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+
7/28/19
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+
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)