom, would even bother trying to save anyone else but those same people; the Elect of God.
It all made perfect sense logically. It made God nice and neat. The Trinity was in perfect unity in my mind.
But, the problem was, I found myself justifying numerous verses and passages in Scripture to fit this logical system. I could give numerous examples straight from Holy Writ. 1 Timothy 4:10 is a good one to use.
1 Timothy 4:10b: "...we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe."
The Calvinist wrenches and claws at this verse, finding alternative interpretations of it in order to avoid the obvious and plain conclusion that Christ died for all people universally. They will say (some of them) that if this teaches a universal atonement for all humanity indiscriminately, then the whole TULIP falls apart, because due to logic, predestination can't be true, neither can irresistible grace be true, and so on. The Calvinist surmises that one cannot logically hold to both an unconditional election of grace and a universal atonement at the same time (save for the Amyraldians, or 4 point Calvinists), for this would put the Trinity at odds with each other and make God illogical. Not only so, but the doctrine of predestination so clearly found in Scripture must by necessity be double. That is to say, that if God predestined a specific number of people to be saved, then by logical necessity, He must also have predestined by rest to hell by His non-choice of them to be saved. Or, in higher versions of Calvinism, He predestines them to hell by His direct action. This is all to say, that while all Calvinists hold to a doctrine of double predestination, some believe that God is passive in His reprobation, others believe that He is active. The recently deceased Calvinist author and pastor R.C. Sproul, in his book Chosen by God, has a chapter entitled "Double, Double, Toil or Trouble," in which he argues at length that predestination, by logical necessity, must be double. It cannot be any other way in the Calvinist mind. The also deceased Calvinist author Gordon Clark was so bent on logic that he posited ideas such as that God is logic (his idea of the logos of John 1:1), and also that Christ was and is two persons, because he surmised that the Council of Chalcedon did not go far enough in defining their Christology. Personally, I think Clark was a rank heretic, but I digress.
I never considered Lutheranism for a long time because the theology held to tensions in Scripture that the logical thinker simply has a very difficult time abiding. We know, as Lutherans, that we strongly affirm the doctrine of predestination as laid out in the Scriptures. This is to say, we affirm, with Scripture, that God predestines a specific finite number of persons to be saved, and He does this by His own choice apart from anything in us and apart from looking through time and seeing who will choose Him. This predestination is God's choice alone, and the number of the predestined to be saved cannot change, because it is based on God's sole determination.
But He also says, in Scripture, that He desires to save every person universally. Say what? No! That can't be! It doesn't fit logically!
But He also never says, in Scripture, that He has predestined or elected the rest of humanity to be damned. There is no such biblical category as the "non-elect." What? No! But it has to be that way! It's logic!
But He also says, in Scripture, that Christ died for all humanity universally, and that this atonement was effective for everyone.
But He also says, in Scripture, that baptism now saves you and that people can and do fall away from grace and are lost.
I see, in retrospect, that this particular use of logic as a means to fit the Word of God into a Systematic Theology is a sinful use of a gift of God. That is to say, when we are using our logic and reasoning as a hammer to have to explain away plain and clear passages of Scripture, we are using a good gift that God has given us - the ability to think logically - in a sinful manner. We are in essence saying that our reasoning and logic trumps what God has so clearly spoken.
Far from being some sort of triumphalist idea that we Lutherans believe God and you rationalists don't, this is simply agreeing with what God has said. Who are we to question Almighty God? To do this is not to exegete Scripture properly, but is, to put it simply, a ploy of Satan to make us question "Did God really say?"
I hated the paradox. I hated that God seemed to say both things sometimes and didn't clearly lay out a Systematic Theology for us that fit Him logically into my brain. Lutheranism was very hard for me to accept, but at the end of the day, as Christians, God is true and we are sinners. Lutheranism affirms this and allows Scripture to speak on its own apart from our logical and rational attempts to fit it into a system.
The problem is, when our Systematic Theologies end up saying something that is the opposite of what Scripture tells us, it is not the Scriptures that are wrong, it is our theology.
The Old Adam, the sinner that all of us are, lives on in us, even when we do theology and read the Scriptures. It's true. We are sinners and beggars in need of God's grace.
Scripture doesn't contradict, but it does give us a lot of paradox. We are simply to say amen, let it be so. God has spoken, are we are to believe every word that comes from the mouth of God.
Lutheranism has answers to this. It's found in the affirmation of paradox, but also in the paradigm of law and gospel. But that is a topic for another time.
+Pax+
Coming into an interest in theology, I applied this methodology to Scripture. I remember vividly in years past my coming out of the closet (no, not like that, ya perv) moment theologically speaking. After months of pouring over the Scriptures and trying to make it all make sense (logically), I proudly announced that I was a 5 point Calvinist. The TULIP all fit together in a nice little system that made sense to me. If the Father elected some, the Son by logic must have only atoned for those same people, and the Spirit, by logic, must only regenerate those same people as well. And of course, it makes no logical sense that God, in His infinite wisdom, would even bother trying to save anyone else but those same people; the Elect of God.
It all made perfect sense logically. It made God nice and neat. The Trinity was in perfect unity in my mind.
But, the problem was, I found myself justifying numerous verses and passages in Scripture to fit this logical system. I could give numerous examples straight from Holy Writ. 1 Timothy 4:10 is a good one to use.
1 Timothy 4:10b: "...we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe."
The Calvinist wrenches and claws at this verse, finding alternative interpretations of it in order to avoid the obvious and plain conclusion that Christ died for all people universally. They will say (some of them) that if this teaches a universal atonement for all humanity indiscriminately, then the whole TULIP falls apart, because due to logic, predestination can't be true, neither can irresistible grace be true, and so on. The Calvinist surmises that one cannot logically hold to both an unconditional election of grace and a universal atonement at the same time (save for the Amyraldians, or 4 point Calvinists), for this would put the Trinity at odds with each other and make God illogical. Not only so, but the doctrine of predestination so clearly found in Scripture must by necessity be double. That is to say, that if God predestined a specific number of people to be saved, then by logical necessity, He must also have predestined by rest to hell by His non-choice of them to be saved. Or, in higher versions of Calvinism, He predestines them to hell by His direct action. This is all to say, that while all Calvinists hold to a doctrine of double predestination, some believe that God is passive in His reprobation, others believe that He is active. The recently deceased Calvinist author and pastor R.C. Sproul, in his book Chosen by God, has a chapter entitled "Double, Double, Toil or Trouble," in which he argues at length that predestination, by logical necessity, must be double. It cannot be any other way in the Calvinist mind. The also deceased Calvinist author Gordon Clark was so bent on logic that he posited ideas such as that God is logic (his idea of the logos of John 1:1), and also that Christ was and is two persons, because he surmised that the Council of Chalcedon did not go far enough in defining their Christology. Personally, I think Clark was a rank heretic, but I digress.
I never considered Lutheranism for a long time because the theology held to tensions in Scripture that the logical thinker simply has a very difficult time abiding. We know, as Lutherans, that we strongly affirm the doctrine of predestination as laid out in the Scriptures. This is to say, we affirm, with Scripture, that God predestines a specific finite number of persons to be saved, and He does this by His own choice apart from anything in us and apart from looking through time and seeing who will choose Him. This predestination is God's choice alone, and the number of the predestined to be saved cannot change, because it is based on God's sole determination.
But He also says, in Scripture, that He desires to save every person universally. Say what? No! That can't be! It doesn't fit logically!
But He also never says, in Scripture, that He has predestined or elected the rest of humanity to be damned. There is no such biblical category as the "non-elect." What? No! But it has to be that way! It's logic!
But He also says, in Scripture, that Christ died for all humanity universally, and that this atonement was effective for everyone.
But He also says, in Scripture, that baptism now saves you and that people can and do fall away from grace and are lost.
I see, in retrospect, that this particular use of logic as a means to fit the Word of God into a Systematic Theology is a sinful use of a gift of God. That is to say, when we are using our logic and reasoning as a hammer to have to explain away plain and clear passages of Scripture, we are using a good gift that God has given us - the ability to think logically - in a sinful manner. We are in essence saying that our reasoning and logic trumps what God has so clearly spoken.
Far from being some sort of triumphalist idea that we Lutherans believe God and you rationalists don't, this is simply agreeing with what God has said. Who are we to question Almighty God? To do this is not to exegete Scripture properly, but is, to put it simply, a ploy of Satan to make us question "Did God really say?"
I hated the paradox. I hated that God seemed to say both things sometimes and didn't clearly lay out a Systematic Theology for us that fit Him logically into my brain. Lutheranism was very hard for me to accept, but at the end of the day, as Christians, God is true and we are sinners. Lutheranism affirms this and allows Scripture to speak on its own apart from our logical and rational attempts to fit it into a system.
The problem is, when our Systematic Theologies end up saying something that is the opposite of what Scripture tells us, it is not the Scriptures that are wrong, it is our theology.
The Old Adam, the sinner that all of us are, lives on in us, even when we do theology and read the Scriptures. It's true. We are sinners and beggars in need of God's grace.
Scripture doesn't contradict, but it does give us a lot of paradox. We are simply to say amen, let it be so. God has spoken, are we are to believe every word that comes from the mouth of God.
Lutheranism has answers to this. It's found in the affirmation of paradox, but also in the paradigm of law and gospel. But that is a topic for another time.
+Pax+
7/24/19
Objectivity of Christ > Baptist Decisional Theology
I was raised in a Baptist environment. The church(es) we attended were not necessarily Baptist in name, but certainly were hard line Baptist in theology. I was baptised as any good Baptist is - after I could properly articulate my faith and give a proper testimony. Thus, as numerous traditional church members can usually say; that they were baptised on the 2nd day, or the 8th or 10th day, I could say that I was baptised in about the 10th year, only after I could give a proper testimony. And of course after my baptism by full immersion in a lake, the congregation sang "I Have Decided to Follow Jesus." So, while my baptism is certainly valid, the underlying theology of baptism is in direct opposition to what the Scriptures teach about baptism.
Ultimately, when one's theology of the sacraments is completely emptied of their biblical import and meaning, defined by our Lord Jesus Christ, something else always rushes in to fill the void. So whereas a Lutheran can say "I was saved in my baptism," a Baptist would never say such a thing, because of the Baptist's theology of Baptism. In fact, to say such a thing would be paramount to heresy in a Baptist church. God forbid you were saved by your obedience! (Because baptism is nothing more than a work of obedience in baptist theology)
So what rushes in to replace the completely objective washing for the forgiveness of sins that is baptism? Why, it's my personal decision to choose Christ, of course! This is usually done by praying a certain prayer (the Sinner's Prayer or something like it), or walking forward at the end of the service to answer an "altar call" by submitting their life to Christ.
Far from being an isolated incident, I was asked, literally, numerous times: "If you don't know the moment you made a choice for Jesus, how do you know you're saved?"
Yes, this is really a common question in Baptist circles; especially those of a more fundamental baptist ilk. The problems with this sort of statement and theology are numerous. First and foremost, the Bible doesn't teach it anywhere. Nowhere does the Scripture ever exhort us to make a decision for Jesus, or ask Him into our heart, make Him our personal Savior, have a relationship with Him (everyone already has a relationship with Christ. They're either under grace and saved, or they're lost. Either one is a relationship), or other such ideas. Second, it actually rails against what Scripture actually says about the topic. Whereas Scripture repeatedly tells us that we are dead in sins (Eph 2), unable to obey God (Rom 8, 1Co 2), and that God alone saves us unilaterally apart from ourselves (Eph 2, Rom 8, etc), and not because of ourselves and our choice(s); this theology says the opposite; namely, that we are able to decide for ourselves with our free will.
In opposition to this wrong headed theology, which is utterly subjective and based upon something we must do and decide, the Scriptures give us pure objectivity. This objectivity is rooted in an unchanging God, who cannot lie (Tit 1). This objectivity is based on the Christ who created the world (Gen 1, Col 1). But where is this objectivity found? In our choice? Or elsewhere?
Since our choices and decisions are based on us, they are therefore subjective and fleeting. Christ, however, is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13). God, in His infinite wisdom, has given us objective means based solely on Himself, that are for the forgiveness of sins and the salvation of the world. As Luther reminds us in his Small Catechism: "For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation." (SC VI)
Thankfully, God has seen fit to actually tell us where this objectivity is found. He has bound Himself to His Word, and His Word tells us that Baptism, the Word itself, Absolution, and the Holy Supper are the places in which He forgives sins. Far be it from overriding the cross and resurrection of Christ, these are the actual places that Christ has said deliver these benefits of the cross to us. In baptism, we are buried and raised with Christ (Rom 6, Col 2). In the Holy Supper of Christ in which we receive the body and blood of our Lord, we receive the forgiveness of sins (Mat 26, Mar 14, Luk 22, 1Co 10, 11). In the creative power of the Word of God, we are saved (Rom 10). This is the same creative Word that spoke the universe into existence (Gen 1). Christ has given us these means, based upon Himself, so that we would not be stuck floundering in subjectivity, and our salvation would be based on something certain and sure - Christ Himself. The predestination of God and His election to salvation is carried out, in time, through these means, which are always for you.
I'll take the Scriptures and the objectivity of our unchangeable God over myself and my choices all day, every day, and right on into eternity.
Praise be to God for His infinite wisdom.
+Pax+
Ultimately, when one's theology of the sacraments is completely emptied of their biblical import and meaning, defined by our Lord Jesus Christ, something else always rushes in to fill the void. So whereas a Lutheran can say "I was saved in my baptism," a Baptist would never say such a thing, because of the Baptist's theology of Baptism. In fact, to say such a thing would be paramount to heresy in a Baptist church. God forbid you were saved by your obedience! (Because baptism is nothing more than a work of obedience in baptist theology)
So what rushes in to replace the completely objective washing for the forgiveness of sins that is baptism? Why, it's my personal decision to choose Christ, of course! This is usually done by praying a certain prayer (the Sinner's Prayer or something like it), or walking forward at the end of the service to answer an "altar call" by submitting their life to Christ.
Far from being an isolated incident, I was asked, literally, numerous times: "If you don't know the moment you made a choice for Jesus, how do you know you're saved?"
Yes, this is really a common question in Baptist circles; especially those of a more fundamental baptist ilk. The problems with this sort of statement and theology are numerous. First and foremost, the Bible doesn't teach it anywhere. Nowhere does the Scripture ever exhort us to make a decision for Jesus, or ask Him into our heart, make Him our personal Savior, have a relationship with Him (everyone already has a relationship with Christ. They're either under grace and saved, or they're lost. Either one is a relationship), or other such ideas. Second, it actually rails against what Scripture actually says about the topic. Whereas Scripture repeatedly tells us that we are dead in sins (Eph 2), unable to obey God (Rom 8, 1Co 2), and that God alone saves us unilaterally apart from ourselves (Eph 2, Rom 8, etc), and not because of ourselves and our choice(s); this theology says the opposite; namely, that we are able to decide for ourselves with our free will.
In opposition to this wrong headed theology, which is utterly subjective and based upon something we must do and decide, the Scriptures give us pure objectivity. This objectivity is rooted in an unchanging God, who cannot lie (Tit 1). This objectivity is based on the Christ who created the world (Gen 1, Col 1). But where is this objectivity found? In our choice? Or elsewhere?
Since our choices and decisions are based on us, they are therefore subjective and fleeting. Christ, however, is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13). God, in His infinite wisdom, has given us objective means based solely on Himself, that are for the forgiveness of sins and the salvation of the world. As Luther reminds us in his Small Catechism: "For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation." (SC VI)
Thankfully, God has seen fit to actually tell us where this objectivity is found. He has bound Himself to His Word, and His Word tells us that Baptism, the Word itself, Absolution, and the Holy Supper are the places in which He forgives sins. Far be it from overriding the cross and resurrection of Christ, these are the actual places that Christ has said deliver these benefits of the cross to us. In baptism, we are buried and raised with Christ (Rom 6, Col 2). In the Holy Supper of Christ in which we receive the body and blood of our Lord, we receive the forgiveness of sins (Mat 26, Mar 14, Luk 22, 1Co 10, 11). In the creative power of the Word of God, we are saved (Rom 10). This is the same creative Word that spoke the universe into existence (Gen 1). Christ has given us these means, based upon Himself, so that we would not be stuck floundering in subjectivity, and our salvation would be based on something certain and sure - Christ Himself. The predestination of God and His election to salvation is carried out, in time, through these means, which are always for you.
I'll take the Scriptures and the objectivity of our unchangeable God over myself and my choices all day, every day, and right on into eternity.
Praise be to God for His infinite wisdom.
+Pax+
Christ. Not the Christian.
I've been on quite a long break from blogging, but have recently wanted to get back in the swing of things. A big thanks to my fellow bloggers who have kept From Geneva to Wittenberg alive during my hiatus.
I've been doing a lot of reading lately and that has spiked my interest in blogging again. A little Chemnitz here, a splash of Hermann Sasse there, and even some Jordan Cooper; as well as the book I will be touching on briefly here, Has American Christianity Failed, by Bryan Wolfmueller.
I gobbled Pr. Wolfmueller's book up in about three sittings when I first received it in the mail. It's very well written, and provides an accurate summary of the sad state of American Christianity. Moreover, it provides the sweet antidote of the Gospel as the solution to the false doctrines being peddled as authentic Christianity in America.
One of the major issues that pops up in American churches is an over-emphasis on the preaching of the Christian and not the Christ. This false teaching rears its ugly head in a few different manners. The most obvious one is the predominance of decisional theology taught in a plethora of churches. Leave it to us Americans to twist our theology to suit our cultural virtues.
The beginnings of these false teachings can be traced back to the Second Great Awakening in the 19th century. At the very least, this is when they became popular; mainly because they agreed with American ideals. The ideal of the self made man and the free self-determination of the independent will of man certainly contributed to these false doctrines.
Enter Charles Grandison Finney. If you don't know who Finney is, you should. Finney has had more influence on the shape and doctrine of American theology than nearly any other person in the last 500 years. If you've ever seen a church conduct an altar call at the end of the service, you have Finney to thank. If the Gospel is reduced to a decision a person must make in order to be saved, thank old Finney. If you've ever wondered why the "praise band" plays emotional songs to set the mood to get people to make a decision, thank Finney. If you're familiar with the Sinner's Prayer, thank Finney. All of this can be traced back to Finney's persuasive ideas and a practice he called the "anxious bench," which was essentially a place where people who were close to choosing Jesus were brought to be persuaded to actually do so.
The problems with this sort of theology should be pretty obvious to anyone who has read the Scriptures or been instructed in a more traditional or confessional church. That is to say, decisional theology is not found in the Bible, nor is it found in church history. But for some reason, old habits die hard. Many churches still practice these false doctrines today. Pr. Wolfmueller explains: "The decision for Christ is both the end and the beginning of everything. Jesus made salvation possible, but really, it all starts with me. Revivalism fails to see the big picture of the Scriptures: our gracious God and Savior comes after us, grabs us up, gives us the gift of repentance and faith, and calls us to be His own dear friends. Our salvation is His work from the very beginning, and we are the beneficiaries of His mercy." (Wolfmueller, p. 14)
Oh but the American church doesn't end there. Now that we made our decision, what's next? Well, it's more me, of course! Now that we've got the decision out of the way, we're done with the Gospel, because only unbelievers need to hear that! Hence, in the usual American church, once we've made it beyond the Gospel, it's time for us to move on to better things, like doing our best and trying to please God by our obedience. This idea plays itself out in both Calvinist as well as Arminian churches; churches that teach once saved always saved, and churches that do not. Either way, this idea is still prevalent.
Calvinist author Mark Jones, in his book Antinomianism, argues, "God cannot help but love us more and more if we become more and more like him." (Jones, Kindle Location 1617) Hence, here we have a Calvinist, a proponent on the P in the Calvinist TULIP, arguing for a conditional love of God based on our obedience to the law. In the Arminian camp, there are sinless perfectionist churches known as holiness churches that teach that a person can be perfected in love and live without sin. John Wesley was a proponent of this doctrine. Wolfmueller comments on his experience in American Christianity, saying, "Resolve to keep God's Law is, of course, a godly sentiment, but on the pages of my journal (and in my own heart), this resolve overshadowed everything else. Most especially, it overshadowed Jesus. The purpose of my life and my daily goal was to keep God's Law, and a bit more: to make God happy by my obedience. Each day would begin with a rally to assault sin and overcome it. Each day would end with defeat, sometimes despair. I was a loser in the battle to be holy. Like a worker with an overbearing boss, I assumed that the Lord was giving out daily evaluations, and most days were bad. Most days, I was sure God was frowning at me." (Wolfmueller p. 15)
The problem with all of these theologies, from Calvinist to Arminian to various strains of Baptist and big box Evangelicalism, is their failure to keep the Gospel as the central teaching for all people everywhere - including (and especially!) Christians. Instead, the Gospel is seen as a stepping stone to get oneself saved, whether it be by making a decision for Christ or by the sovereign Holy Spirit working apart from the means of grace. Once one is beyond the Gospel, in comes the Law, as a measuring stick for good living and pleasing God.
Of course, all of this is really, really, bad theology. There is, for all intents and purposes, no possible way to have any assurance that one is saved in any of these theologies, since every single one of them, at some point, puts all the assurance on the subjective decision making and doing/obedience of the Christian. None can base assurance on the completely objective work of Christ, outside of us. God demands perfection. The Law is God's Law. Hence, the Law requires perfect obedience. This is what Jesus has in mind when He says "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)
Those who admit that they cannot be perfect are honest, and hence can never be assured they are doing well enough, and those who think they can be perfect (in thought, word, and deed) are liars.
The Holy Scriptures, and Christ, give us a better way. Baptism, the Word, the Holy Supper. All of these are objectively outside of us and give us the faith we need.
This is why, in a Confessional Lutheran Church, you will hear both the Law and the Gospel in a sermon. The Law drives us to repentance. The Gospel, the good news of Christ's one-sided work for you, given to you in the means of grace, lifts us up as redeemed children of God.
Preaching the Christian and not the Christ puts one on sinking sand indeed.
By the way, 5 stars for Pr. Bryan Wolfmueller's fantastic work, "Has American Christianity Failed?"
+Pax+
I've been doing a lot of reading lately and that has spiked my interest in blogging again. A little Chemnitz here, a splash of Hermann Sasse there, and even some Jordan Cooper; as well as the book I will be touching on briefly here, Has American Christianity Failed, by Bryan Wolfmueller.
I gobbled Pr. Wolfmueller's book up in about three sittings when I first received it in the mail. It's very well written, and provides an accurate summary of the sad state of American Christianity. Moreover, it provides the sweet antidote of the Gospel as the solution to the false doctrines being peddled as authentic Christianity in America.
One of the major issues that pops up in American churches is an over-emphasis on the preaching of the Christian and not the Christ. This false teaching rears its ugly head in a few different manners. The most obvious one is the predominance of decisional theology taught in a plethora of churches. Leave it to us Americans to twist our theology to suit our cultural virtues.
The beginnings of these false teachings can be traced back to the Second Great Awakening in the 19th century. At the very least, this is when they became popular; mainly because they agreed with American ideals. The ideal of the self made man and the free self-determination of the independent will of man certainly contributed to these false doctrines.
Enter Charles Grandison Finney. If you don't know who Finney is, you should. Finney has had more influence on the shape and doctrine of American theology than nearly any other person in the last 500 years. If you've ever seen a church conduct an altar call at the end of the service, you have Finney to thank. If the Gospel is reduced to a decision a person must make in order to be saved, thank old Finney. If you've ever wondered why the "praise band" plays emotional songs to set the mood to get people to make a decision, thank Finney. If you're familiar with the Sinner's Prayer, thank Finney. All of this can be traced back to Finney's persuasive ideas and a practice he called the "anxious bench," which was essentially a place where people who were close to choosing Jesus were brought to be persuaded to actually do so.
The problems with this sort of theology should be pretty obvious to anyone who has read the Scriptures or been instructed in a more traditional or confessional church. That is to say, decisional theology is not found in the Bible, nor is it found in church history. But for some reason, old habits die hard. Many churches still practice these false doctrines today. Pr. Wolfmueller explains: "The decision for Christ is both the end and the beginning of everything. Jesus made salvation possible, but really, it all starts with me. Revivalism fails to see the big picture of the Scriptures: our gracious God and Savior comes after us, grabs us up, gives us the gift of repentance and faith, and calls us to be His own dear friends. Our salvation is His work from the very beginning, and we are the beneficiaries of His mercy." (Wolfmueller, p. 14)
Oh but the American church doesn't end there. Now that we made our decision, what's next? Well, it's more me, of course! Now that we've got the decision out of the way, we're done with the Gospel, because only unbelievers need to hear that! Hence, in the usual American church, once we've made it beyond the Gospel, it's time for us to move on to better things, like doing our best and trying to please God by our obedience. This idea plays itself out in both Calvinist as well as Arminian churches; churches that teach once saved always saved, and churches that do not. Either way, this idea is still prevalent.
Calvinist author Mark Jones, in his book Antinomianism, argues, "God cannot help but love us more and more if we become more and more like him." (Jones, Kindle Location 1617) Hence, here we have a Calvinist, a proponent on the P in the Calvinist TULIP, arguing for a conditional love of God based on our obedience to the law. In the Arminian camp, there are sinless perfectionist churches known as holiness churches that teach that a person can be perfected in love and live without sin. John Wesley was a proponent of this doctrine. Wolfmueller comments on his experience in American Christianity, saying, "Resolve to keep God's Law is, of course, a godly sentiment, but on the pages of my journal (and in my own heart), this resolve overshadowed everything else. Most especially, it overshadowed Jesus. The purpose of my life and my daily goal was to keep God's Law, and a bit more: to make God happy by my obedience. Each day would begin with a rally to assault sin and overcome it. Each day would end with defeat, sometimes despair. I was a loser in the battle to be holy. Like a worker with an overbearing boss, I assumed that the Lord was giving out daily evaluations, and most days were bad. Most days, I was sure God was frowning at me." (Wolfmueller p. 15)
The problem with all of these theologies, from Calvinist to Arminian to various strains of Baptist and big box Evangelicalism, is their failure to keep the Gospel as the central teaching for all people everywhere - including (and especially!) Christians. Instead, the Gospel is seen as a stepping stone to get oneself saved, whether it be by making a decision for Christ or by the sovereign Holy Spirit working apart from the means of grace. Once one is beyond the Gospel, in comes the Law, as a measuring stick for good living and pleasing God.
Of course, all of this is really, really, bad theology. There is, for all intents and purposes, no possible way to have any assurance that one is saved in any of these theologies, since every single one of them, at some point, puts all the assurance on the subjective decision making and doing/obedience of the Christian. None can base assurance on the completely objective work of Christ, outside of us. God demands perfection. The Law is God's Law. Hence, the Law requires perfect obedience. This is what Jesus has in mind when He says "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)
Those who admit that they cannot be perfect are honest, and hence can never be assured they are doing well enough, and those who think they can be perfect (in thought, word, and deed) are liars.
The Holy Scriptures, and Christ, give us a better way. Baptism, the Word, the Holy Supper. All of these are objectively outside of us and give us the faith we need.
This is why, in a Confessional Lutheran Church, you will hear both the Law and the Gospel in a sermon. The Law drives us to repentance. The Gospel, the good news of Christ's one-sided work for you, given to you in the means of grace, lifts us up as redeemed children of God.
Preaching the Christian and not the Christ puts one on sinking sand indeed.
By the way, 5 stars for Pr. Bryan Wolfmueller's fantastic work, "Has American Christianity Failed?"
+Pax+
6/23/19
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi
Contemporary Lutheranism is losing its Lutheranism.
I recently visited a Missouri Synod Lutheran church that had so-called "contemporary worship" (hereafter "cowo"), as well as gender neutral language in the recitation of the Nicene Creed and in the reading of Scripture.
What is the big deal, right? I mean what does it matter what kind of songs are used in the Divine Service? Did you know, by the way, that historic Lutheranism calls it the Divine Service, and not a "worship service"?
Am I just being nit picky?
Why does it matter if we say "What manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called the children of God" instead of "sons of God"?
Am I just being nit picky?
What does it matter if we say in the Creed "Who for us and for our salvation" instead of "Who for us men and for our salvation"?
I must be just being nit picky.
Because, even though cowo songs in their very essence are about our worshiping of God, even though historic Lutheranism emphasizes what God does for us, it must not really matter. I must be nit picky.
Because, even though calling it the Divine Service emphasizes what God does for us--namely, He serves us forgiveness, life, and salvation--calling it "worship service" emphasizes our worship of God. But it must not really matter.
And whether we say "children of God" or "sons of God" must not really matter--even though biblically it was the son who was heir to all the father had, so the theological truth that all the Baptized are SONS and therefore receive the full inheritance of heaven from the Father--that must not really matter.
The Lutheran Reformers understood that lex orandi, lex credendi. They understood that the law of prayer is the law of belief. They knew that practice affects doctrine, and doctrine affects practice. They knew that they were so intricately connected that if one is done away with, so is the other.
They would not recognize most Lutheran churches today, whether in the Missouri Synod or the Wisconsin Synod. Both the LCMS and the WELS in general have lost their awareness of history and the Book of Concord, and they are therefore losing their Lutheran identity.
The only way forward is to repent and return to the historic Lutheran Confessions in the Book of Concord.
And the time is now.
What will the future hold?
Will we be confessional Lutherans, unapologetically committed to the Book of Concord?
Or will we bow to the spirit of the age--the kind that Luther told Zwingli was "of a different spirit"?
Want to know what a Lutheran is?
The Book of Concord tells us.
Anything less is just not Lutheran.
I recently visited a Missouri Synod Lutheran church that had so-called "contemporary worship" (hereafter "cowo"), as well as gender neutral language in the recitation of the Nicene Creed and in the reading of Scripture.
What is the big deal, right? I mean what does it matter what kind of songs are used in the Divine Service? Did you know, by the way, that historic Lutheranism calls it the Divine Service, and not a "worship service"?
Am I just being nit picky?
Why does it matter if we say "What manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called the children of God" instead of "sons of God"?
Am I just being nit picky?
What does it matter if we say in the Creed "Who for us and for our salvation" instead of "Who for us men and for our salvation"?
I must be just being nit picky.
Because, even though cowo songs in their very essence are about our worshiping of God, even though historic Lutheranism emphasizes what God does for us, it must not really matter. I must be nit picky.
Because, even though calling it the Divine Service emphasizes what God does for us--namely, He serves us forgiveness, life, and salvation--calling it "worship service" emphasizes our worship of God. But it must not really matter.
And whether we say "children of God" or "sons of God" must not really matter--even though biblically it was the son who was heir to all the father had, so the theological truth that all the Baptized are SONS and therefore receive the full inheritance of heaven from the Father--that must not really matter.
The Lutheran Reformers understood that lex orandi, lex credendi. They understood that the law of prayer is the law of belief. They knew that practice affects doctrine, and doctrine affects practice. They knew that they were so intricately connected that if one is done away with, so is the other.
They would not recognize most Lutheran churches today, whether in the Missouri Synod or the Wisconsin Synod. Both the LCMS and the WELS in general have lost their awareness of history and the Book of Concord, and they are therefore losing their Lutheran identity.
The only way forward is to repent and return to the historic Lutheran Confessions in the Book of Concord.
And the time is now.
What will the future hold?
Will we be confessional Lutherans, unapologetically committed to the Book of Concord?
Or will we bow to the spirit of the age--the kind that Luther told Zwingli was "of a different spirit"?
Want to know what a Lutheran is?
The Book of Concord tells us.
Anything less is just not Lutheran.
5/24/19
4/10/19
Salvation age accountants error
The logical implications of age of accountability view:
1) not just one exception to the rule all have sinned (like Rome with Mary) but now millions even possibly billions of exceptions to that throughout history based on those who were born and didn't make it to that age
2) not just a few mortal sins as to walk away from salvation but now all sins are mortal sins when one comes of age
3) for those many who never make it to that age and never sin in that view, then Christ never died for their sins since they don't have sins needed dying for, hence Christ didn't die for all but just those of age.
4) two ways to be saved, by grace through faith for those of age and by being below such age
Doctrine matters. A wrong view on one issue like this touches on other biblical themes.
Here we stand.
1) not just one exception to the rule all have sinned (like Rome with Mary) but now millions even possibly billions of exceptions to that throughout history based on those who were born and didn't make it to that age
2) not just a few mortal sins as to walk away from salvation but now all sins are mortal sins when one comes of age
3) for those many who never make it to that age and never sin in that view, then Christ never died for their sins since they don't have sins needed dying for, hence Christ didn't die for all but just those of age.
4) two ways to be saved, by grace through faith for those of age and by being below such age
Doctrine matters. A wrong view on one issue like this touches on other biblical themes.
Here we stand.
3/29/19
Life is hard. The Gospel is easy.
Life never turns out the way we expect. I never expected to be divorced. I never expected financial troubles. I never expected child heartbreak.
But I also never expected the pure Gospel.
The pure Gospel is always outside of you. Always forgiving in gracious Words. Always poured over you. Always placed on your tongue and poured down your throat.
God's gracious Words always come to us through the mouth of the minister and are always effective, regardless of what others think of us. Regardless of even what the minister thinks of us. Regardless of what even we think of the minister.
No matter where you are at in life. No matter how dark your past or present or future is. No matter how much you have lost.
Christ was crucified FOR YOU.
Christ is delivered TO YOU in Baptism. In Absolution. In the Supper.
Objectively and certainly.
Because this God wrapped in His Word and Sacraments in Christ is always gracious. Always forgiving.
He remembers that we are but dust. Therefore He does not break the bruised reed, nor does He put out the smoldering wick.
Your sins are forgiven.
But I also never expected the pure Gospel.
The pure Gospel is always outside of you. Always forgiving in gracious Words. Always poured over you. Always placed on your tongue and poured down your throat.
God's gracious Words always come to us through the mouth of the minister and are always effective, regardless of what others think of us. Regardless of even what the minister thinks of us. Regardless of what even we think of the minister.
No matter where you are at in life. No matter how dark your past or present or future is. No matter how much you have lost.
Christ was crucified FOR YOU.
Christ is delivered TO YOU in Baptism. In Absolution. In the Supper.
Objectively and certainly.
Because this God wrapped in His Word and Sacraments in Christ is always gracious. Always forgiving.
He remembers that we are but dust. Therefore He does not break the bruised reed, nor does He put out the smoldering wick.
Your sins are forgiven.
3/21/19
Response to John MacArthur on infant baptism, Part 1
Here’s a paragraph from an online sermon by John MacArthur, used by many folks who want to defame the view of infant baptism and those who hold to them:
“For example, Friedrich Schleiermacher, the German theologian wrote, ‘All traces of infant baptism which are asserted to be found in the New Testament must first be inserted there.’ And he would come from a Lutheran tradition,but affirm…you would have to put it into the Bible because it isn’t there. The host of German and front-rank theologians and scholars of the Church of England have united to affirm not only the absence of infant baptism from the New Testament, but the absence from apostolic and post-apostolic writers. This is the Anglican Church, the Church of England that does infant baptism. This is the Lutheran Church that affirms and does infant baptism saying it’s not in the Bible.”
Besides the fact that it is not true to say that the Lutheran and Anglican churches hold to that infant baptism isn’t taught in the Bible or by the earliest fathers (passing off a heretic as Lutheran or speaking for Lutherans is like saying Marcion or Arius had sound doctrines and spoke for the early church), it is also very ironic that MacArthur would want to even appeal to the Apostolic and post-Apostolic fathers as argument infant baptism is not true since it is absent from them.
Here’s why: do you know what is absent not only from them but also from all of earliest Christianity and for many centuries afterwards? MacArthur’s own denials that baptism being means of grace and own view of baptism being a symbol that does nothing to save.
A future article will point out what the Lutheran Church teaches in regards to infant baptism in relations to what the Bible and earliest Christians taught, and why what he said about that church is completely untrue there.
This article will point out the whole idea of baptism being a mere symbol that does nothing is completely foreign to the thoughts of the early church. Outside the Incarnation denying Gnostics, who reject any use for any sacrament, MacArthur has no one on his side. And it is seriously doubtful he wants to claim Gnostics Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote against, given he actually has use for them as ordinances.
Consider what the Apostolic and post-Apostolic fathers (the very ones MacArthur wants to claim on his side) have to say on baptism:
Epistle of Barnabas Chapter 11: “This means, that we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit.”
Shepherd of Hermas, Ninth Similitude, Chapter XVI: “Accordingly they descended with them into the water, and again ascended. [But these descended alive and rose up again alive; whereas they who had previously fallen asleep descended dead, but rose up again alive. ] By these, then, were they quickened and made to know the name of the Son of God.”
Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, Chapter 18: “For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.”
Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp, Chapter 6: “ Let your baptism endure as your arms; your faith as your helmet; your love as your spear; your patience as a complete panoply.”
The Didache, Chapter 9: “But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord.”
None of the writings of earliest (Apostolic) fathers treated baptism as a mere symbol disconnected from salvation and rebirth. Ignatius told Polycarp to endure his baptism as his salvation based on his view of baptism being sanctified water based on the fact Christ was baptized. The other writings like Barnabas and Hermes spoke of baptism in terms of rebirth and forgiving sins.
Nor can MacArthur find any support from the fathers afterwards on the topic that baptism is just a symbol we do after inward change in us:
First Apology of Justin, Chapter 61: “Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.”
Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 18: “Wash therefore, and be now clean, and put away iniquity from your souls, as God bids you be washed in this laver, and be circumcised with the true circumcision.”
Irenaeus’ Fragment 34: “ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: Unless a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
Irenaeus’ Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching: “First of all it bids us bear in mind that we have received baptism for the remission of sins, in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate and died and rose again, and in the Holy Spirit of God. And that this baptism is the seal of eternal life, and is the new birth unto God, that we should no longer be the sons of mortal men, but of the eternal and perpetual God; and that what is everlasting and continuing is made God.”
Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 21: “And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith.”
Theophilus' To Autolycus, Book II: “On the fifth day the living creatures which proceed from the waters were produced, through which also is revealed the manifold wisdom of God in these things; for who could count their multitude and very various kinds? Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration—as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God.”
Tertullian’s On Baptism: “Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life!”
And the list goes on and on. These fathers held to the views of baptism that MacArthur would have deemed as heretical even more so than holding to infant baptism by itself in non-salvation ways.
So when he tried to play card of look at what the fathers taught on baptism as proof how wrong others are, it falls flat to appeal to them on the baptism issue when he would see their views as completely heretical.
Even if we assume he is right infant baptism wasn’t taught early on, it would still predate his view of baptism as doing nothing towards salvation (among Trinity believers) by many, many many centuries.
Here we stand.
3/19/19
How Luke 18:15-17 screams infant faith, rebirth and baptism
What does Luke 18:15-17 have anything to do with infant baptism?
A proper understanding of baptism as well as the themes of faith, rebirth and blessing of Christ means that text has everything to do with it.
How so?
Consider Christ’s words in regards to babies brought to Him in the text:
“Let the little children come to me.”
The words “come to Me” in every other context as spoken by Christ refer to saving faith in Him. For example, Christ said no one can “come to Me unless the Father draws him”(John 6:44).
Just the fact He said that should be enough to show He was talking about saving faith when He said “let them come to Me.”
But that’s not all He said.
He followed:
“For the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”
Now, how can one see or enter the kingdom of God?
In John 3:5, He said:
“Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.”
So rebirth is required to see or enter the kingdom of God.
Yet, here in Luke 18:15–17, Christ said that the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. And the kingdom of God belongs then, by rebirth in this case babies who “come to Me” (or in other words, have saving faith in Him).
To make His point even more clearer, He said next:
“Anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”
Notice He didn’t say infants aren’t old enough to receive the kingdom of God. He said we of age are to receive the kingdom of God like a little child. And receiving the kingdom of God is by rebirth (of water and Spirit) and is through faith.
He made it abundantly clear He was speaking of infant faith (of which we are to emulate) and rebirth (as entrance into the kingdom of God.
And born of water and Spirit as entrance into the kingdom of God was universally recognized as a baptismal saving text in the early church.
The early audience reading the text as baptized children of God would have caught the baptismal and sacramental language when Christ said the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.
Mark 10:16 added that Christ placed His hands on them and blessed them.
What does it mean to have the blessing of God Incarnate?
Galatians 3:14 reads:
“He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.”
Christ’s blessing is us being justified by faith alone in Him.
So in multiple ways, what occurred here scream support for infant faith and rebirth.
Not to mention infant baptism.
It’s not just because Christ referred to born of water and Spirit as to how one enters the kingdom of God as to why one sees the baptismal reference.
It’s how baptismal texts themselves treat baptism as means of coming to (or having saving faith in) Him.
For example, Galatians 3:26-27 states:
“So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”
Better yet, consider what Revelation 22 says:
“The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’And let the one who hears say, ‘Come!’Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life.”
Such a text uses both Christ’s “come to Me” faith and water baptismal rebirth language.
Likewise, Hebrews 10:22, alluding to the promise of God to give rebirth in Ezekiel 36:25-27, reads:
“Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.”
Both texts speak in baptismal terms where we are bid to have our bodies washed with pure water as means God changes our hearts that we by faith draws near to Him in the water of life.
Now, people will say infants didn’t choose to be baptized so how can that be true?
But infants didn’t choose to have their parents bring them to Christ. Yet Christ said that the infants were the ones who came to Him, who had faith that we must emulate and have the kingdom of God that comes by rebirth.
The baptismal texts have all such promises: we are joined to Christ, through faith, we are washed by Him with water through the Word, given rebirth in Him, and through faith, are blessed as children of Abraham according to the promise.
Baptism is how Christ tells us (regardless of age) to “come to Me.”
Here we stand.
3/18/19
Citing passages that don’t use the word baptism on salvation don’t cancel out texts that do
One of the favorite go to arguments it seems when baptism saving grace passages are quoted, besides claiming those refer to waterless Spirit baptism, is to throw out texts on faith or believe in Christ claiming no mention of baptism at all so baptism must not be saving.
The more common texts folks like to throw out are John 3:16, Ephesians 2:1-8, and Romans 10:9-13. The irony is each of those three texts are in the same writings of which baptismal saving texts are most commonly referred to.
Take for example John 3:16. That passage is part of an ongoing lesson Jesus was giving Nicodemus that started at the beginning of John 3. And the first thing Jesus taught him was to be born again- of water and Spirit. That text historically (see for example, Irenaeus’ Fragment 34) as well as today is cited by those who affirm baptismal saving grace or regeneration. So the argument Jesus mentioned nothing about baptism in John 3:16 fall flat to those who see John 3:3-8 as reference to baptism. (Not to mention Christ spoke of faith in sacramental language in verses 14-15 referring Moses lifting up the snake.)
With Romans 10:9-13, that text follows several chapters after Paul spoke of us being buried with Christ in baptism and raised with Him to newness of life in Romans 6:1-4. So those then reading his epistle would have known about baptismal saving grace by the time they get to being told to confess Jesus is Lord and called on His name to be saved. Not to mention the fact Paul spoke of his own baptism as means of calling on Christ’s name to have his sins washed away in Acts 22:16.
And when folks throw out Ephesians 2:1-8, where we are told God made us alive with Christ when we were dead in sins as His grace to save through faith, they ignore Colossians 2:11-13 say exactly the same thing but added that being buried with Christ and raised with Him to new life is means to that end. Even aside from that, it is not like Ephesians is lacking in baptismal references we can point out. Ephesians 4:4-6 states there is only one baptism, not two, while Ephesians 5:25-27 says Christ washes us with water through the Word.
So in regards to go to passages some folks like to throw out as argument from silence, the response is that it is not accurate to say the passages when taken in context are silent. Either they are linked to an ongoing baptismal discussion, as in the case of John 3:16, or they are in the same writing that does state baptism is means of saving grace through faith as in the cases of Ephesians 2 and Romans 10.
Now to dance around these points, they go to their other favorite argument: such texts refer to waterless Spirit baptism or rebirth. Besides the fact Acts 2:38 states we receive the Holy Spirit upon repentance and being baptized, and the fact Paul says there is only one baptism, not two, there is a serious side effect as a real result of their argument from silent tactic, that kills even their own only waterless Spirit baptism saves or gives rebirth claim.
People can make Scriptures say what they want Scriptures to say using this horrid method. If they want to deny need for repentance, then they can say John 3;16, Mark 16:16 or Ephesians 2:8 doesn’t mention repentance. Also, passages like 1 Peter 3:21 doesn’t use the words faith, believe or repent. So does that mean by their logic we don’t need to repent and believe to be saved?
Ultimately, this argument from silence also kills their view of only waterless Spirit baptism or rebirth saves. Remember they argue the word baptism isn’t used in their prooftexts so it isn’t needed. By such rationale, baptism of any kind (if we assume their premise of waterless Spirit baptism saving) is not needed. And not even their waterless Spirit baptism saves using this methodology.
Guess what other word(s) is not mentioned in texts like Romans 10:9-13? Rebirth (or born again). So guess we don’t need rebirth, right?
That is only if we play by their rules of arguments from silence.
At the end of the day, this horribly flawed method violates a cardinal biblical interpretation rule: the clear passages interpret the less clear passages. Taking passages, that are silent, to cancel out passages that aren’t silent at all blatantly breaks that rule.
Here we stand.
3/17/19
“Baptism saves” is a direct quote from Scriptures that have many evangelicals scrambling to dance around it
Many times the first jerk reaction that many of the modern evangelicals when they hear or read the word “baptism saves” is to say that’s heresy. This is despite the fact that this is a direct quote of 1 Peter 3:21.
So how do they respond when that text is pointed out to them?
Many will argue that since the text says the water symbolizes baptism that now saves you, water baptism must be a symbol of a waterless Spirit baptism that now saves us. But that is completely distorting what Peter was saying. Verse 20 clearly shows he was referring to Noah’s flood as the water that symbolizes baptism that now saves us. (No such distinction between water baptism and Spirit baptism exist in Scriptures.)
Another argument is that baptism saves us not by removal of dirt from the body so it must not be water baptism. The problem is if no water is involved, Peter would have no need to point out it isn’t the physical cleansing part that does the saving. And we affirm fully baptism saves not by water in itself but by the Word joined to the water. As Luther pointed out in his Large Catechism, without the Word, there is no baptism but just plain water. What he said is fully Scriptural, in line with the apostle Paul saying Christ washed us with water through the Word in Ephesians 5:26.
So water is involved when we have our sins washed away, but it is not the water itself that washed away our sins. Rather, it’s through the Word, that makes baptism, as how we have our sins washed away. And the Word, that makes baptism, is Christ crucified for our sins. It’s the Gospel proclaimed to us. Hence, it is why we call baptism the Visible Gospel. Baptism is an outward physical means of the Gospel preached to us, and by which Christ comes to us to deliver unto us His finished work at the Cross.
The point is that whenever folks argue against us with we are not saved by dirt removed from the body, they are erecting a strawman against us. We don’t affirm dirt removed from the body is what saves us. We affirm, as Hebrews 10:22 says, that while our physical bodies are washed with pure water, it is God who sprinkles our hearts to sprinkle us from a guilty conscience, through faith.
Which brings up the next objection people use which is 1 Peter 3:21 states baptism is presented as an answer of good conscience hence it is our good work we do in response to being saved. In other words, they pit that part of the text against the part that says baptism saves.
Their own mindset is baptism must be our good work (a false view since no Scriptures treat being baptized as some good work we do for God) so that can’t save. In their need to affirm their version of faith alone, they actually undermine and even destroy it here. That’s the ultimate irony.
How so? Saying anything we do as an answer of good conscience is extremely problematic (to put it mildly) when it comes to justification by faith alone and imputed righteousness. These two concepts hinge on the fact nothing we can do can clear our conscience or clear us of our guilt for our sins. So how can any good work we do give us a good conscience? It can’t.
Let that sink in.
Now, let’s go back to Hebrews 10:22. It reads:
“Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.”
That text shows us having an answer of good conscience does not come from ourselves but from God sprinkling our hearts as our bodies are washed with pure water. Baptism is means of grace by which we are drawn to God through faith. And in Christ, we have our answer of good conscience. It’s not from us but from what He did.
And that’s exactly what 1 Peter 3:21 states.
Baptism saves us by the resurrection of Christ. How? It’s the outward means of the good news given unto us. The good news is Christ died and rose again on our behalf. He is our answer of good conscience. Baptism is itself Christ to us, washing us with water through the Word. It’s where through faith, we are clothed with Him. And with us being clothed with Him, we have His forgiveness won at the Cross so that our sins may be washed away.
So a proper understanding of baptismal saving grace or regeneration, rather than undercutting or undermining justification by faith alone and imputed righteousness, actually supports both concepts. Baptism saving us as an answer of good conscience not based on us but rather on what Christ did for us squares with imputation of righteousness, where we are declared righteous based on Christ’s merits, not our own. Arguing baptism is a good work we do as an answer of good conscience, far from salvaging justification by faith alone and imputed righteousness, actually destroy both concepts paramount to the faith.
Here we stand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)