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+
Showing posts with label Apologetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Apologetics. Show all posts
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+
3/14/15
Liberals, Becker, and the LCMS
It's taken me awhile to chime in on the Matthew Becker situation, namely because as a layman, I don't think it is necessarily my spot to say much. My thoughts on the situation are really quite simple, and I plan to keep this pretty darn short. I'm going to keep it really short, in fact.
1. Matthew Becker needs to go. There are plenty of churches out there that agree with his stances on ordination, evolution, and sexuality. Why he insists on sticking around and attacking the LCMS is beyond me. I can only assume it is because he views himself as a modern day Reformer who is going to Reform the LCMS at all costs. That's an assumption, but it's probably valid. An honest man would simply step on out and head on over to the ELCA or another church like it. We do not believe like you on these things, Mr. Becker, and you will not change our church. Stop trying. Heresy has no place here.
2. If our Synod cannot oust false teachers like this, something is wrong with our bylaws. To put it even more direct, something is wrong with our church structure; our ecclesiology. If we do not have steps in place to remove false teachers from the Synod, we have a major problem on our hands. If this is the case, we either need to change it now or give ourselves over to the culture, as Becker and his liberal ilk would have us to do.
Perhaps the bigger problem is that somewhere along the line, the Synod has allowed a plethora of error to creep in unchecked. The Becker incident is the latest one; even to the point of a panel absolving him.
Our polity stinks. Somewhere along the line we have not adhered to the proper checks and balances in our ecclesiastical structure to keep the major influx of liberalism from entering the LCMS.
I am LCMS by choice. The pure truth in Word and Sacrament is here. The Confessions are here. But unless the LCMS cleans house, the LCMS is going to eventually look like a mish-mash of the ELCA and the LCMC. We don't want that, because neither of them are distinctly Lutheran. And by that I mean, neither of them are distinctly Confessional or mimic traditional and orthodox Christianity in any sense of the word.
My advice is to hear out what the men in the ACELC are saying.
1. Matthew Becker needs to go. There are plenty of churches out there that agree with his stances on ordination, evolution, and sexuality. Why he insists on sticking around and attacking the LCMS is beyond me. I can only assume it is because he views himself as a modern day Reformer who is going to Reform the LCMS at all costs. That's an assumption, but it's probably valid. An honest man would simply step on out and head on over to the ELCA or another church like it. We do not believe like you on these things, Mr. Becker, and you will not change our church. Stop trying. Heresy has no place here.
2. If our Synod cannot oust false teachers like this, something is wrong with our bylaws. To put it even more direct, something is wrong with our church structure; our ecclesiology. If we do not have steps in place to remove false teachers from the Synod, we have a major problem on our hands. If this is the case, we either need to change it now or give ourselves over to the culture, as Becker and his liberal ilk would have us to do.
Perhaps the bigger problem is that somewhere along the line, the Synod has allowed a plethora of error to creep in unchecked. The Becker incident is the latest one; even to the point of a panel absolving him.
Our polity stinks. Somewhere along the line we have not adhered to the proper checks and balances in our ecclesiastical structure to keep the major influx of liberalism from entering the LCMS.
I am LCMS by choice. The pure truth in Word and Sacrament is here. The Confessions are here. But unless the LCMS cleans house, the LCMS is going to eventually look like a mish-mash of the ELCA and the LCMC. We don't want that, because neither of them are distinctly Lutheran. And by that I mean, neither of them are distinctly Confessional or mimic traditional and orthodox Christianity in any sense of the word.
My advice is to hear out what the men in the ACELC are saying.
It's time we revamp our polity. Ecclesiology and polity are not adiaphora. We can and must do better in this realm. We must have better ways of rooting our error and eliminating the leaven. We had best do it soon, lest we allow the festering to continue and get even more out of hand than it is.
3/13/15
Confession Matters
Or, what I should say is, what a person or congregation confesses about Christ matters. There are certain things that are within Christian Orthodoxy and certain things that are not.
Now I grant that it's pretty hotly debated as to what constitutes said Christian Orthodoxy. In days of yore, Christianity took a very hard line to this question. Orthodoxy was a very narrow way found in one place. What that one place was depended on who you were asking. Of course the Pope claimed primacy and Rome claimed infallibility in doctrine. They still do claim those things, despite softening somewhat at the Vatican II council; declaring the possibility of salvation outside of the Roman Church, even going as far as to call Protestants "separated brethren."
Of course, the East claims the same. They are the Church. So do other churches and sects.
Ultimately, I am proposing a very deep question here. It is one that I am not going to be able to answer perfectly, nor will I even bother trying to answer it perfectly. In fact, I am not sure I'll be able to give one. But I will offer a few suggestions at the conclusion of the post.
The main thrust of this post is to look at what 20th and 21st century Christianity believes about this situation and how we have handled it.
I assert that 20th and 21st century Christianity has handled this situation in a very lamentable manner. When faced with the question: Who is a Christian? Postmodern Christianity answers in a very minimalist manner.
Now days, your average 21st century American Christian is willing to affirm anyone to be a Christian so long as they love Jesus, nothing further needed. It doesn't matter what they believe about Jesus and what they confess. This is evidenced by the complete foolishness of much of American Christianity going gaga over Glenn Beck's rally about morals and values in Washington. For those of you who do not know, Glenn Beck is a Mormon. To affirm that Glenn Beck is a Christian or that he speaks for Christian values is pretty much to reject everything that Christians have always believed. To be clear, Mormonism is just as far from Christ as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam, or Buddhism.
But we just seem to not care anymore. Heck, the JWs say they love Jesus, right? Glenn Beck says he does too, correct?
And that is just it. Much of American Christianity has abandoned confession, abandoned THE confessions, abandoned the creeds, and heck, abandoned the Gospel. All this in favor of replacing the Gospel with...with...with...yep, you guessed it: The Law.
The 21st century Gospel is not Christ crucified for the forgiveness of your sins. It's not even Christ for you. It's me for God. The 21st century Gospel is: Love God and love others. (Mat 22:37 ff.) It doesn't matter what you believe about God. It doesn't matter what you think Christ did for us. It just matters that you love God and love your neighbor, no matter what your god happens to look like.
This is NOT good news! This is, in fact, really BAD news. Because, as we confess, we have not loved God with our whole hearts and have not loved our neighbors as ourselves.
To be blunt: Much of 21st century Christianity, especially in America, is grounded in nothing. Well, unless you count our works as something. But it really doesn't matter what you believe most of the time.
What is the remedy? Who should be considered Christians? I have a few suggestions, but I'm certainly not claiming to have answered the question definitively.
The quick answer is, we need Confessional Christianity. We need to be catechized about the doctrines of the Christian faith. We need to know what constitutes orthodoxy, heterodoxy, and outright heresy. We needn't be afraid of offending someone by saying they are without reservation outside of the Christian faith, whether they be Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Pelagian, or Word of Faith.
The fact of the matter is that there are *many* heretical congregations out there that claim the Name of Christ, and most 21st century American Christians say: Praise God! There are my brothers and sisters in another building.
Nonsense.
So where do we begin? I suggest a few things. First, although we ought to confess Scripture alone as the only infallible authority, that does not mean that Scripture is the only authority. For instance, we have three ecumenical creeds (Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian) that properly summarize orthodox Christian teaching that is taught in the Holy Scriptures. Let's start there. Can a Mormon affirm those three ecumenical creeds? Heck no they can't. The Athanasian Creed in particular is completely wrong in their theology.
The Creeds are an excellent starting point, but they cannot be everything we confess, even though they certainly must be the core of what we confess. I suggest the next step is to check out the ecumenical councils of the early church. The councils tell us the orthodox positions on the person of Christ and give sharp definition to the doctrine of original sin, among other things.
Many people these days decry the church councils as well as the Creeds, and they do so with some really bad argumentation that betrays a functional Pelagian understanding of Christianity. They dismiss the Creeds and the councils in favor of sovereign individual interpretation of Scripture. Sorry Roman Catholics, this mindset is not a hallmark of Protestantism. It's a hallmark of people who have abandoned both Roman Catholicism as well as traditional Protestantism.
Me, my Bible, and the Holy Spirit is not at all what the Reformers meant by sola scriptura.
What we need to do is look to the entire history of the Christian church. Yes, Scripture is the only infallible authority (sorry Francis). But we are wise to look and see what Christianity has universally taught for 2000 years. Likewise, we are wise to look and see what Christianity has universally condemned as heresy for 2000 years.
And we're fools if we don't. We're fools if we think that we are the ones who have really arrived. We're fools if we think that we have nothing to learn from the great theological giants who have gone before us. We're fools if we think that we alone have the only proper interpretation of Scripture because after all, the Holy Spirit told us so in our own little personal reading of Scripture one night.
In other words, the Church must have authority too. Not on an infallible level like the inspired Holy Scriptures, of course. But the Church must have sway. After all, Jesus entrusted the Word and Sacraments to the Church, not as a bunch of individual interpreters, but as an institution that delivers a Kingdom through the means of grace.
I think that is a fair starting point. And I think if people would look into these things more, a lot of this "everyone is a Christian who says the words 'I love God' would disappear. You have to know who Christ is and what He has done for us.
After all, that is the Gospel.
Pax
Now I grant that it's pretty hotly debated as to what constitutes said Christian Orthodoxy. In days of yore, Christianity took a very hard line to this question. Orthodoxy was a very narrow way found in one place. What that one place was depended on who you were asking. Of course the Pope claimed primacy and Rome claimed infallibility in doctrine. They still do claim those things, despite softening somewhat at the Vatican II council; declaring the possibility of salvation outside of the Roman Church, even going as far as to call Protestants "separated brethren."
Of course, the East claims the same. They are the Church. So do other churches and sects.
Ultimately, I am proposing a very deep question here. It is one that I am not going to be able to answer perfectly, nor will I even bother trying to answer it perfectly. In fact, I am not sure I'll be able to give one. But I will offer a few suggestions at the conclusion of the post.
The main thrust of this post is to look at what 20th and 21st century Christianity believes about this situation and how we have handled it.
I assert that 20th and 21st century Christianity has handled this situation in a very lamentable manner. When faced with the question: Who is a Christian? Postmodern Christianity answers in a very minimalist manner.
Now days, your average 21st century American Christian is willing to affirm anyone to be a Christian so long as they love Jesus, nothing further needed. It doesn't matter what they believe about Jesus and what they confess. This is evidenced by the complete foolishness of much of American Christianity going gaga over Glenn Beck's rally about morals and values in Washington. For those of you who do not know, Glenn Beck is a Mormon. To affirm that Glenn Beck is a Christian or that he speaks for Christian values is pretty much to reject everything that Christians have always believed. To be clear, Mormonism is just as far from Christ as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam, or Buddhism.
But we just seem to not care anymore. Heck, the JWs say they love Jesus, right? Glenn Beck says he does too, correct?
And that is just it. Much of American Christianity has abandoned confession, abandoned THE confessions, abandoned the creeds, and heck, abandoned the Gospel. All this in favor of replacing the Gospel with...with...with...yep, you guessed it: The Law.
The 21st century Gospel is not Christ crucified for the forgiveness of your sins. It's not even Christ for you. It's me for God. The 21st century Gospel is: Love God and love others. (Mat 22:37 ff.) It doesn't matter what you believe about God. It doesn't matter what you think Christ did for us. It just matters that you love God and love your neighbor, no matter what your god happens to look like.
This is NOT good news! This is, in fact, really BAD news. Because, as we confess, we have not loved God with our whole hearts and have not loved our neighbors as ourselves.
To be blunt: Much of 21st century Christianity, especially in America, is grounded in nothing. Well, unless you count our works as something. But it really doesn't matter what you believe most of the time.
What is the remedy? Who should be considered Christians? I have a few suggestions, but I'm certainly not claiming to have answered the question definitively.
The quick answer is, we need Confessional Christianity. We need to be catechized about the doctrines of the Christian faith. We need to know what constitutes orthodoxy, heterodoxy, and outright heresy. We needn't be afraid of offending someone by saying they are without reservation outside of the Christian faith, whether they be Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Pelagian, or Word of Faith.
The fact of the matter is that there are *many* heretical congregations out there that claim the Name of Christ, and most 21st century American Christians say: Praise God! There are my brothers and sisters in another building.
Nonsense.
So where do we begin? I suggest a few things. First, although we ought to confess Scripture alone as the only infallible authority, that does not mean that Scripture is the only authority. For instance, we have three ecumenical creeds (Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian) that properly summarize orthodox Christian teaching that is taught in the Holy Scriptures. Let's start there. Can a Mormon affirm those three ecumenical creeds? Heck no they can't. The Athanasian Creed in particular is completely wrong in their theology.
The Creeds are an excellent starting point, but they cannot be everything we confess, even though they certainly must be the core of what we confess. I suggest the next step is to check out the ecumenical councils of the early church. The councils tell us the orthodox positions on the person of Christ and give sharp definition to the doctrine of original sin, among other things.
Many people these days decry the church councils as well as the Creeds, and they do so with some really bad argumentation that betrays a functional Pelagian understanding of Christianity. They dismiss the Creeds and the councils in favor of sovereign individual interpretation of Scripture. Sorry Roman Catholics, this mindset is not a hallmark of Protestantism. It's a hallmark of people who have abandoned both Roman Catholicism as well as traditional Protestantism.
Me, my Bible, and the Holy Spirit is not at all what the Reformers meant by sola scriptura.
What we need to do is look to the entire history of the Christian church. Yes, Scripture is the only infallible authority (sorry Francis). But we are wise to look and see what Christianity has universally taught for 2000 years. Likewise, we are wise to look and see what Christianity has universally condemned as heresy for 2000 years.
And we're fools if we don't. We're fools if we think that we are the ones who have really arrived. We're fools if we think that we have nothing to learn from the great theological giants who have gone before us. We're fools if we think that we alone have the only proper interpretation of Scripture because after all, the Holy Spirit told us so in our own little personal reading of Scripture one night.
In other words, the Church must have authority too. Not on an infallible level like the inspired Holy Scriptures, of course. But the Church must have sway. After all, Jesus entrusted the Word and Sacraments to the Church, not as a bunch of individual interpreters, but as an institution that delivers a Kingdom through the means of grace.
I think that is a fair starting point. And I think if people would look into these things more, a lot of this "everyone is a Christian who says the words 'I love God' would disappear. You have to know who Christ is and what He has done for us.
After all, that is the Gospel.
Pax
2/26/15
That Pesky Friendly Atheist Just Debunked Christianity - Part 3
This will be the final installment in a three part series regarding a video posted by Mr. Hemant Mehta (AKA the Friendly Atheist) on youtube. This is the video:
Now what has become apparent to me is that Mr. Mehta is definitely being a bit sarcastic in this video. He's actually a pretty smart dude. That being said, these questions he is asking are much of the same tripe I have actually heard from atheists in the past. So, while he certainly is being sarcastic, there are many underlying truths in his questions, insofar as that these are real challenges that atheists erect against Christianity. In the first two posts, I briefly addressed questions #1-45 in the video.
46. Why is God playing hide and seek with all of humanity?
He has not and is not. Jesus came into history as a man. The evidence of His existence is irrefutable, despite anti-Christians attempts to discredit it 2000 years after the fact. But I'm not going to bite on the whole "He changed my life" argument. Just like the atheist, I don't think that one holds up. But the fact that creation exists should be enough, even to the scientific mind. There are these things called the laws of physics, and yeah, they plainly state that something cannot come from nothing. Yes, I know there have been attempts to prove this is not the case lately, but sorry, redefining a quantum vacuum as nothing won't fly around here, and it shouldn't fly to any honest scientist.
47. Do you believe that Jesus is coming back to earth during your lifetime?
That's a completely irrelevant question. No one knows the day or the hour. He'll come back someday, but those who think it will be this day or that day and make predictions are guilty of major wrecking of what the Bible actually says on the matter.
48. If you do, what do you say to all those people who have been saying the same thing for centuries and are no longer with us?
They're wrong. And they were wrong for speculating.
49. Why is the story of Jesus' birth and life so similar to mythological figures who lived before His time?
It's not. Sure, you can find one overlapped thing here and there. But you can find way more overlapped things between the life of Hitler and Mr. Mehta (how is that for a reduction ad hitlerum? hey, Mr. Mehta did it in a later question. Fair is fair). This tactic is just another dishonest attack to discredit the uniqueness of Christ.
50. How do you decide which sections of the bible are literally true and which ones are just metaphorical?
It's really pretty easy. There are historical books and didactic (teaching) books. And there are also highly symbolic books (Revelation, anyone?). Then again, I see the point here, because many Christians get this incorrect. But that is not an argument against Scripture or Christianity. It's an argument against people. And it actually supports what Scripture says on the topic, that people are fallible sinners. Imagine that.
51. What are the minimum requirements for being a Christian?
Well, I'll go with the Gospel According to St. Mark, the 16th chapter. "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." Granted, there are some nuances there. If a person believed in a false Christ who is not God incarnate, for instance. But it's not that tough. Mr. Mehta wants us to base it on works which seems to be what his understanding of Christianity is.
52. And who falls under that definition?
St. Mark, the 16th chapter.
53. Fred Phelps? 54. Pat Robertson? 55. James Dobson? 56. President Obama?
53. Don't know. 54. Don't know. 55. Yes. Dobson is mainly orthodox and Trinitarian in his beliefs. But ultimately, still don't know. 56. Don't know.
57. Do you really believe Mary was impregnated without ever having sex?
Yes. If God does exist, there is no problem here. Likewise, Christ proved over and over again His divinity.
58. If someone came up to you and said she was pregnant but she was totally a virgin, would you believe her?
No, and I would not have believed Mary either at the time. Of course, Christ proved all that true time and time again.
59. Why did God have to rape a teenage girl in order to become human?
And heeeeeerrrrrreeeee is the 21st century postmodernist shock tactic. And likewise, if you actually read the Scriptures, St. Mary consented to this.
60. If you could go back in time to when Jesus was crucified, would you try to save Him, or would you stand back and do nothing because your entire faith depends on Him being crucified?
Of course I would try to get Him off and save Him. But God's ways are a lot wiser than mine. In weakness, God is most strong. Through that weakness, He saves the whole world. But this is once again irrelevant. I wasn't there.
61. What would it take to change your mind about God's existence?
Prove to me that the laws of physics are changeable and are not really laws, and something can indeed come from nothing. This would prove that scientific laws don't really exist and nature is not uniform and orderly. If it is uniform and orderly, the only logical conclusion is that there is a law-giver. You cannot have order and uniformity from nothing. Nothing is quite as irrational as that.
62. Do you think it's a little strange when someone says they're going to believe in something no matter what even when all the evidence points in the other direction?
A little strange? No, it's not a little strange. It's downright silly. This is precisely why I think it's downright silly to be an atheist. The evidence most certainly does not point to that.
63. What is something your pastor has said in church that you totally disagree with?
I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but I know it has happened in local churches I have attended in the past.
64. And when that happened, did you confront your pastor about it, or did you just let it slide?
As long as the pastor is not saying something outright heretical, it's not my job to confront him on it.
65. Why are there so many Christian denominations?
Because people are not infallible. We're sinners.
66. Are the people who are in those denominations bad Christians? Are they wrong?
Are they bad Christians? We're all bad Christians. We fall short every minute of every day. That's why we need Christ, and that is why it's all about Christ.
67. Which denomination is right?
The ones who preach Christ crucified for the forgiveness of all of your sins and keep that as the central focus. That's the simple answer anyways, and I am not going to write a book on the blogosphere.
68. Or, which group of denominations is right?
See #67.
69. Who, or what, do you think is responsible for natural disasters like earthquakes or tsunamis?
Your mom. No, really, it's hard to say anyone is directly responsible for them, God included. Although I will say that God certainly did set things up in this manner and man wrecked it.
70. Can you pause the video right now and tell me what the ten commandments are?
Yes I can.
71. And if you know them...why do so many Christians believe that the first four of them belong on government property and in the classrooms?
Because they are true. That being said, I am indifferent to that cause.
72. Would you feel comfortable saying the Pledge of Allegiance every day if the words were: One nation, under no God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all?
No. But to be fair and honest here, I'm not a big fan of pledging allegiance to a country anyways.
73. Do you think it's just a coincidence that different religions are popular in different parts of the world?
No, not really. If God exists, would you agree that He is immutable and His plan is always the best plan? In short, this question is pretty much a non-issue.
74. Do you believe if you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would be a Muslim rather than a Christian?
Completely and totally irrelevant. Why? Because I wasn't born in Saudi Arabia.
75. Is it possible that religion has less to do with what's true, and more to do with the circumstances of where and when you were born?
Not really. I mean, this question is best aimed at different religions and the foundations of what they believe, not at the location of them. That's really a non-argument.
76. Do you believe childbirth is an example of a miracle?
No. Childbirth is the way children are brought into the world in the natural way. Childbirth is natural, not supernatural. The problem is, too many Christians are constantly seeking after miracles. When they don't find them, they say pretty much anything is a miracle. It's an example of bad theology and completely missing the point of the actual miracles that did happen and what they were for.
77. Does that mean that Hitler was once a miracle baby?
Reductio ad Hitlerum! I'm kind of a sucker for this. I think it's funny...
78. And if childbirth is a miracle, how come that miracle happens thousands and thousands of times every week?
Because it's natural, not a miracle.
Hopefully it has been shown that the vast majority of these questions are based on faulty assumptions and the ones that aren't are easily answered. Of course, atheists are always going to attack Christianity. That is what they do. I do wonder though: Why? If God does not exist, why go through all this trouble to attack Christianity? It makes very little sense. Likewise, if you are going to attack Christianity, it makes the most sense to try to actually understand Christian teachings before you do it. Instead of lighting up straw men, learn what Christianity actually has to say on these topics, and then proceed. Mr. Mehta's video, sarcastic or not, has done just that. He has assumed much regarding Christianity which is not true, and then proceeded to erect questions based on these untruths. For a worldview that champions itself as rational, logical, and free thinking, you would think that this reason and logic would actually be used when debating Christians, but it's not.
But then again, atheism is the most irrational worldview in existence. It simply cannot account for anything in the ultimate sense. Nor will it ever be able to do so, unless the law of physics do not exist and things in the natural world are completely random. But of course, that would demolish their starting point and presuppositions (if nature were random and the laws of physics were changeable).
What is funny to me is that they try to use science to prove that God does not exist. Well, as a scientist (I have a degree in Physics), I find that comical. How can a tool (yes, science is a tool) that exists to observe the natural world be used to disprove the existence of a supernatural God? To be short, science cannot do that. It's not intended to do that. It's kind of like using a fork to measure how fast an airplane is traveling. Not to mention, just the existence of science points to the existence of God. The uniformity of nature, the laws of logic, the laws of mathematics, the laws of Physics. The consistency and truth of these things point to the irrefutable fact that someone made it this way. Matter and nothingness cannot create laws and order. Until then, the dry hay will continue to be burnt up by the atheists.
Romans 1:18-20: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Grace and Peace
46. Why is God playing hide and seek with all of humanity?
He has not and is not. Jesus came into history as a man. The evidence of His existence is irrefutable, despite anti-Christians attempts to discredit it 2000 years after the fact. But I'm not going to bite on the whole "He changed my life" argument. Just like the atheist, I don't think that one holds up. But the fact that creation exists should be enough, even to the scientific mind. There are these things called the laws of physics, and yeah, they plainly state that something cannot come from nothing. Yes, I know there have been attempts to prove this is not the case lately, but sorry, redefining a quantum vacuum as nothing won't fly around here, and it shouldn't fly to any honest scientist.
47. Do you believe that Jesus is coming back to earth during your lifetime?
That's a completely irrelevant question. No one knows the day or the hour. He'll come back someday, but those who think it will be this day or that day and make predictions are guilty of major wrecking of what the Bible actually says on the matter.
48. If you do, what do you say to all those people who have been saying the same thing for centuries and are no longer with us?
They're wrong. And they were wrong for speculating.
49. Why is the story of Jesus' birth and life so similar to mythological figures who lived before His time?
It's not. Sure, you can find one overlapped thing here and there. But you can find way more overlapped things between the life of Hitler and Mr. Mehta (how is that for a reduction ad hitlerum? hey, Mr. Mehta did it in a later question. Fair is fair). This tactic is just another dishonest attack to discredit the uniqueness of Christ.
50. How do you decide which sections of the bible are literally true and which ones are just metaphorical?
It's really pretty easy. There are historical books and didactic (teaching) books. And there are also highly symbolic books (Revelation, anyone?). Then again, I see the point here, because many Christians get this incorrect. But that is not an argument against Scripture or Christianity. It's an argument against people. And it actually supports what Scripture says on the topic, that people are fallible sinners. Imagine that.
51. What are the minimum requirements for being a Christian?
Well, I'll go with the Gospel According to St. Mark, the 16th chapter. "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." Granted, there are some nuances there. If a person believed in a false Christ who is not God incarnate, for instance. But it's not that tough. Mr. Mehta wants us to base it on works which seems to be what his understanding of Christianity is.
52. And who falls under that definition?
St. Mark, the 16th chapter.
53. Fred Phelps? 54. Pat Robertson? 55. James Dobson? 56. President Obama?
53. Don't know. 54. Don't know. 55. Yes. Dobson is mainly orthodox and Trinitarian in his beliefs. But ultimately, still don't know. 56. Don't know.
57. Do you really believe Mary was impregnated without ever having sex?
Yes. If God does exist, there is no problem here. Likewise, Christ proved over and over again His divinity.
58. If someone came up to you and said she was pregnant but she was totally a virgin, would you believe her?
No, and I would not have believed Mary either at the time. Of course, Christ proved all that true time and time again.
59. Why did God have to rape a teenage girl in order to become human?
And heeeeeerrrrrreeeee is the 21st century postmodernist shock tactic. And likewise, if you actually read the Scriptures, St. Mary consented to this.
60. If you could go back in time to when Jesus was crucified, would you try to save Him, or would you stand back and do nothing because your entire faith depends on Him being crucified?
Of course I would try to get Him off and save Him. But God's ways are a lot wiser than mine. In weakness, God is most strong. Through that weakness, He saves the whole world. But this is once again irrelevant. I wasn't there.
61. What would it take to change your mind about God's existence?
Prove to me that the laws of physics are changeable and are not really laws, and something can indeed come from nothing. This would prove that scientific laws don't really exist and nature is not uniform and orderly. If it is uniform and orderly, the only logical conclusion is that there is a law-giver. You cannot have order and uniformity from nothing. Nothing is quite as irrational as that.
62. Do you think it's a little strange when someone says they're going to believe in something no matter what even when all the evidence points in the other direction?
A little strange? No, it's not a little strange. It's downright silly. This is precisely why I think it's downright silly to be an atheist. The evidence most certainly does not point to that.
63. What is something your pastor has said in church that you totally disagree with?
I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but I know it has happened in local churches I have attended in the past.
64. And when that happened, did you confront your pastor about it, or did you just let it slide?
As long as the pastor is not saying something outright heretical, it's not my job to confront him on it.
65. Why are there so many Christian denominations?
Because people are not infallible. We're sinners.
66. Are the people who are in those denominations bad Christians? Are they wrong?
Are they bad Christians? We're all bad Christians. We fall short every minute of every day. That's why we need Christ, and that is why it's all about Christ.
67. Which denomination is right?
The ones who preach Christ crucified for the forgiveness of all of your sins and keep that as the central focus. That's the simple answer anyways, and I am not going to write a book on the blogosphere.
68. Or, which group of denominations is right?
See #67.
69. Who, or what, do you think is responsible for natural disasters like earthquakes or tsunamis?
Your mom. No, really, it's hard to say anyone is directly responsible for them, God included. Although I will say that God certainly did set things up in this manner and man wrecked it.
70. Can you pause the video right now and tell me what the ten commandments are?
Yes I can.
71. And if you know them...why do so many Christians believe that the first four of them belong on government property and in the classrooms?
Because they are true. That being said, I am indifferent to that cause.
72. Would you feel comfortable saying the Pledge of Allegiance every day if the words were: One nation, under no God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all?
No. But to be fair and honest here, I'm not a big fan of pledging allegiance to a country anyways.
73. Do you think it's just a coincidence that different religions are popular in different parts of the world?
No, not really. If God exists, would you agree that He is immutable and His plan is always the best plan? In short, this question is pretty much a non-issue.
74. Do you believe if you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would be a Muslim rather than a Christian?
Completely and totally irrelevant. Why? Because I wasn't born in Saudi Arabia.
75. Is it possible that religion has less to do with what's true, and more to do with the circumstances of where and when you were born?
Not really. I mean, this question is best aimed at different religions and the foundations of what they believe, not at the location of them. That's really a non-argument.
76. Do you believe childbirth is an example of a miracle?
No. Childbirth is the way children are brought into the world in the natural way. Childbirth is natural, not supernatural. The problem is, too many Christians are constantly seeking after miracles. When they don't find them, they say pretty much anything is a miracle. It's an example of bad theology and completely missing the point of the actual miracles that did happen and what they were for.
77. Does that mean that Hitler was once a miracle baby?
Reductio ad Hitlerum! I'm kind of a sucker for this. I think it's funny...
78. And if childbirth is a miracle, how come that miracle happens thousands and thousands of times every week?
Because it's natural, not a miracle.
Hopefully it has been shown that the vast majority of these questions are based on faulty assumptions and the ones that aren't are easily answered. Of course, atheists are always going to attack Christianity. That is what they do. I do wonder though: Why? If God does not exist, why go through all this trouble to attack Christianity? It makes very little sense. Likewise, if you are going to attack Christianity, it makes the most sense to try to actually understand Christian teachings before you do it. Instead of lighting up straw men, learn what Christianity actually has to say on these topics, and then proceed. Mr. Mehta's video, sarcastic or not, has done just that. He has assumed much regarding Christianity which is not true, and then proceeded to erect questions based on these untruths. For a worldview that champions itself as rational, logical, and free thinking, you would think that this reason and logic would actually be used when debating Christians, but it's not.
But then again, atheism is the most irrational worldview in existence. It simply cannot account for anything in the ultimate sense. Nor will it ever be able to do so, unless the law of physics do not exist and things in the natural world are completely random. But of course, that would demolish their starting point and presuppositions (if nature were random and the laws of physics were changeable).
What is funny to me is that they try to use science to prove that God does not exist. Well, as a scientist (I have a degree in Physics), I find that comical. How can a tool (yes, science is a tool) that exists to observe the natural world be used to disprove the existence of a supernatural God? To be short, science cannot do that. It's not intended to do that. It's kind of like using a fork to measure how fast an airplane is traveling. Not to mention, just the existence of science points to the existence of God. The uniformity of nature, the laws of logic, the laws of mathematics, the laws of Physics. The consistency and truth of these things point to the irrefutable fact that someone made it this way. Matter and nothingness cannot create laws and order. Until then, the dry hay will continue to be burnt up by the atheists.
Romans 1:18-20: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Grace and Peace
2/23/15
That Pesky Friendly Atheist Just Debunked Christianity - Part 2
I began this series of posts on a video posted on youtube by the popular Friendly Atheist. In it, he poses 78 questions for Christians. I went through questions #1-22 yesterday. I didn't go into much depth, but I did endeavor to show that the video presents a vast misunderstanding of Christianity in general. The blog can be found here:
Friendly Atheist - Part 1
The video is here:
I will begin with question #23 and answer another handful of them.
#23: Is there anything in your life right now that makes you doubt God's existence?
#24: If you did doubt God's existence, how would your life change?
The clear and easy answer here is no. I don't doubt the existence of God. There is simply way too much proof in creation that He exists. Plus you have the whole resurrection thing, the historicity of Christ, and so on. On the other hand, for sure, I too am a sinful man and I do doubt Him sometimes. But that is not because of anything He has done or not done, but because of our inherent human nature to suppress the truth about Him.
#25: Was Jesus white?
Got any more stupid questions? No, really. This is a really dumb question. I'll indulge it anyways. Jesus was a Jew. Are Jews white? I'll let you decide.
#26: Why does it seem that God is more likely to help someone who is a talented athlete than a starving child overseas?
He does? This is based on what assumption? That money and fame are somehow the goal of Christianity? Because they're not. Both the starving child overseas as well as the rich and successful athlete need Christ to save them from their sins.
#27: Why does God seem to hate Africa?
Wow, we're only to #27, and Mr. Mehta is really starting to stretch for content in his video. Why does God hate Africa? Really? I mean, how do you answer this one? God doesn't hate Africa and He doesn't hate America and He doesn't hate Iran either. He hates sin. And we're sinners. As we stand, in and of ourselves (I am talking about all humanity universally) we are under the wrath of God. We simply do not add up. That is why there is this whole Jesus guy. And stuff.
#28: If a group of people came to your community...and tried to convert you...would you listen to them...or dismiss them?
Of course I would listen to them. Why do you think I am a Christian? Because I just willy-nilly decided to be one? A lot of Christians are pretty knowledgeable about other religions.
#29: Does God speak to you, personally?
Yes, through His Word. AKA The Holy Scriptures. Does He personally whisper in my ear? No. And look at the results from people who claim that He does? They all hear different stuff and believe different things. So, along with Mr. Mehta, I will stand opposed to this idea.
However, when you look at Scripture in context, it all comes together. Dozens of books written by dozens of men over thousands of years all pointing to the same exact guy. Coincidence?
#30: If God spoke to you and told you to kill your child, would you do it?
He wouldn't do that. Yes, He did that with Abraham and Isaac in Genesis. But He then provided a ram, did He not? Plus, to treat that narrative as God being a capricious murderer is to completely miss the point: it points to Christ.
#31: If God told you to kill me, would you do it?
Nope. Thou shalt not murder. But then, God wouldn't tell me that.
#32: Is God always watching over you?
Yes. It's called the omniscience and omnipresence of God. He's watching you too.
#33 How about when you're on the toilet?
Yes. But then I really don't need to go any further with this question. It's nothing more than a shock tactic.
#34 What do you say to Muslims who believe the Quran is the Holy Book?
I really don't interact with Muslims much, if at all. Let's just put it this way. Allah contradicts himself in matters of morality repeatedly in the Quran.
#35: Are they wrong?
Yes. Historically, Islam is nothing more than a Christian heresy. It's a reaction against Christianity.
#36: Have you read the Quran?
Not all of it, but I have read some good sized chunks.
#37: And why do you so easily dismiss their Holy Book?
Oh I dunno...maybe because it says that Islam affirms the 10 commandments (without directly stating them) and then Allah tells Muslims to murder the infidels? Would that count as a big problem?
#38: And why do you get upset at atheists who dismiss yours?
I don't get upset with atheists who dismiss Scripture. But I have yet to see one actually deal with Scripture in it's proper context or even attempt to interpret it for what it is telling us. If an atheist did try to do such a thing, I would certainly hear them out.
#39: Is acting on one's homosexuality a sin?
Yes. but so is acting on coveting, stealing, lying, and heterosexual things.
#40: Is homosexuality itself a sin?
Yes. But again, so is lusting after my neighbor's wife.
#41: Do you believe gays and lesbians should have the right to get legally married?
No I do not. That being said, here is my stance. If the government wants to sanction same-sex marriages, go for it. Why do I say that? Because the government does not get to define what marriage is. Marriage is a Christian religious institution, not a state mandated partnership. The state only gets to sanction marriage insofar as they affirm what marriage actually is.
#42: Would your church ever marry a gay or lesbian couple?
No, my church would not. I am a Confessional Lutheran, we do not recognize gay marriages.
#43: If not, and you believe that they should have the right to marry, why do you remain in that church?
This one really doesn't apply to me, but the reverse does. If my church were to have gay marriages, I would leave. Absolutely.
#44: Why would God create people who are gay and then punish them?
This is not a good question. First of all, homosexuality is a sin among millions of other sins. God did not create sin. Scripture says that He created Adam good (and sin is not good). People are the sinners, not God. This question is a fallacy.
#45: If God is already sending gay people who act on their homosexuality to hell, why do so many Christians feel the need to persecute them while on Earth?
Define persecute. Are Christians killing homosexuals? I certainly hope not. If you're going to define persecution as refusing to bake them a cake or arguing that they shouldn't be married...well, that's just weak. That's not persecution.
Likewise, let us be clear. Christ died for the homosexual too. He died for all the sins of every person ever. Christ even died for Mr. Mehta's refusal to acknowledge Him.
I think this Friendly Atheist is grasping at straws with pretty much every question he poses. In essence, he is simply assuming that Christianity holds the same moral standards as (postmodern and becoming very liberal) American culture. Likewise, he is also assuming that his underlying moral convictions and standards are correct and should be held by everyone, including Christians.
I ask again, on what basis can he assume these cultural norms and moral standards? I posit that he simply cannot for the sole reason that he has no standard by which to impose these standards and questions.
I'll continue soon...
Grace and Peace
Friendly Atheist - Part 1
The video is here:
#23: Is there anything in your life right now that makes you doubt God's existence?
#24: If you did doubt God's existence, how would your life change?
The clear and easy answer here is no. I don't doubt the existence of God. There is simply way too much proof in creation that He exists. Plus you have the whole resurrection thing, the historicity of Christ, and so on. On the other hand, for sure, I too am a sinful man and I do doubt Him sometimes. But that is not because of anything He has done or not done, but because of our inherent human nature to suppress the truth about Him.
#25: Was Jesus white?
Got any more stupid questions? No, really. This is a really dumb question. I'll indulge it anyways. Jesus was a Jew. Are Jews white? I'll let you decide.
#26: Why does it seem that God is more likely to help someone who is a talented athlete than a starving child overseas?
He does? This is based on what assumption? That money and fame are somehow the goal of Christianity? Because they're not. Both the starving child overseas as well as the rich and successful athlete need Christ to save them from their sins.
#27: Why does God seem to hate Africa?
Wow, we're only to #27, and Mr. Mehta is really starting to stretch for content in his video. Why does God hate Africa? Really? I mean, how do you answer this one? God doesn't hate Africa and He doesn't hate America and He doesn't hate Iran either. He hates sin. And we're sinners. As we stand, in and of ourselves (I am talking about all humanity universally) we are under the wrath of God. We simply do not add up. That is why there is this whole Jesus guy. And stuff.
#28: If a group of people came to your community...and tried to convert you...would you listen to them...or dismiss them?
Of course I would listen to them. Why do you think I am a Christian? Because I just willy-nilly decided to be one? A lot of Christians are pretty knowledgeable about other religions.
#29: Does God speak to you, personally?
Yes, through His Word. AKA The Holy Scriptures. Does He personally whisper in my ear? No. And look at the results from people who claim that He does? They all hear different stuff and believe different things. So, along with Mr. Mehta, I will stand opposed to this idea.
However, when you look at Scripture in context, it all comes together. Dozens of books written by dozens of men over thousands of years all pointing to the same exact guy. Coincidence?
#30: If God spoke to you and told you to kill your child, would you do it?
He wouldn't do that. Yes, He did that with Abraham and Isaac in Genesis. But He then provided a ram, did He not? Plus, to treat that narrative as God being a capricious murderer is to completely miss the point: it points to Christ.
#31: If God told you to kill me, would you do it?
Nope. Thou shalt not murder. But then, God wouldn't tell me that.
#32: Is God always watching over you?
Yes. It's called the omniscience and omnipresence of God. He's watching you too.
#33 How about when you're on the toilet?
Yes. But then I really don't need to go any further with this question. It's nothing more than a shock tactic.
#34 What do you say to Muslims who believe the Quran is the Holy Book?
I really don't interact with Muslims much, if at all. Let's just put it this way. Allah contradicts himself in matters of morality repeatedly in the Quran.
#35: Are they wrong?
Yes. Historically, Islam is nothing more than a Christian heresy. It's a reaction against Christianity.
#36: Have you read the Quran?
Not all of it, but I have read some good sized chunks.
#37: And why do you so easily dismiss their Holy Book?
Oh I dunno...maybe because it says that Islam affirms the 10 commandments (without directly stating them) and then Allah tells Muslims to murder the infidels? Would that count as a big problem?
#38: And why do you get upset at atheists who dismiss yours?
I don't get upset with atheists who dismiss Scripture. But I have yet to see one actually deal with Scripture in it's proper context or even attempt to interpret it for what it is telling us. If an atheist did try to do such a thing, I would certainly hear them out.
#39: Is acting on one's homosexuality a sin?
Yes. but so is acting on coveting, stealing, lying, and heterosexual things.
#40: Is homosexuality itself a sin?
Yes. But again, so is lusting after my neighbor's wife.
#41: Do you believe gays and lesbians should have the right to get legally married?
No I do not. That being said, here is my stance. If the government wants to sanction same-sex marriages, go for it. Why do I say that? Because the government does not get to define what marriage is. Marriage is a Christian religious institution, not a state mandated partnership. The state only gets to sanction marriage insofar as they affirm what marriage actually is.
#42: Would your church ever marry a gay or lesbian couple?
No, my church would not. I am a Confessional Lutheran, we do not recognize gay marriages.
#43: If not, and you believe that they should have the right to marry, why do you remain in that church?
This one really doesn't apply to me, but the reverse does. If my church were to have gay marriages, I would leave. Absolutely.
#44: Why would God create people who are gay and then punish them?
This is not a good question. First of all, homosexuality is a sin among millions of other sins. God did not create sin. Scripture says that He created Adam good (and sin is not good). People are the sinners, not God. This question is a fallacy.
#45: If God is already sending gay people who act on their homosexuality to hell, why do so many Christians feel the need to persecute them while on Earth?
Define persecute. Are Christians killing homosexuals? I certainly hope not. If you're going to define persecution as refusing to bake them a cake or arguing that they shouldn't be married...well, that's just weak. That's not persecution.
Likewise, let us be clear. Christ died for the homosexual too. He died for all the sins of every person ever. Christ even died for Mr. Mehta's refusal to acknowledge Him.
I think this Friendly Atheist is grasping at straws with pretty much every question he poses. In essence, he is simply assuming that Christianity holds the same moral standards as (postmodern and becoming very liberal) American culture. Likewise, he is also assuming that his underlying moral convictions and standards are correct and should be held by everyone, including Christians.
I ask again, on what basis can he assume these cultural norms and moral standards? I posit that he simply cannot for the sole reason that he has no standard by which to impose these standards and questions.
I'll continue soon...
Grace and Peace
2/22/15
That Pesky Friendly Atheist Just Debunked Christianity - Part 1
I came across a video on youtube the other day by Hemant Mehta, otherwise known as "The Friendly Atheist." I think the moniker is a good one for him, to be honest. His tone is very amicable and, well, friendly. The video is titled "78 Questions for Christians." Here it is:
78 Questions for Christians
After watching the video all the way through, I am completely and totally convinced that pretty much every argument Mr. Mehta is making or assuming here are reactions against American cultural Christianity and not Christianity proper. In short, Mr. Mehta is burning down a lot of scarecrows and he assumes way too much. Not to mention, he is unwittingly stealing from the Christian worldview. I'll try to show why as I answer some of his questions.
He begins:
1. Is Anne Frank burning in hell right now?
2. How about Mahatma Gandhi?
3. Is Fred Phelps in heaven because he believed in the divinity of Jesus?
These three questions belong together. Here is my answer:
1. I don't know. But I do know that all those who repent and believe the Gospel are saved. I do know that baptism now saves you. I do not know if Anne Frank was a Christian by the end of her life. I also know that Anne Frank did nothing to deserve to go to heaven. And neither did I, for that matter.
2. Same answer as #1.
3. Still, don't know. Fred Phelps did some stupid stuff and had some stupid bad teaching.
The biggest problem though is that Mr. Mehta assumes that Anne Frank and Mahatma Gandhi were overall better people than Fred Phelps. There are two major problems with this.
First, none of them are good people from the standpoint of Christianity. Neither am I and neither is Mr. Mehta; even though he seems very friendly and calls himself such. Heck, I would love to sit down and shoot the bull with the guy. We would probably get along just fine.
But here it is: Romans 3:23. We're all sinners, including Anne Frank, Gandhi, and Freddie boy. Oh, including Mr. Mehta and myself too. Certainly Mr. Mehta may have an argument against this because most likely he does not believe in sin. But that is kind of irrelevant to the topic at hand because he is using these questions to inadvertently attack Christianity.
The other problem Mr. Mehta has is: On what basis does he judge Anne Frank and Mahatma Gandhi to be overall better people than Fred Phelps? This is clearly what he is implying. I know from another video by Mr. Mehta that he does not like the question "Where do you get your morals?" OK, fine and dandy. But what I am asking more specifically is: What is the foundation for his moral judgments? What specifically in his worldview allows him to say that Anne Frank and Mahatma Gandhi are morally superior to Fred Phelps? Ultimately, he is left with his own opinion, or the opinion of the culture. Both of these will get a person into deep trouble eventually. Some people openly condone murder and other things. Some cultures openly condone genocide. Who is to say they are incorrect for this, based on a worldview (atheism) that has no ultimate standard for truth? Mr. Mehta may protest here and argue that those things are wrong, but all he is really doing is stealing from a worldview that has an absolute standard that actually says those things are wrong and tells you why: Christianity. All Mr. Mehta is proving here is that law is written on his conscience. Read St. Paul's epistle to the Romans, chapters 1 and 2. Back to the questions:
4. Should a killer who genuinely repents be able to go to heaven?
Yep. This is why it's called grace and forgiveness. This is why Christ died for sins. St. Paul and Moses were killers, and according to Christianity they were in Christ.
Here Mr. Mehta exposes another fatal flaw in his worldview. He implies that being kind and friendly and not killing people should allow a person to go to heaven. Here is what Christianity teaches: Mr. Mehta and myself are no better than that killer. Ultimately, although he has no religion per se, in reality he is posing questions towards a religion of law and works and not grace. Which is completely not what Christianity is.
Likewise, Christ died for the killer just as He did for Mr. Mehta.
5. Should a kind-hearted atheist be forced to go burn in hell for all eternity?
6. What about any non-Christian, good person? Should they be going to hell?
More flawed thinking here. First of all, there is no such thing as a "kind-hearted atheist." Heck, there is no such thing as a kind-hearted person. And I point the reader back above: On what basis does Mr. Mehta call people good?
Here it is: God's standard is Himself. His requirement is absolute perfection. Every atheist in the world does not meet up to that. Guess what? Every Christian in the world does not meet up to that either. That is why Christ died and rose for us. Because we can't do it. It's impossible.
7. Would you be happy in heaven if someone you loved was in hell?
It only took him seven questions to get to a decent one. But this is a tough one that I might have a harder time answering. I will say yeah, I will be happy in heaven, since Scripture says that God will take away all our sorrow and tears and so on. But the thought of someone I love in hell is terrifying, to be sure.
8. If your son or daughter were dying...would you just pray for them or would you take them to a doctor?
9. And if you say you would do both, which one do you think has more of an impact?
Both. God can use miraculous means, but He usually doesn't. Likewise, God uses the natural world to save the natural world, physically as well. I also think that Mr. Mehta is assuming an un-Christian theology of prayer here too. He seems to imply that Christianity teaches that prayer is a magical formula to change God's mind into giving us physical healing and all sorts of benefits here on earth. Well, that is simply not true. Prayer is essentially thankfulness to God for what He has already accomplished at Calvary on our behalf.
The "more of an impact" question is in the same vein. It assumes a sloppy theology of prayer.
10. Whose prayers, does God answer?
11. And if it's ultimately God's will what happens, why even bother praying?
12. If you have cancer right now, what's going to help you more? Drugs or prayer?
13. Let's say you had an amputated limb. Would prayer ever bring it back?
14. If you've heard stories about an amputated limb growing back, how come there are never any cameras around when anything like that happens?
15. How come there are never any cameras around when any miracles happen?
16. If you had an exam coming up, what do you think would help you get a higher score? Prayer or studying for the test?
17. If you prayed for me over youtube right now, do you think I would know it somehow?
18. What matters to God more, the quantity of the prayers or the quality?
19. If it's the quantity that matters, how come the most popular team doesn't always win the Super Bowl?
20. And if it's the quality that matters...how come people close to us die no matter what we say to God?
21. Is it possible that your prayers have no supernatural effect and only serve to make you feel better?
22. And if that were true, would you ever admit it?
OK, I am going to try to answer all these questions on prayer in one fell swoop. Again, Mr. Mehta assumes that prayer is a way to get God to act on our behalf in the physical realm. But this is simply not what prayer is. It's our chief means of thankfulness. Do we pray for people? Yeah, of course we do. But what is our biggest prayer for them? Not physical healing. Not money. None of that, because none of that really means a darn thing in the end. We pray for their salvation; their deliverance from the bondage of the law and the reception of the forgiveness of their sins.
Many of these prayer questions really miss the point. Who gets their prayers answered by God? Well, first properly define prayer and properly define what it means for God to answer a prayer. Why bother praying if God's will is always done? In short, you have to learn some theology in order to answer this. Christianity is not fatalism and we are commanded to pray. That is enough for us. If I have cancer right now, drugs will help me more physically and prayer will help me more spiritually. If I had an amputated limb, no, my prayer would not bring it back. God is concerned with saving sinners, not giving us our arm back. How come there are never any cameras around? Ask the phony Pentecostal money grubbers who make these false claims in the first place. Your question here is not an argument with Christianity, it's an argument with false teaching. Heck, I'll attack that stuff much more strongly than Mr. Mehta will. How come there are never any cameras around when miracles happen? Because the purpose of miracles (in Scripture) was to show that Christ is true God and His Apostles are teaching the truth about Him. They were (past tense) a validation of Christ's ministry. Hebrews 1:1: ...in these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son... This is to say that miracles served a very specific purpose and that purpose was to show that Christ is truly the God-man who has authority over everything and that He is the Truth.
If I prayed for you over youtube, would you know it somehow? Nope. Next question.
What matters to God more, quantity or quality? How about a repentant and regenerated heart? This is kind of an irrelevant question and thus #19 and #20 are as well. Although I will say regarding #20, everyone dies. It's called sin. Christ saves us from that. Hence the resurrection at the last day.
Is it possible my prayers have no supernatural effect? Perhaps. But it also depends on what is being referred to. If what is being asked is why doesn't God bring back the legs of war veterans when we pray for that, then no, they have no supernatural effect. But if we're talking about Christ growing His church, then yeah, they do.
Would I admit it? Yes I would.
Ultimately, Mr. Mehta is lighting up a bunch of dry hay. But sure, burn them suckers down if you want to. Carry on.
I'll get to more in my next post. 78 questions is a lot.
78 Questions for Christians
After watching the video all the way through, I am completely and totally convinced that pretty much every argument Mr. Mehta is making or assuming here are reactions against American cultural Christianity and not Christianity proper. In short, Mr. Mehta is burning down a lot of scarecrows and he assumes way too much. Not to mention, he is unwittingly stealing from the Christian worldview. I'll try to show why as I answer some of his questions.
He begins:
1. Is Anne Frank burning in hell right now?
2. How about Mahatma Gandhi?
3. Is Fred Phelps in heaven because he believed in the divinity of Jesus?
These three questions belong together. Here is my answer:
1. I don't know. But I do know that all those who repent and believe the Gospel are saved. I do know that baptism now saves you. I do not know if Anne Frank was a Christian by the end of her life. I also know that Anne Frank did nothing to deserve to go to heaven. And neither did I, for that matter.
2. Same answer as #1.
3. Still, don't know. Fred Phelps did some stupid stuff and had some stupid bad teaching.
The biggest problem though is that Mr. Mehta assumes that Anne Frank and Mahatma Gandhi were overall better people than Fred Phelps. There are two major problems with this.
First, none of them are good people from the standpoint of Christianity. Neither am I and neither is Mr. Mehta; even though he seems very friendly and calls himself such. Heck, I would love to sit down and shoot the bull with the guy. We would probably get along just fine.
But here it is: Romans 3:23. We're all sinners, including Anne Frank, Gandhi, and Freddie boy. Oh, including Mr. Mehta and myself too. Certainly Mr. Mehta may have an argument against this because most likely he does not believe in sin. But that is kind of irrelevant to the topic at hand because he is using these questions to inadvertently attack Christianity.
The other problem Mr. Mehta has is: On what basis does he judge Anne Frank and Mahatma Gandhi to be overall better people than Fred Phelps? This is clearly what he is implying. I know from another video by Mr. Mehta that he does not like the question "Where do you get your morals?" OK, fine and dandy. But what I am asking more specifically is: What is the foundation for his moral judgments? What specifically in his worldview allows him to say that Anne Frank and Mahatma Gandhi are morally superior to Fred Phelps? Ultimately, he is left with his own opinion, or the opinion of the culture. Both of these will get a person into deep trouble eventually. Some people openly condone murder and other things. Some cultures openly condone genocide. Who is to say they are incorrect for this, based on a worldview (atheism) that has no ultimate standard for truth? Mr. Mehta may protest here and argue that those things are wrong, but all he is really doing is stealing from a worldview that has an absolute standard that actually says those things are wrong and tells you why: Christianity. All Mr. Mehta is proving here is that law is written on his conscience. Read St. Paul's epistle to the Romans, chapters 1 and 2. Back to the questions:
4. Should a killer who genuinely repents be able to go to heaven?
Yep. This is why it's called grace and forgiveness. This is why Christ died for sins. St. Paul and Moses were killers, and according to Christianity they were in Christ.
Here Mr. Mehta exposes another fatal flaw in his worldview. He implies that being kind and friendly and not killing people should allow a person to go to heaven. Here is what Christianity teaches: Mr. Mehta and myself are no better than that killer. Ultimately, although he has no religion per se, in reality he is posing questions towards a religion of law and works and not grace. Which is completely not what Christianity is.
Likewise, Christ died for the killer just as He did for Mr. Mehta.
5. Should a kind-hearted atheist be forced to go burn in hell for all eternity?
6. What about any non-Christian, good person? Should they be going to hell?
More flawed thinking here. First of all, there is no such thing as a "kind-hearted atheist." Heck, there is no such thing as a kind-hearted person. And I point the reader back above: On what basis does Mr. Mehta call people good?
Here it is: God's standard is Himself. His requirement is absolute perfection. Every atheist in the world does not meet up to that. Guess what? Every Christian in the world does not meet up to that either. That is why Christ died and rose for us. Because we can't do it. It's impossible.
7. Would you be happy in heaven if someone you loved was in hell?
It only took him seven questions to get to a decent one. But this is a tough one that I might have a harder time answering. I will say yeah, I will be happy in heaven, since Scripture says that God will take away all our sorrow and tears and so on. But the thought of someone I love in hell is terrifying, to be sure.
8. If your son or daughter were dying...would you just pray for them or would you take them to a doctor?
9. And if you say you would do both, which one do you think has more of an impact?
Both. God can use miraculous means, but He usually doesn't. Likewise, God uses the natural world to save the natural world, physically as well. I also think that Mr. Mehta is assuming an un-Christian theology of prayer here too. He seems to imply that Christianity teaches that prayer is a magical formula to change God's mind into giving us physical healing and all sorts of benefits here on earth. Well, that is simply not true. Prayer is essentially thankfulness to God for what He has already accomplished at Calvary on our behalf.
The "more of an impact" question is in the same vein. It assumes a sloppy theology of prayer.
10. Whose prayers, does God answer?
11. And if it's ultimately God's will what happens, why even bother praying?
12. If you have cancer right now, what's going to help you more? Drugs or prayer?
13. Let's say you had an amputated limb. Would prayer ever bring it back?
14. If you've heard stories about an amputated limb growing back, how come there are never any cameras around when anything like that happens?
15. How come there are never any cameras around when any miracles happen?
16. If you had an exam coming up, what do you think would help you get a higher score? Prayer or studying for the test?
17. If you prayed for me over youtube right now, do you think I would know it somehow?
18. What matters to God more, the quantity of the prayers or the quality?
19. If it's the quantity that matters, how come the most popular team doesn't always win the Super Bowl?
20. And if it's the quality that matters...how come people close to us die no matter what we say to God?
21. Is it possible that your prayers have no supernatural effect and only serve to make you feel better?
22. And if that were true, would you ever admit it?
OK, I am going to try to answer all these questions on prayer in one fell swoop. Again, Mr. Mehta assumes that prayer is a way to get God to act on our behalf in the physical realm. But this is simply not what prayer is. It's our chief means of thankfulness. Do we pray for people? Yeah, of course we do. But what is our biggest prayer for them? Not physical healing. Not money. None of that, because none of that really means a darn thing in the end. We pray for their salvation; their deliverance from the bondage of the law and the reception of the forgiveness of their sins.
Many of these prayer questions really miss the point. Who gets their prayers answered by God? Well, first properly define prayer and properly define what it means for God to answer a prayer. Why bother praying if God's will is always done? In short, you have to learn some theology in order to answer this. Christianity is not fatalism and we are commanded to pray. That is enough for us. If I have cancer right now, drugs will help me more physically and prayer will help me more spiritually. If I had an amputated limb, no, my prayer would not bring it back. God is concerned with saving sinners, not giving us our arm back. How come there are never any cameras around? Ask the phony Pentecostal money grubbers who make these false claims in the first place. Your question here is not an argument with Christianity, it's an argument with false teaching. Heck, I'll attack that stuff much more strongly than Mr. Mehta will. How come there are never any cameras around when miracles happen? Because the purpose of miracles (in Scripture) was to show that Christ is true God and His Apostles are teaching the truth about Him. They were (past tense) a validation of Christ's ministry. Hebrews 1:1: ...in these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son... This is to say that miracles served a very specific purpose and that purpose was to show that Christ is truly the God-man who has authority over everything and that He is the Truth.
If I prayed for you over youtube, would you know it somehow? Nope. Next question.
What matters to God more, quantity or quality? How about a repentant and regenerated heart? This is kind of an irrelevant question and thus #19 and #20 are as well. Although I will say regarding #20, everyone dies. It's called sin. Christ saves us from that. Hence the resurrection at the last day.
Is it possible my prayers have no supernatural effect? Perhaps. But it also depends on what is being referred to. If what is being asked is why doesn't God bring back the legs of war veterans when we pray for that, then no, they have no supernatural effect. But if we're talking about Christ growing His church, then yeah, they do.
Would I admit it? Yes I would.
Ultimately, Mr. Mehta is lighting up a bunch of dry hay. But sure, burn them suckers down if you want to. Carry on.
I'll get to more in my next post. 78 questions is a lot.
1/24/14
Salvation for Non-Lutherans
"Does the Lutheran church believe that non-Lutherans will NOT be allowed into heaven - Say for example Methodists who are follows and believers in Jesus Christ?"
Carter,
No! Thankfully salvation does not rest upon a church membership, logo, or title, but upon Christ and Him crucified. Those who know and believe this good news about who Jesus is and what he has done are equally forgiven, declared righteous and covered by the blood of Jesus.
In fact, the Lutheran understanding of salvation makes this point abundantly clear. We understand faith and new life in Christ as a completely free gift miraculously worked by God himself, the Holy Spirit, through means. Simply put, "God does it all".
How does he give us this grace? Through the "means of grace", that is, the Word and Sacraments. The Gospel is the "power of God unto salvation" whether this gospel in poured into our ears, projected into our eyes, trickled over our head and so forth. Simply put, "God does it through his word."
Now human beings all have a sinful nature which constantly distorts the promises of God and seeks all sorts of lies and idolatry. Wherever sinners get together, whether they wear a Lutheran, Methodist, or any other hat, there will be errors, rivalries, and schism. That is why we can be thankful that "God does it all, through the word, in spite of us".
Though on earth there are many denominations, creeds and splinter groups, ultimately there is still "one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism". Church unity is not a goal to be pursued, but a mystery to be confessed. A person may be sitting in a church hearing all sorts of false teachings and errors, but as long as the word of God is heard, read, and so forth, the Holy Spirit will be there working faith, life, and salvation.
Think of it in terms of input and output. The input of salvation is the same everywhere. God puts the Gospel into the hearts of all Christians by his means of grace. Spiritually, in the new man, everybody knows and trusts this truth perfectly.
The output varies from person to person, church to church. As long as we are alive on this earth, our sinful flesh and mind, the old man, will not be able to understand and confess the mystery of faith perfectly. Some outward public confessions of faith are very in line with Scripture. Some are less so. It is certainly a noble goal to try to formally align oneself with the most outwardly faithful creed. It is also good to avoid false teaching. But salvation does not hinge upon this. Salvation is built of the rock of Christ. Nothing in this world, not even our own selves, can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus.
Blessings in Christ,
Pastor Harris
11/25/13
You Can't Account for Nuthin' Yo
It's time that I, as a Confessional Lutheran, tip my cap to some Calvinists. After all, I used to be a pretty dogmatic one. In my opinion, one thing the Calvinists do better than us Lutherans is apologetics involving atheism. They're much more involved in that sphere, and I think they do an excellent job of it.
There are two basic types of Christian apologetics approaches. The first one is called evidentialism or empiricism. That is to say, people look at all the visible evidence and argue for the existence of God. Or, in more general terms, they argue for the existence of intelligent design, or a Creator. Some Calvinists argue in this manner. R.C. Sproul would be a good example. The formidable Christian apologist William Lane Craig would be another example, although Craig is clearly not a Calvinist.
The other - and in my opinion better - apologetic approach toward athsism is called presuppositional apologetics. Presuppositionalism cuts directly to the heart of the matter in places where evidentialism fails.
Evidentialism surely has its place in apologetics; especially where evidentialism argues for Christ and not just for some random "god." Arguing from the historicity of the resurrection would be one such example.
The reason presuppositionalism is proper when doing apologetics with atheists is that evidentialism fails. We can present all the evidence in the world and we're going to point out that it points to the existence of God, while the atheist is just going to interpret the evidence in a different manner.
The bottom line is that since we both will look at the same evidence and argue for different conclusions - we must look directly at the root of the worldviews. If the atheist is going to try to force a "burden of proof" on us, and ask for irrefutable empirical evidence, well, they can't offer any either. And in effect, this "burden of proof" demand is nothing more than a silly canard. We can give them all the proof they need but they'll deny it. Not only that, but they're actually making the same claim, just in a negation sort of way. To put it bluntly, we have every right to ask for "burden of proof" too. In short, these demands are nonsense. We both will look at the evidence and come up with what our underlying worldview says the evidence means. That's just human nature. Then they'll fall back on science. Well, Christians aren't against science, you know. The irony of it is that the atheist really has no basis whatever for using science or logic or reason or mathematics. Of course, they use such things and they are right to do so, because the laws of logic, mathematics, and science are absolute. As an example, 1+1=2 in all times for all people.
But therein lies the folly and internal disaster of atheism. They can't account for any of these things. Their worldview does not allow for it.
Are the laws of mathematics absolute and unchanging? Well, yeah, they are. What about logic? That's the same too. So when the atheist attempts to say that the laws of logic and mathematics are societal conventions, they've committed a major error in one of two directions. First, they could be admitting without realizing it, that the laws of mathematics and logic can change, because people change. And if we invented these as conventions in the first place, what happens when someone comes up with a new convention? That's silly of course, and the atheist would say as much. The other problem is that they could be asserting that human reason is absolute in its deductions. But herein lies a massive double-edged sword. Yeah, human reason changes and sees things differently about different things and such. That's true. But human reason did not create the laws of mathematics or logic. We discovered them perhaps, but they already existed and were already absolutely true.
So, what made those laws absolutely true? Why are they like that? The atheist has no answer. In fact, the atheist ultimately cannot account for anything. The Christian does and can.
Presup. It's what's for dinner.
There are two basic types of Christian apologetics approaches. The first one is called evidentialism or empiricism. That is to say, people look at all the visible evidence and argue for the existence of God. Or, in more general terms, they argue for the existence of intelligent design, or a Creator. Some Calvinists argue in this manner. R.C. Sproul would be a good example. The formidable Christian apologist William Lane Craig would be another example, although Craig is clearly not a Calvinist.
The other - and in my opinion better - apologetic approach toward athsism is called presuppositional apologetics. Presuppositionalism cuts directly to the heart of the matter in places where evidentialism fails.
Evidentialism surely has its place in apologetics; especially where evidentialism argues for Christ and not just for some random "god." Arguing from the historicity of the resurrection would be one such example.
The reason presuppositionalism is proper when doing apologetics with atheists is that evidentialism fails. We can present all the evidence in the world and we're going to point out that it points to the existence of God, while the atheist is just going to interpret the evidence in a different manner.
The bottom line is that since we both will look at the same evidence and argue for different conclusions - we must look directly at the root of the worldviews. If the atheist is going to try to force a "burden of proof" on us, and ask for irrefutable empirical evidence, well, they can't offer any either. And in effect, this "burden of proof" demand is nothing more than a silly canard. We can give them all the proof they need but they'll deny it. Not only that, but they're actually making the same claim, just in a negation sort of way. To put it bluntly, we have every right to ask for "burden of proof" too. In short, these demands are nonsense. We both will look at the evidence and come up with what our underlying worldview says the evidence means. That's just human nature. Then they'll fall back on science. Well, Christians aren't against science, you know. The irony of it is that the atheist really has no basis whatever for using science or logic or reason or mathematics. Of course, they use such things and they are right to do so, because the laws of logic, mathematics, and science are absolute. As an example, 1+1=2 in all times for all people.
But therein lies the folly and internal disaster of atheism. They can't account for any of these things. Their worldview does not allow for it.
Are the laws of mathematics absolute and unchanging? Well, yeah, they are. What about logic? That's the same too. So when the atheist attempts to say that the laws of logic and mathematics are societal conventions, they've committed a major error in one of two directions. First, they could be admitting without realizing it, that the laws of mathematics and logic can change, because people change. And if we invented these as conventions in the first place, what happens when someone comes up with a new convention? That's silly of course, and the atheist would say as much. The other problem is that they could be asserting that human reason is absolute in its deductions. But herein lies a massive double-edged sword. Yeah, human reason changes and sees things differently about different things and such. That's true. But human reason did not create the laws of mathematics or logic. We discovered them perhaps, but they already existed and were already absolutely true.
So, what made those laws absolutely true? Why are they like that? The atheist has no answer. In fact, the atheist ultimately cannot account for anything. The Christian does and can.
Presup. It's what's for dinner.
10/31/13
Reformation Day Isn't Dumb...But Your Post Sure Was...
Reformation Day is dumb. That is the title of a recent blog post over on the patheos network posted by Jonathan Ryan, a former Presbyterian who says:
"As many of you recall, I just resigned my Presbyterian ordination back in April. It was not an “I’m angry at Evangelicals” decision. It was a deeper, more profound reconnection with the Catholicism of my youth. While I’ve not “taken the Tiber plunge” just yet, much of my system of Christian thought is now fully Catholic."
So, from the outset, Mr. Ryan, who describes himself as a novelist, blogger, and columnist, lays out his hand on the table. He's a Roman Catholic, or at the very least, heading in that direction at a very fast rate.
Awesome, fair enough. There are worse places to head to than Rome. Within Rome you will find a high view of Scripture, a high view of grace, and a high view of the Sacraments, even though they have too many of them. :P
Mr. Ryan's blog post can be found here, by the way:
Reformation Day Is Dumb
After Mr. Ryan's introduction, the shenanigans start to fly. He mixes truth with opinion, strawmen, and bait and switch techniques.
"Luther saw (rightly) the rampant corruption in the Papacy, that had become mired in local political intrigue."
So, the author starts by making Luther look like a good guy. He saw the corruption within Rome and wanted to address the issues. The author admits openly that there was rampant corruption within the Papacy at the time. And really, this is not really historically debatable. There was, and Luther confronted it.
The author continues later in the article, saying, "Does this mean that the Protestant Reformers didn’t have a good reason for questioning the Church? No. In fact, as we’ve already discussed, they did."
So then, we have an author who agrees that the Roman Church at the time needed overhaul. So far so good.
It's everything else he writes that is the problem...
Here is where he starts dropping the ball in serious fashion. I quote, "Still, I’m always amazed at how people think Luther was a lone voice in the wilderness. That just isn’t so. Many voices in the church were rising against the sinful practices rampant in the church at the time."
Well, I don't think we would dispute this either, to be honest, not to mention, I don't think many of us think that Luther was a lone voice in the wilderness. Sure, perhaps there are people who think that. But does that mean Reformation Day is dumb? Hardly.
I look in vain through this article to find any reasons the author actually gives as to why Reformation Day is dumb. All I can find is completely unrelated opinions and sloppy argumentation.
The only thing I can find is the typical worn out Roman Catholic argument regarding unity. But this is nothing more than a facade. Unity in what? Allegiance to the Pope? Rome is not as united as they would have us believe.
He quotes a conversation he had with a Protestant pastor friend of his: “You know, I think I’ve got it, celebrating Reformation Day is like celebrating a divorce. Maybe it was necessary, but not something you really build a holiday around. And, I can’t help thinking that God isn’t a huge fan of what happened after the Reformation.”
Ah...I got it now. These guys don't understand what Reformation Day is. Are Mr. Ryan and his friend really that obtuse? Apparently so.
The conclusions and ideas of the author don't make any sense. In short, he twists history in some ways after laying a true historical foundation. That, at best, is shoddy scholarship and misunderstanding, and at worst, is dishonest. In the best case, he should have never posted the blog. In the worst case, he's bearing false witness against his brothers.
"I always find it interesting that my Protestant friends who go on about “The Bible Alone” tend to skip large parts about the passion God has for the unity of His people."
"Jesus dedicates a long prayer to Christian unity and tells the disciples that, “All men will know you’re my disciples by the love you have for one another.”
"The problem is, the Reformers set a torch to an already volatile political situation. The early Reformers didn’t break from the church until the political pressure became too much. All of them did so with great reluctance and with sadness. Certainly, most of them didn’t celebrate it. They knew, deep down, they might have done more damage than good."
These statements reveal his faulty conclusions. What is he trying to tell us here?
1. He is telling us that division for the sake of truth is wrong. Unity is more important, even if that unity pitches some grievous false teachings and massive corruption.
2. Deep down the Reformers knew what they did was wrong and it is nothing to celebrate.
3. Protestants don't take the unity passages of Scripture seriously.
All three of these assumptions and ideas given by the author are completely foolish. The first one, to quote a phrase from the author, is "profoundly unbiblical." Holy Scripture nowhere encourages us to tolerate corruption or false teaching for the sake of unity. If anything, we are to confront it and get rid of it.
The second one is nothing more than a nonsense opinion. The author is telling us that he knows the Reformers knew they were doing something wrong. I don't think the author gets it here. At all. Martin Luther and the other Reformers were not happy about leaving the Roman Church. That's totally not the point. Luther was kicked out by the Pope for challenging corruption. Surely the author knows that. Luther did not want to leave the Church. The Pope did not want to hear what Luther had to say and excommunicated him. They liked their corruption too much, evidently. Johann Tetzel, anyone?
So yeah, let's stop trying to authoritatively peer into the souls of the Reformers and tell us what they were thinking.
The third one is a strawman. Now I will agree that too many Protestants use division as a badge of honor. I will give you that one Mr. Ryan. But speaking for traditional Reformation Churches, I will not concede that at all.
See, we Lutherans (and Reformed) take our Holy Scripture very seriously. We hold it to be the inspired and inerrant Word of God - just like you Romanists do, by the way. We see that there are many truths contained within that are non-negotiable. Why, oh why, would we desire unity over GOD'S truth? Do we desire unity? You bet we do, because Jesus' prayer for unity is part of that truth contained in Holy Scripture.
So what if there were other voices in the Roman Church calling for Reform at the time? The sad fact of the matter is, all of those other voices didn't have the guts to stand up for truth and instead succumbed to corruption and error. Men like Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, and Zwingli saw truth as greater than false unity around error and corruption. They were the ones who actually took a stand.
But we argue, on Scriptural grounds, that unity must be in the truth. We must be intolerant of false doctrine. We must be intolerant of corruption. And when churches refuse to fix their corruption and false teaching - like medieval Rome - Reform is necessary.
Reformation Day is a celebration of truth, not of division. We rejoice that God worked through Luther and others to bring the truth of His Holy Word to us. We rejoice that God worked through Luther and others to fight the horrible corruption of the time. By the way, in case you've been following, Rome has never repented of their doctrine of indulgences and salvation for sale. You can get one by following the Pope on twitter now. Or so I hear.
We get it man. You don't like Reformation Day. The least you could do is tell that you don't like it because you're a Roman Catholic. That would be fine. But posting an article that argues from a stance of foolishness while trying in vain to hide behind a few historical facts doesn't work. Baiting and switching and then moving on to nothing but opinion and strawmen doesn't work either.
So this Halloween, I'm dressing up as Luther. My wife and all my kids are dressing up as things completely unrelated to the Reformation. And we're going to walk around the 'hood and get us some candy; knowing that we are hid in Christ.
You ought to take the blog down. It's embarrassing to the well-thought Roman Catholics I know. This article, as it is written, is a joke. You're a novelist, blogger, and columnist. Get rid of the clown shoes and the big red nose, be a man, and either take the thing down or rewrite it and make it better. As it reads right now, it's kind of an embarrassment. Surely you know better.
"As many of you recall, I just resigned my Presbyterian ordination back in April. It was not an “I’m angry at Evangelicals” decision. It was a deeper, more profound reconnection with the Catholicism of my youth. While I’ve not “taken the Tiber plunge” just yet, much of my system of Christian thought is now fully Catholic."
So, from the outset, Mr. Ryan, who describes himself as a novelist, blogger, and columnist, lays out his hand on the table. He's a Roman Catholic, or at the very least, heading in that direction at a very fast rate.
Awesome, fair enough. There are worse places to head to than Rome. Within Rome you will find a high view of Scripture, a high view of grace, and a high view of the Sacraments, even though they have too many of them. :P
Mr. Ryan's blog post can be found here, by the way:
Reformation Day Is Dumb
After Mr. Ryan's introduction, the shenanigans start to fly. He mixes truth with opinion, strawmen, and bait and switch techniques.
The Bait...
"Luther saw (rightly) the rampant corruption in the Papacy, that had become mired in local political intrigue."
So, the author starts by making Luther look like a good guy. He saw the corruption within Rome and wanted to address the issues. The author admits openly that there was rampant corruption within the Papacy at the time. And really, this is not really historically debatable. There was, and Luther confronted it.
The author continues later in the article, saying, "Does this mean that the Protestant Reformers didn’t have a good reason for questioning the Church? No. In fact, as we’ve already discussed, they did."
So then, we have an author who agrees that the Roman Church at the time needed overhaul. So far so good.
It's everything else he writes that is the problem...
Nonsense Commences...
Here is where he starts dropping the ball in serious fashion. I quote, "Still, I’m always amazed at how people think Luther was a lone voice in the wilderness. That just isn’t so. Many voices in the church were rising against the sinful practices rampant in the church at the time."
Well, I don't think we would dispute this either, to be honest, not to mention, I don't think many of us think that Luther was a lone voice in the wilderness. Sure, perhaps there are people who think that. But does that mean Reformation Day is dumb? Hardly.
I look in vain through this article to find any reasons the author actually gives as to why Reformation Day is dumb. All I can find is completely unrelated opinions and sloppy argumentation.
The only thing I can find is the typical worn out Roman Catholic argument regarding unity. But this is nothing more than a facade. Unity in what? Allegiance to the Pope? Rome is not as united as they would have us believe.
He quotes a conversation he had with a Protestant pastor friend of his: “You know, I think I’ve got it, celebrating Reformation Day is like celebrating a divorce. Maybe it was necessary, but not something you really build a holiday around. And, I can’t help thinking that God isn’t a huge fan of what happened after the Reformation.”
Ah...I got it now. These guys don't understand what Reformation Day is. Are Mr. Ryan and his friend really that obtuse? Apparently so.
The conclusions and ideas of the author don't make any sense. In short, he twists history in some ways after laying a true historical foundation. That, at best, is shoddy scholarship and misunderstanding, and at worst, is dishonest. In the best case, he should have never posted the blog. In the worst case, he's bearing false witness against his brothers.
"I always find it interesting that my Protestant friends who go on about “The Bible Alone” tend to skip large parts about the passion God has for the unity of His people."
"Jesus dedicates a long prayer to Christian unity and tells the disciples that, “All men will know you’re my disciples by the love you have for one another.”
"The problem is, the Reformers set a torch to an already volatile political situation. The early Reformers didn’t break from the church until the political pressure became too much. All of them did so with great reluctance and with sadness. Certainly, most of them didn’t celebrate it. They knew, deep down, they might have done more damage than good."
These statements reveal his faulty conclusions. What is he trying to tell us here?
1. He is telling us that division for the sake of truth is wrong. Unity is more important, even if that unity pitches some grievous false teachings and massive corruption.
2. Deep down the Reformers knew what they did was wrong and it is nothing to celebrate.
3. Protestants don't take the unity passages of Scripture seriously.
All three of these assumptions and ideas given by the author are completely foolish. The first one, to quote a phrase from the author, is "profoundly unbiblical." Holy Scripture nowhere encourages us to tolerate corruption or false teaching for the sake of unity. If anything, we are to confront it and get rid of it.
The second one is nothing more than a nonsense opinion. The author is telling us that he knows the Reformers knew they were doing something wrong. I don't think the author gets it here. At all. Martin Luther and the other Reformers were not happy about leaving the Roman Church. That's totally not the point. Luther was kicked out by the Pope for challenging corruption. Surely the author knows that. Luther did not want to leave the Church. The Pope did not want to hear what Luther had to say and excommunicated him. They liked their corruption too much, evidently. Johann Tetzel, anyone?
So yeah, let's stop trying to authoritatively peer into the souls of the Reformers and tell us what they were thinking.
The third one is a strawman. Now I will agree that too many Protestants use division as a badge of honor. I will give you that one Mr. Ryan. But speaking for traditional Reformation Churches, I will not concede that at all.
See, we Lutherans (and Reformed) take our Holy Scripture very seriously. We hold it to be the inspired and inerrant Word of God - just like you Romanists do, by the way. We see that there are many truths contained within that are non-negotiable. Why, oh why, would we desire unity over GOD'S truth? Do we desire unity? You bet we do, because Jesus' prayer for unity is part of that truth contained in Holy Scripture.
So what if there were other voices in the Roman Church calling for Reform at the time? The sad fact of the matter is, all of those other voices didn't have the guts to stand up for truth and instead succumbed to corruption and error. Men like Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, and Zwingli saw truth as greater than false unity around error and corruption. They were the ones who actually took a stand.
But we argue, on Scriptural grounds, that unity must be in the truth. We must be intolerant of false doctrine. We must be intolerant of corruption. And when churches refuse to fix their corruption and false teaching - like medieval Rome - Reform is necessary.
Reformation Day is a celebration of truth, not of division. We rejoice that God worked through Luther and others to bring the truth of His Holy Word to us. We rejoice that God worked through Luther and others to fight the horrible corruption of the time. By the way, in case you've been following, Rome has never repented of their doctrine of indulgences and salvation for sale. You can get one by following the Pope on twitter now. Or so I hear.
We get it man. You don't like Reformation Day. The least you could do is tell that you don't like it because you're a Roman Catholic. That would be fine. But posting an article that argues from a stance of foolishness while trying in vain to hide behind a few historical facts doesn't work. Baiting and switching and then moving on to nothing but opinion and strawmen doesn't work either.So this Halloween, I'm dressing up as Luther. My wife and all my kids are dressing up as things completely unrelated to the Reformation. And we're going to walk around the 'hood and get us some candy; knowing that we are hid in Christ.
You ought to take the blog down. It's embarrassing to the well-thought Roman Catholics I know. This article, as it is written, is a joke. You're a novelist, blogger, and columnist. Get rid of the clown shoes and the big red nose, be a man, and either take the thing down or rewrite it and make it better. As it reads right now, it's kind of an embarrassment. Surely you know better.
10/9/13
The Purpose of This Blog
This blog exists for specific reasons, which will be laid out here.
First and foremost, the three of us who contribute to this blog are Confessional Lutherans. This means we hold unapologetically to the authority of Holy Scripture. It also means that we hold to the teachings found in the Book of Concord,which we believe to be the proper exposition of what is taught in Scripture.
This of course means that we are going to be heavy on Christ for you in Word and Sacrament. We'll speak about Baptism and the Lord's Supper a lot. We like to quote from Luther's Small Catechism and the six chief parts. And we love the Augsburg Confession, by the way.
It also means that as Confessional Lutherans, we are unapologetic in our stance that other theologies are in error. So there will be some talk about other theologies on this blog, and it may or may not be favorable to the other theology.
Finally, all of the contributors to this blog are former Calvinists as well as former Baptists. Therefore, one of the other purposes of this blog is to educate Lutherans regarding the more radical branch of the Reformation, which is today contained in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches (and to an extent Anglicanism), and in the more sacramentarian churches that are baptist in their theology. This is to say, there will be a lot of blogging done on Calvinism or on Lutheranism compared to Calvinism as well as critique of baptist theology and its errors.
This might rub some people the wrong way, but we believe that error must be outed, so to speak. We also believe that our Lutheran brethren should be aware of other teachings, why we do not agree with them, and why they are incorrect in light of Holy Scripture and our Confessions.
The blogging will not always be favorable to Reformed Theology or Baptist Theology either. We believe firmly that Reformed Theology is in error on some very key doctrines of the Christian faith; and Baptist Theology even more so on many accounts.
Of course this blog is not intended to be an anti-Calvinist rant, yet there will be, as stated above, numerous blogs in due time that are clearly in disagreement with Calvinism. The recent post that compared Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper with Nestorianism was one such example of this.
We are very fortunate to have three contributors who understand Reformed Theology well; or at least well enough to comment on it with some substance. The same can be said for Baptist Theology. The three of us have taken very similar paths to Confessional Lutheranism.
That being said, we shall press on!
First and foremost, the three of us who contribute to this blog are Confessional Lutherans. This means we hold unapologetically to the authority of Holy Scripture. It also means that we hold to the teachings found in the Book of Concord,which we believe to be the proper exposition of what is taught in Scripture.
This of course means that we are going to be heavy on Christ for you in Word and Sacrament. We'll speak about Baptism and the Lord's Supper a lot. We like to quote from Luther's Small Catechism and the six chief parts. And we love the Augsburg Confession, by the way.
It also means that as Confessional Lutherans, we are unapologetic in our stance that other theologies are in error. So there will be some talk about other theologies on this blog, and it may or may not be favorable to the other theology.
Finally, all of the contributors to this blog are former Calvinists as well as former Baptists. Therefore, one of the other purposes of this blog is to educate Lutherans regarding the more radical branch of the Reformation, which is today contained in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches (and to an extent Anglicanism), and in the more sacramentarian churches that are baptist in their theology. This is to say, there will be a lot of blogging done on Calvinism or on Lutheranism compared to Calvinism as well as critique of baptist theology and its errors.
This might rub some people the wrong way, but we believe that error must be outed, so to speak. We also believe that our Lutheran brethren should be aware of other teachings, why we do not agree with them, and why they are incorrect in light of Holy Scripture and our Confessions.
The blogging will not always be favorable to Reformed Theology or Baptist Theology either. We believe firmly that Reformed Theology is in error on some very key doctrines of the Christian faith; and Baptist Theology even more so on many accounts.
Of course this blog is not intended to be an anti-Calvinist rant, yet there will be, as stated above, numerous blogs in due time that are clearly in disagreement with Calvinism. The recent post that compared Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper with Nestorianism was one such example of this.
It is important to mention, however, that we in no way question the salvation or the dedication to Christ and the Gospel of either Calvinists or Baptists. We consider them to be Christians as we are. We also consider some of their teachings to be erroneous and in some cases even dangerous to the Christian faith.
We are very fortunate to have three contributors who understand Reformed Theology well; or at least well enough to comment on it with some substance. The same can be said for Baptist Theology. The three of us have taken very similar paths to Confessional Lutheranism.
That being said, we shall press on!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)