Top 10 ways to get under the skin of a Confessional Lutheran.
10. Tell them that oyster crackers and grape juice is communion.
Jesus used unleavened bread and wine, not oyster crackers and Welch's. We are foolish, foolish, foolish, to change the elements that Christ used. And by the way, we come to the altar to receive Christ, not sit in our pews and see if we're holy enough to actually partake.
9. Associate us with the ELCA.
The ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) is the largest church body in the United State that bears the name Lutheran. Problem is, they're not Lutheran, like at all. The ELCA is theologically liberal, and we cringe when they use the name Lutheran. They don't stand for anything that Lutherans have stood for throughout history.
8. Tell us that modern day Lutherans are really synergistic Philippists.
Ah, no. We already had this controversy back in the day between the Gnesio Lutherans and the Philippists (named for Philip Melanchthon, who sadly compromised a lot in his later years). The Formula of Concord solves all of this. We're monergists in the purest sense of the term.
7. Tell us that Baptism is just a work of obedience.
Go ahead, try telling us that. You'll probably end up getting about 20 Scriptures in response.
6. Tell us that Martin Luther wouldn't be a Lutheran if he were alive today.
Do you even Small Catechism, yo?
5. Tell us that we're really no different than Roman Catholics.
Well, we are. That's kinda why Luther got excommunicated by Rome. We have much in common with them, that is true. But we differ on some very big issues. Like the Gospel.
4. Tell us that Luther was really a Calvinist.
This one is common. The Reformed want to claim Luther. Too bad he flatly rejected much of Reformed doctrine, such as limited atonement, "spiritual" presence only in the Eucharist, and the denial of baptismal regeneration. He also later in life rejected double predestination. Luther was definitely not a Calvinist. Monergist does not equal Calvinist. Sorry, but Luther thinks you're heretics.
3. Deny the Real Bodily Presence.
Oh boy. You don't even wanna go there. This (the bread) IS (is, is, IS) MY (Christ's) Body. Jesus hath spoken. Nuff said.
2. Tell us that we deny sola gratia (grace alone) and sola fide (faith alone) because of our sacramentalism.
Wait a second. We LIKE those terms. Of course, when one sees baptism and communion as works of obedience, then they get the means of grace wrong. Are they even listening? WE LIKE THOSE THINGS! WE BELIEVE THEM! Baptism and the Eucharist are gracious, not works.
And the number 1 way to tick off a Confessional Lutheran...
1. Call me a Pietist.
Do it. I'll sin in response.
Showing posts with label Calvin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Calvin. Show all posts
6/30/14
Stay on the Rails Grasshopper
I was in a couple discussions on facebook this morning (actually, I still am participating in them) and a couple of the following statements popped up.
"the sacraments are a true means of grace applied by the Spirit to the elect only. many were circumcised that received no grace. many are baptized that are still without the grace of God." ~Facebook User
"The offspring of believers are born holy, because their children, while yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, have been adopted into the covenant of eternal life. Nor are they brought into the Church by baptism on any other ground than because they belong to the body of the Church before they were born. He who admits aliens to baptism profanes it, for how can it be lawful to confer the badge of Christ on aliens from Christ?... Baptism must therefore be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire, and this salvation is afterward ratified by baptism." ~John Calvin (Refutation of the 'Adultero-German Interim Declaration' on the True Method of Reforming the Church)
Here is where Reformed Theology goes off the rails in their Sacramentology. In essence, presuppositions and Covenant Theology ends up getting in the way of very clear Scriptures.
I'll address the facebook comment first, then Calvin. The problems with the first statement are numerous. The first problem is obvious: Where does Scripture *ever* use the sort of language that the Sacraments are means of grace applied only to the elect? Does this mean that the Sacraments are only means of grace insofar as a person's election is concerned? Does this mean that the Sacraments are not means of grace for all the persons who are baptized but not elect? In Reformed Theology the answer is yes to both of these questions. This betrays an overarching hermeneutic and first premise of doing theology that taints the Reformed interpretation of certain passages.
Basically, if "x" then therefore "y" must be true. The problem is that in practice, this equates to, "if unconditional election is true and the P in the TULIP is true, then Baptism and the Eucharist are only gracious for those people alone." But where is this in Scripture? Likewise, how can we ever have any objective assurance from the Sacraments if this is the case? So much for divine promise in the Sacraments. Once again, a person ends up being forced to look inwardly at himself to have assurance of salvation and election.
The second part of the statement is misguided as well because it once again assumes the same presuppositions. Again, where does Scripture ever say that there are numerous baptized persons who never received the grace of God? It doesn't say that anywhere. Now, it certainly is true that many baptized persons fall away and are lost. But this does not mean they never received the grace of God, especially since we are talking about a Holy Scripture that gives warning after warning of people falling away from the faith.
Ultimately, the whole statement ends up being an assumption based solely on the Reformed view of election and perseverance. But the statement is not Scriptural.
Calvin's statement is worth addressing as well. Read Calvin closely. He is essentially pitching a stance known in Reformed circles as "presumptive regeneration." In other words, Calvin is saying that they baptize infants *because they're already regenerate.* In short, your children are already saved, that's why they baptize them.
This is nothing more than Baptist Theology wearing a black Geneva gown. Calvin would have you believe that Baptism is only to be administered to regenerate persons. How much different is this than Baptist Theology? Not much. No wonder Lutherans have historically referred to the Reformed as sacramentarians (anti-Sacramental).
The much larger problem is that Calvin directly contradicts Scripture. In a Holy Scripture where it repeatedly insists that it is Baptism itself that buries us and raises us in faith with Christ (Ro 6:3-4, Col 2:12, Gal 3:27, etc), saves us (1Pe 3:21), and regenerates us (Ti 3:5), Calvin would have us believe the direct opposite. That is, we are baptized because we are already buried and raised with Christ.
And contradicting Scripture is indeed a massive problem.
+Pax+
"the sacraments are a true means of grace applied by the Spirit to the elect only. many were circumcised that received no grace. many are baptized that are still without the grace of God." ~Facebook User
"The offspring of believers are born holy, because their children, while yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, have been adopted into the covenant of eternal life. Nor are they brought into the Church by baptism on any other ground than because they belong to the body of the Church before they were born. He who admits aliens to baptism profanes it, for how can it be lawful to confer the badge of Christ on aliens from Christ?... Baptism must therefore be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire, and this salvation is afterward ratified by baptism." ~John Calvin (Refutation of the 'Adultero-German Interim Declaration' on the True Method of Reforming the Church)
Here is where Reformed Theology goes off the rails in their Sacramentology. In essence, presuppositions and Covenant Theology ends up getting in the way of very clear Scriptures.
I'll address the facebook comment first, then Calvin. The problems with the first statement are numerous. The first problem is obvious: Where does Scripture *ever* use the sort of language that the Sacraments are means of grace applied only to the elect? Does this mean that the Sacraments are only means of grace insofar as a person's election is concerned? Does this mean that the Sacraments are not means of grace for all the persons who are baptized but not elect? In Reformed Theology the answer is yes to both of these questions. This betrays an overarching hermeneutic and first premise of doing theology that taints the Reformed interpretation of certain passages.
Basically, if "x" then therefore "y" must be true. The problem is that in practice, this equates to, "if unconditional election is true and the P in the TULIP is true, then Baptism and the Eucharist are only gracious for those people alone." But where is this in Scripture? Likewise, how can we ever have any objective assurance from the Sacraments if this is the case? So much for divine promise in the Sacraments. Once again, a person ends up being forced to look inwardly at himself to have assurance of salvation and election.
The second part of the statement is misguided as well because it once again assumes the same presuppositions. Again, where does Scripture ever say that there are numerous baptized persons who never received the grace of God? It doesn't say that anywhere. Now, it certainly is true that many baptized persons fall away and are lost. But this does not mean they never received the grace of God, especially since we are talking about a Holy Scripture that gives warning after warning of people falling away from the faith.
Ultimately, the whole statement ends up being an assumption based solely on the Reformed view of election and perseverance. But the statement is not Scriptural.
Calvin's statement is worth addressing as well. Read Calvin closely. He is essentially pitching a stance known in Reformed circles as "presumptive regeneration." In other words, Calvin is saying that they baptize infants *because they're already regenerate.* In short, your children are already saved, that's why they baptize them.
This is nothing more than Baptist Theology wearing a black Geneva gown. Calvin would have you believe that Baptism is only to be administered to regenerate persons. How much different is this than Baptist Theology? Not much. No wonder Lutherans have historically referred to the Reformed as sacramentarians (anti-Sacramental).
The much larger problem is that Calvin directly contradicts Scripture. In a Holy Scripture where it repeatedly insists that it is Baptism itself that buries us and raises us in faith with Christ (Ro 6:3-4, Col 2:12, Gal 3:27, etc), saves us (1Pe 3:21), and regenerates us (Ti 3:5), Calvin would have us believe the direct opposite. That is, we are baptized because we are already buried and raised with Christ.
And contradicting Scripture is indeed a massive problem.
+Pax+
4/16/14
Given for You. Shed for You.
An Maundy Thursday is upon us, a post on the Lord's Supper is in order.
The Gospel According to St. Luke states,
St. Luke 22:19-20: And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you."
Here is Christ instituting the Lord's Supper. The two statements of Christ are of paramount importance here. In times past, the debates on the Lord's Supper have been legendary. During the time of the Reformation, the Marburg Colloquy between Luther and Zwingli was a monumental event. Luther and Zwingli could not agree upon the Lord's Supper, with Luther affirming the Real Presence and Zwingli denying it. Later on, Swiss Reformer John Calvin tried to concoct a via media between the two camps and bring union, affirming a spiritual presence where the elect believers are lifted in faith to heaven where the Holy Spirit delivers Christ to them. Lutherans rejected Calvin's formula, since it is a rejection of the Real Presence.
Anyhow, all of these discussions proved to show us one simple thing: there is no via media between the est (is) and the significat (signifies). Rightly, our Lutheran churches are not in communion with the Reformed churches, and this is mainly due to their denial of the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper. There are other reasons, but that is a big one.
In the text from St. Luke, we find two statements of Christ. The sacramentarians interpret the passage to say that the bread and wine are symbols of Christ's body and blood; not the true body and blood of Christ. When we look at Christ's statements, we see that these statements are interpreted as follows:
This is My body [symbolic] which is given for you [literal]; do this in remembrance of Me
This cup is the new covenant in My blood [symbolic], which is shed for you [literal]
Herein lies a big problem in sacramentarian interpretation: If this is just a symbol of Christ's body and blood, but it is literally given and shed for you, one has to prove on what basis they can separate the statements of Christ in a half literal and half symbolic manner.
In other words, if this is NOT Christ's body and blood, what confidence can you have that this is given and shed for you? Ironically, in Reformed Theology, Christ's Body and Blood might not have been given and shed for you due to the dogma of limited atonement. Why then can't the entire statements be symbolic only? That would actually make more sense of the sentence in sacramentarian interpretation. If the first clause is symbolic (This is My Body), then the entire statement should be symbolic in nature (This is My Body which is given for you).
To hold to a symbolic interpretation of the Lord's Supper demands that a person also hold to a symbolic interpretation of "given for you" and "shed for you" within the same statements. One would have to prove that is the case.
It makes much more sense to simply cling to the clear words of Scripture here. This is My Body, which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me.
Literally. This is My Body (literally) which is given for you (literally); do this in remembrance of Me (literally).
+Grace and Peace+
The Gospel According to St. Luke states,
St. Luke 22:19-20: And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you."
Here is Christ instituting the Lord's Supper. The two statements of Christ are of paramount importance here. In times past, the debates on the Lord's Supper have been legendary. During the time of the Reformation, the Marburg Colloquy between Luther and Zwingli was a monumental event. Luther and Zwingli could not agree upon the Lord's Supper, with Luther affirming the Real Presence and Zwingli denying it. Later on, Swiss Reformer John Calvin tried to concoct a via media between the two camps and bring union, affirming a spiritual presence where the elect believers are lifted in faith to heaven where the Holy Spirit delivers Christ to them. Lutherans rejected Calvin's formula, since it is a rejection of the Real Presence.
Anyhow, all of these discussions proved to show us one simple thing: there is no via media between the est (is) and the significat (signifies). Rightly, our Lutheran churches are not in communion with the Reformed churches, and this is mainly due to their denial of the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper. There are other reasons, but that is a big one.
In the text from St. Luke, we find two statements of Christ. The sacramentarians interpret the passage to say that the bread and wine are symbols of Christ's body and blood; not the true body and blood of Christ. When we look at Christ's statements, we see that these statements are interpreted as follows:
This is My body [symbolic] which is given for you [literal]; do this in remembrance of Me
This cup is the new covenant in My blood [symbolic], which is shed for you [literal]
Herein lies a big problem in sacramentarian interpretation: If this is just a symbol of Christ's body and blood, but it is literally given and shed for you, one has to prove on what basis they can separate the statements of Christ in a half literal and half symbolic manner.
In other words, if this is NOT Christ's body and blood, what confidence can you have that this is given and shed for you? Ironically, in Reformed Theology, Christ's Body and Blood might not have been given and shed for you due to the dogma of limited atonement. Why then can't the entire statements be symbolic only? That would actually make more sense of the sentence in sacramentarian interpretation. If the first clause is symbolic (This is My Body), then the entire statement should be symbolic in nature (This is My Body which is given for you).
To hold to a symbolic interpretation of the Lord's Supper demands that a person also hold to a symbolic interpretation of "given for you" and "shed for you" within the same statements. One would have to prove that is the case.
It makes much more sense to simply cling to the clear words of Scripture here. This is My Body, which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me.
Literally. This is My Body (literally) which is given for you (literally); do this in remembrance of Me (literally).
+Grace and Peace+
4/10/14
Directly Proportional Sacramentology
A church's specific view on something will determine how important they think a certain doctrine is. Hence you have theological liberalism clamoring for unity of everyone in Christendom. Some of the further left theological liberals are even ecumenical with other non-Christian religions.
My point here is that unity and truth go together. It's not as if they need to be "balanced." Being balanced is just a catch phrase people use too often now days. But nevertheless, the two go together. Unity must be in the truth, and the higher emphasis one places on certain doctrines, the more likely they are to be dogmatic about them and not budge on the importance of them.
Calvinists and Lutherans are a prime example of this. If you talk to your usual Calvinist who is knowledgeable regarding Reformed Theology and Lutheranism, they will generally say that Calvinism and Lutheranism are not that far apart. They tend to see Lutherans as a group that began the Reformation, but didn't quite reform enough; carrying over too many things from medieval Roman Catholicism. However, your usual knowledgeable Calvinist is very favorable to Lutheranism.
I assert that there are two reasons for this. First of all, Martin Luther was pretty cool. Pretty much everyone who is not a Roman Catholic or an adherent of Eastern Orthodoxy wants to claim Martin Luther. The majority of Reformed Christians that I run across now days seem to think that Martin Luther was a Calvinist and if he were alive today he would most certainly be Reformed, not Lutheran or anything else. (That's not true, but that is not what I am getting at here) That's the first reason.
The second reason is Calvinism's view of the Sacraments. Classically, Reformed Theology affirms the Sacraments as means of grace, although it is confusing as to how they are. Many of the Reformed claim that the Sacraments are means of grace in our sanctification, but not in our justification, thereby separating grace into two categories. In short, the Sacraments are given a second-place seat behind the Gospel. That is to say, Reformed Theology separates out the Sacraments from the Gospel itself. Ulrich Zwingli took a staunch memorialist stance on the Lord's Supper and rejected the Real Presence. John Calvin took a via media stance that attempted to assuage both the memorialists and affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Supper. (Then there is the Consensus Tigurinus...Lutherans are heretics pretty much.) Calvin tried to deal faithfully with both the Real Presence of Christ as well as the Ascension of Christ to the right hand of the Father. He ended up with what amounts to a spiritual presence only for the elect; and no presence whatsoever for the non-elect, who receive only bread and wine, while the elect receive Christ by faith via the work of the Holy Spirit raising us up in faith to the Throne Room of the Father. This is ultimately a denial of the Real Presence, despite Calvinist protests. Christ is not present in the bread and wine in this theology, or else the unregenerate would receive Christ as well. If He is present, everyone partaking would receive Him. Pretty simple.
In short, Reformed Theology has a "lower" view of the Lord's Supper. Thus, they can be lenient towards other views. After all, it's not the true body and blood of Christ, so they can tolerate other views. Hence, Calvinist seem to like Lutheranism in general; despite their obvious disagreements. Lutherans are monergists and affirm the solas, after all.
On the flip side, there is the Lutheran view of Reformed Theology. The Reformed can keep John Calvin. We posit that Calvin had a lot of errors and a very rationalistic theology. Calvin, along with Zwingli and the Reformed churches are what we refer to as the "Radical Reformation." In short, the Reformed got rid of a bunch of stuff just because Rome held to it, which is a terrible reason, considering Rome has a lot of things correct. That's what we think anyways. Exclusive Psalmody, no instruments in worship, a very strict regulative principle, and so on.
Then there is the Lord's Supper. And Holy Baptism. And the atonement. We see Reformed Theology's doctrine of the Lord's Supper as an explicit rejection of the Real Presence, and as such, a denial of the Gospel promises given therein. In other words, we argue that the Calvinists reject what the Lord's Supper is, and as such, make a huge blunder. We also argue that Reformed Theology's stance on the Lord's Supper is Nestorian. Nestorius was an ancient heretic in the early church who split the natures of Christ, more or less.
Thus, in Lutheranism, we do not tolerate aberrant doctrines of the Lord's Supper. This is precisely because we have a "higher" view of the Supper. (We do not think the Reformed think the Lord's Supper is unimportant, just wrong. And as such, a serious error.) Therefore, we see the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper as out of line with what the church has always held to and thus something that must be guarded against. They reject that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ. Therefore it's not even the Lord's Supper, it's something else. (Look up the Prussian Union sometime. If you go back even further to the Reformation era, check out the Crypto-Calvinist controversy.) We view the Lord's Supper as the objective Gospel given for you and to you in the Sacrament.
So, to summarize, the Calvinists are generally very favorable to the Lutherans. Sure, we carried over that old Roman idea that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ, but that's OK, because it's not that big of a deal.
Lutherans, on the other hand, are generally very unfavorable towards Reformed Theology. The Real Presence in the Lord's Supper is a non-negotiable. The true body and blood of Christ is not something to be trifled with or rejected. We see theories that reject the Real Bodily Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as crass and unbelieving. It's a huge deal.
Not to mention that whole assurance killing limited atonement thing. And double predestination. And rejection of baptismal regeneration. We affirm that the Reformed are Christians, but we cannot be in communion with them, no matter how much some of them protest that we are so close to each other.
We're not.
And on and on we go.
+Pax+
My point here is that unity and truth go together. It's not as if they need to be "balanced." Being balanced is just a catch phrase people use too often now days. But nevertheless, the two go together. Unity must be in the truth, and the higher emphasis one places on certain doctrines, the more likely they are to be dogmatic about them and not budge on the importance of them.
Calvinists and Lutherans are a prime example of this. If you talk to your usual Calvinist who is knowledgeable regarding Reformed Theology and Lutheranism, they will generally say that Calvinism and Lutheranism are not that far apart. They tend to see Lutherans as a group that began the Reformation, but didn't quite reform enough; carrying over too many things from medieval Roman Catholicism. However, your usual knowledgeable Calvinist is very favorable to Lutheranism.
I assert that there are two reasons for this. First of all, Martin Luther was pretty cool. Pretty much everyone who is not a Roman Catholic or an adherent of Eastern Orthodoxy wants to claim Martin Luther. The majority of Reformed Christians that I run across now days seem to think that Martin Luther was a Calvinist and if he were alive today he would most certainly be Reformed, not Lutheran or anything else. (That's not true, but that is not what I am getting at here) That's the first reason.
The second reason is Calvinism's view of the Sacraments. Classically, Reformed Theology affirms the Sacraments as means of grace, although it is confusing as to how they are. Many of the Reformed claim that the Sacraments are means of grace in our sanctification, but not in our justification, thereby separating grace into two categories. In short, the Sacraments are given a second-place seat behind the Gospel. That is to say, Reformed Theology separates out the Sacraments from the Gospel itself. Ulrich Zwingli took a staunch memorialist stance on the Lord's Supper and rejected the Real Presence. John Calvin took a via media stance that attempted to assuage both the memorialists and affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Supper. (Then there is the Consensus Tigurinus...Lutherans are heretics pretty much.) Calvin tried to deal faithfully with both the Real Presence of Christ as well as the Ascension of Christ to the right hand of the Father. He ended up with what amounts to a spiritual presence only for the elect; and no presence whatsoever for the non-elect, who receive only bread and wine, while the elect receive Christ by faith via the work of the Holy Spirit raising us up in faith to the Throne Room of the Father. This is ultimately a denial of the Real Presence, despite Calvinist protests. Christ is not present in the bread and wine in this theology, or else the unregenerate would receive Christ as well. If He is present, everyone partaking would receive Him. Pretty simple.
In short, Reformed Theology has a "lower" view of the Lord's Supper. Thus, they can be lenient towards other views. After all, it's not the true body and blood of Christ, so they can tolerate other views. Hence, Calvinist seem to like Lutheranism in general; despite their obvious disagreements. Lutherans are monergists and affirm the solas, after all.
On the flip side, there is the Lutheran view of Reformed Theology. The Reformed can keep John Calvin. We posit that Calvin had a lot of errors and a very rationalistic theology. Calvin, along with Zwingli and the Reformed churches are what we refer to as the "Radical Reformation." In short, the Reformed got rid of a bunch of stuff just because Rome held to it, which is a terrible reason, considering Rome has a lot of things correct. That's what we think anyways. Exclusive Psalmody, no instruments in worship, a very strict regulative principle, and so on.
Then there is the Lord's Supper. And Holy Baptism. And the atonement. We see Reformed Theology's doctrine of the Lord's Supper as an explicit rejection of the Real Presence, and as such, a denial of the Gospel promises given therein. In other words, we argue that the Calvinists reject what the Lord's Supper is, and as such, make a huge blunder. We also argue that Reformed Theology's stance on the Lord's Supper is Nestorian. Nestorius was an ancient heretic in the early church who split the natures of Christ, more or less.
Thus, in Lutheranism, we do not tolerate aberrant doctrines of the Lord's Supper. This is precisely because we have a "higher" view of the Supper. (We do not think the Reformed think the Lord's Supper is unimportant, just wrong. And as such, a serious error.) Therefore, we see the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper as out of line with what the church has always held to and thus something that must be guarded against. They reject that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ. Therefore it's not even the Lord's Supper, it's something else. (Look up the Prussian Union sometime. If you go back even further to the Reformation era, check out the Crypto-Calvinist controversy.) We view the Lord's Supper as the objective Gospel given for you and to you in the Sacrament.
So, to summarize, the Calvinists are generally very favorable to the Lutherans. Sure, we carried over that old Roman idea that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ, but that's OK, because it's not that big of a deal.
Lutherans, on the other hand, are generally very unfavorable towards Reformed Theology. The Real Presence in the Lord's Supper is a non-negotiable. The true body and blood of Christ is not something to be trifled with or rejected. We see theories that reject the Real Bodily Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as crass and unbelieving. It's a huge deal.
Not to mention that whole assurance killing limited atonement thing. And double predestination. And rejection of baptismal regeneration. We affirm that the Reformed are Christians, but we cannot be in communion with them, no matter how much some of them protest that we are so close to each other.
We're not.
And on and on we go.
+Pax+
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)