Winter Came...and Everything Changed! My Journey to Lutheranism

Greetings in the Name of our Father, His Gracious Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

 

You may not know me but I am extremely familiar with From Geneva to Wittenberg Blog.  You see, three (3) years ago my husband and I were Providentially brought to a Lutheran Church and subsequently the Lutheran understanding, which is the true understanding of the Christian faith. 

 

Last week I was asked to join this wonderful team and write for it.  To say I was surprised is an understatement.  Humbled, definitely.  Excited?!  ABSOLUTELY.  You see From Geneva to Wittenberg was my journey as well.  Okay, so I went from Azusa Street to Geneva then Heidelberg to Wittenberg.  Yes, a long journey to end up with the best theology, the clearest Gospel message and the most wonderful understanding of our Savior Jesus Christ (uhm, that the Bible’s story and found most clearly in the Lutheran Confessions).  This site helped me wrestle with my own questions and doubts, fears and spiritual insecurities or lack of true assurance as it probably would be expressed.  My journey may not be the same as yours, but if you’re here I have a suspicion it’s because you too are asking questions.  So, I thought, “Why not begin my entries on this blog with my own story?” (You can get the whole story in my book “The Accidental Lutheran: The Journey from Heidelberg to Wittenberg”.)  So, here we go:

Winter came…and everything changed

There is a popular show on HBO in which the phrase “Winter is coming…” is used in almost every episode.  For my husband, Bobby, and I we changed it a bit because the Winter of 2016/17 came and with it everything we knew and believed changed.

In July 2013 I completed my doctorate degree in Philosophy and Theology with a healthy dose of Apologetics mixed in.  The topic of my dissertation was the proverbial “Problem of Evil”.  Not to be witty, but after I completed this that’s when all my theological problems began.  Well, they weren’t so much problems as they were questions.  See, peering into the “secret things which belong to God” caused me a lot of inward wrestling.  I understood that God is Sovereign and just but now I believe I pressed the teachings of the Dutch Reformed view regarding the elective purposes of God just a bit too far.  The struggle began in my own heart first and then in discussions with Bobby, we both began to wonder about what we had and were still learning within the Dutch Reformed Christian world (hereafter referred to as Reformed). 

 In 2014 we moved from NYC to Idaho and began to attend a Reformed church about 50 miles away in Boise.  From the start we were warmly welcomed and felt as we had found a home in our new home.  We transferred our membership from that of our church on Long Island to the one is Boise and I began to help with the women eventually leading the mid-week Women’s Bible Study.  Going through several series, Romans, Church History and even Calvin’s Institutes, I’d felt a bond of sisterhood amongst many of the ladies.  However, the distance began to take its toll on me, in particular, with regard to friendships.  Living that far away from your church family is hard.  While we’d done that in NY (church was 45 miles away) I was so busy with completing my doctorate that I didn’t feel it too much.  However, here in Idaho I was really beginning to long for close friendships where I didn’t have to drive an hour to see them or them come to see me.  Three years later, Idaho experienced one of the heaviest snow total winters in decades.

Winter came…and EVERYTHING Changed

It began on Thanksgiving evening in 2016 and did not end until the end of April 2017.  Snow…snow…and more snow.  Bobby and I had moved here to Idaho in 2014 and our dear friends would tell us, when we asked about the winters here, “Oh, no problem. We might get 2 or even 4 inches but by noon it is all melted away.”  Ha!  While Winter 2015 did go that way, the winter of 2016 was not going to let up…at all it seemed.  Every weekend there were snow storms.  Not 2 or 4 inches but 10, 16 and 20 inches at a clip.  Over and over we were blocked in.  It was different here than living in the big city.  Back in New York City the plows would be out the moment an inch or two fell.  Not here in small town USA.  The one neighbor in our cul de sac who had a mini plow had moved back east so we were literally stuck. 

Up to this point we had been attending the reformed church in Boise, some 50 miles away.  We loved this little church.  It was growing and they loved to talk about God’s Word and theology even outside of service.  The church we had come from back east highly recommended it to us.  However, getting there in the winter months was proving near impossible.  On top of snow we would have quick thaws and then blistery temperatures would leave sheets of ice all along the route out of our development.  We tried to stay in contact with our new friends the the reformed church but the distance was proving that difficult.  Emails, social media and phone calls were becoming our only connection and those were quickly fading as the harsh winter marched onward with record snowfalls and thick, dangerous ice covered roads. 

I remember joking with my dear friend, Debby, as she was on the east coast for Thanksgiving and how she and her husband would be coming back to the first winter storm.  The Mountains, all covered in white was breathtaking.  As I sat in my home office, I could see the Trinities blanketed in white looking majestic and regal.  However, the snow didn’t stop that weekend and we missed church.  Later that week, everything melted and we thought, great we can get to church the next weekend. 

That changed drastically.  The next snow fell on Saturday and on Sunday was frozen over with a thick layer of ice.  We missed church again.  Well, in 2013 in NYC we had a tough winter so we both thought we would just slog through it.  Then another melt, then a freeze then another storm with more than a foot of snow in a town that usually had 4-6 inches for the entire Winter.  Each week the snow came, melted a bit, then froze over then more snow.  Soon our little cul-de-sac was a skating rink.  Our town had two plows and didn’t come through to our side for months.  Each weekend it seemed more snow fell and we missed church again.

By January we had not been to church since Thanksgiving and I was longing for the preached Word and fellowship with other believers.  This was not happening and both Bobby and I were beginning to feel it.  Then, one Sunday morning, frustrated that we were snowed in again, we looked at the religious channels.  We hadn’t done that since we left the evangelical church.  However, we figured we might find something a bit more biblical than the charismatics and as God providentially directed we did.  This program called Worship for Shut-In. 

However, the struggle with guilt, for missing services week after week, began to weigh heavily like the ice-laden snow in our town. I struggled with not being there with friends, not worshipping with brothers and sisters in Christ, and most of all, not taking the Lord’s Supper.  That was key for me.  I was hungry.  I was hungry for the preached Word but mostly this new hunger for the Word in the Sacrament began to build up in my heart.  The guilt of missing church week after week began to take its toll.  Bobby and I discussed possibly attending the Lutheran church in town (LCMS) but the snow and ice kept us from going local as well.  The hunger grew. The guilt became overwhelming.

Then, one Sunday morning, frustrated that we were snowed in again, we looked at the religious channels.  We hadn’t done that since we left the evangelical church.  However, we figured we might find something a bit more biblical than the charismatics and as God providentially directed we did.  This program called Worship for Shut-In. 

We sat and watched, listened, even sang along with the old hymns.  It was Lutheran.  It was liturgical.  The pastor even wore a white robe.  Well, we knew that some Lutherans were solid Christians and faithful to God’s Word so we watched and were fed.  Afterwards, I looked up the website, connected with it via email and we felt a bit refreshed.  At least we can get the preached Word until Spring…or so we thought.

Winter had come…and everything changed.  Each Sunday, with every weekend snow storm, we would sit ourselves down and together watch Worship for Shut-Ins (now Worship Anew).  I would even sing along with some of the choir pieces and solos that were part of the program when I knew the old hymns.  Some of these hymns, though, we’d never heard.  However, they were rich and deep and I soon came to learn the Lutheran Service Book is filled with hymns that speak of Christ and His Work, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, and the Lord’s Supper…and Baptism as God’s work alone.  We were being fed on good, solid, biblical food.  Then came the longing to share this with other believers each week but this just wouldn’t happen. 

Saturdays we would prepare to go to church in Boise and then…snow and ice…ice and more snow.  Now, because my dissertation was on God’s Providence I was beginning to “get it”.  God was hindering us from heading up to Boise.  The connections on social media were dropping as we missed service after service.  The phone calls began to wain and emails were less and less frequent.  Separated from our church family, no longer just by 50 miles, was beginning to take its toll.  Hungry for more than just a 30 minute program, though that was helping, we longed to join with the body of Christ to worship and praise our Savior and our God.

Bobby and I would talk…well, mostly I would tell him the longing of my heart.  I was missing being with God’s People and if winters were going to be like this one, then we needed to begin attending somewhere in town.  Many times during the week I would ask, “Could we just visit the Lutheran Church here in town?”  His answer would change the course of our lives.  “Sure, go check them out and we can visit.”

I wasn’t sure Bobby was ready to change churches just because I needed something closer to home but he heard my plea and I contacted Worship for Shut-Ins to see what church in town (there were two Lutheran ones we knew of) would be good for us to attend.  A few days later an email came that Faith Lutheran was a member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, which we knew to be more faithful to God’s Word than the other Lutheran denomination.  I don’t remember if I left a voice mail or sent an email but I contacted Faith Lutheran and determined that the next Sunday we would visit. 

Well, that Sunday came and Bobby was under the weather so I got ready to go to church.  I walked in, took a seat in a pew near the back and sat waiting for the service to begin.  I looked around at the stained glass, the beautiful pulpit and altar in the front and begin going through the hymnal (which is actually a service book with the whole liturgy in it).  Pastor Kellerman approached me and asked if I was Nancy.  I said yes and told him that Bobby was ill so I was there alone that day.  He welcomed me and a few minutes later service began.

I was familiar with most of the order of service but was shocked when Pastor gave absolution to everyone there.  We had corporately confessed our sins as well as had a moment to privately confess them and then the pastor said that he stood in the place of Christ and forgave us.  I was shocked to say the least.  I must have missed this at the Lutheran Church we would visit in Brooklyn, which friends of ours attend, because this just stunned me.  It wasn’t so much that a man was standing there forgiving me as I could read in the service book the words he just said, it was that sense of hearing in my own ears that Christ had forgiven me all my sins that was a bit shocking.  In the Dutch reformed churches you are given assurance your sins are forgiven but here I was being told “Your sins are forgiven you…”  Writing this just doesn’t bring out the impact of that truth but it awakened me within to the reality of hearing from Christ “daughter, your sins are forgiven…”

As the service continued it seemed to focus completely on the work and words of Christ.  Now, the reformed also focus on Christ but there is always this sense that you have to check yourself to make sure you are in the faith.  While that is biblical, the proof is where the waters get muddied.  In the Dutch Reformed church you look at the fruit you’ve produced to make sure you are a Christian and that you have true faith.  However, in this service I was hearing that we are to look at God’s work in our Baptism and that this faith is then fed through the True Blood and True Body of our Lord Jesus in the Sacrament of the Altar, the Lord’s Supper.  In the sermon the pastor reminded us that even as believers we can never follow God’s Law perfectly because we are still sinners, however, Christ did it for us and then gives us Himself in the Body and Blood of the Lord’s Supper to sustain us.  The focus was on this work of Christ which is completely, totally, 100% outside of us.  Faith is given by God through the Sacraments and then sustained in us through Word and Sacrament.

As a reformed gal the Sacraments were not that powerful.  They were “signs and seals” of God’s Work but they were not actually God’s Work.  This service opened my ears to hear God’s call of Absolution and then how He serves us in the Sunday worship service.  As I left, though the Lord’s Supper was not given that Sunday, I was full.  Then, a young man, Dennis, came over, asked my name and if I were married.  I said I was and that my husband was home sick.  His immediate response was, “Oh, we will pray for him.  Hope to see you again next week.”  That greatly impressed me, almost as much as the service itself, though I have to be honest, I was not used to following along with the liturgy through the Service Book.  However, I went home filled with the preached Word of God.  As I shared with Bobby how the service was, the topic of the sermon and how friendly everyone was, he said we could go again next Sunday.

A few weeks later, early May, we received a phone call from the Pastor in Boise.    During the call I shared how we were visiting the Lutheran church in town as the winter had kept us away.  I will never forget his words, “Well, if you have to attend an imperfect church I suppose you have to…”  That struck me in two ways. 

First, throughout our becoming Reformed we were always told that Lutherans are our brothers and sisters in the faith, only that Luther didn’t go as far as he should in reforming the church and Calvin finished Luther’s work of reformation.  Second, was our pastor somehow telling us that Lutherans weren’t a good church? Or was he saying that Lutherans were imperfect while Reformed were perfect?  The first question confused me.  The latter irked me.  I shared this with Bobby and he wondered to me if our pastor thought only the Reformed are perfect? 

The following Sunday we both felt well and the weather was perfect.  The snow had melted, the ice broken up the streams flowing down the curbs and we could finally travel without feeling the highway was dangerous.  However, that phone call providentially redirected us to attend Faith Lutheran again.  We walked into Bible study this time and enjoyed hearing those around us answering questions, reading the texts and interacting with the Sunday School lesson for the day.  We were warmly welcomed and pastor spoke with us again a little more at length. 

The next week, Bobby was having surgery on his foot so we had shared this with some at church.  On the morning of the surgery the doctor had called in the prescriptions for pain and antibiotic medicines.  While at Wal-Mart two of the ladies from church spotted me and immediately asked if Bobby had the surgery already and then prayed with me.  Wow!  Was this a benefit of attending a church closer to home that I would meet fellow members at stores in town?  Having attended a church 50+ miles away, this did not happen.  The joy just overwhelmed me as I shared this with Bobby after his surgery was finished.

That week we decided we would try out the Wednesday Bible Study at Faith Lutheran.  When we arrived pastor gave us a binder with their study, which they’d been working on for about a year already:  The Reformation and Reformers.  We both love Church History and all things reformational and were excited to learn.  Once again we heard of the work of God, how He does all things regarding our salvation; of justification by faith alone through grace alone; of the sacraments; of how many in the reformation would begin denying the Presence of Christ in the True Body and Blood of the Sacrament; denying that baptism actually does something; forgive us of our sins and washes us clean.  I thought I knew reformation history but over the next several months I was learning more and more and the scriptural teachings were becoming clearer each day.  We made our home at Faith Lutheran, becoming members that September.  For us

Winter came…and changed everything. 

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+

Christ. Not the Christian.

I've been on quite a long break from blogging, but have recently wanted to get back in the swing of things. A big thanks to my fellow bloggers who have kept From Geneva to Wittenberg alive during my hiatus.

I've been doing a lot of reading lately and that has spiked my interest in blogging again. A little Chemnitz here, a splash of Hermann Sasse there, and even some Jordan Cooper; as well as the book I will be touching on briefly here, Has American Christianity Failed, by Bryan Wolfmueller.

I gobbled Pr. Wolfmueller's book up in about three sittings when I first received it in the mail. It's very well written, and provides an accurate summary of the sad state of American Christianity. Moreover, it provides the sweet antidote of the Gospel as the solution to the false doctrines being peddled as authentic Christianity in America.

One of the major issues that pops up in American churches is an over-emphasis on the preaching of the Christian and not the Christ. This false teaching rears its ugly head in a few different manners. The most obvious one is the predominance of decisional theology taught in a plethora of churches. Leave it to us Americans to twist our theology to suit our cultural virtues.

The beginnings of these false teachings can be traced back to the Second Great Awakening in the 19th century. At the very least, this is when they became popular; mainly because they agreed with American ideals. The ideal of the self made man and the free self-determination of the independent will of man certainly contributed to these false doctrines.

Enter Charles Grandison Finney. If you don't know who Finney is, you should. Finney has had more influence on the shape and doctrine of American theology than nearly any other person in the last 500 years. If you've ever seen a church conduct an altar call at the end of the service, you have Finney to thank. If the Gospel is reduced to a decision a person must make in order to be saved, thank old Finney. If you've ever wondered why the "praise band" plays emotional songs to set the mood to get people to make a decision, thank Finney. If you're familiar with the Sinner's Prayer, thank Finney. All of this can be traced back to Finney's persuasive ideas and a practice he called the "anxious bench," which was essentially a place where people who were close to choosing Jesus were brought to be persuaded to actually do so.

The problems with this sort of theology should be pretty obvious to anyone who has read the Scriptures or been instructed in a more traditional or confessional church. That is to say, decisional theology is not found in the Bible, nor is it found in church history. But for some reason, old habits die hard. Many churches still practice these false doctrines today. Pr. Wolfmueller explains: "The decision for Christ is both the end and the beginning of everything. Jesus made salvation possible, but really, it all starts with me. Revivalism fails to see the big picture of the Scriptures: our gracious God and Savior comes after us, grabs us up, gives us the gift of repentance and faith, and calls us to be His own dear friends. Our salvation is His work from the very beginning, and we are the beneficiaries of His mercy." (Wolfmueller, p. 14)

Oh but the American church doesn't end there. Now that we made our decision, what's next? Well, it's more me, of course! Now that we've got the decision out of the way, we're done with the Gospel, because only unbelievers need to hear that! Hence, in the usual American church, once we've made it beyond the Gospel, it's time for us to move on to better things, like doing our best and trying to please God by our obedience. This idea plays itself out in both Calvinist as well as Arminian churches; churches that teach once saved always saved, and churches that do not. Either way, this idea is still prevalent.

Calvinist author Mark Jones, in his book Antinomianism, argues, "God cannot help but love us more and more if we become more and more like him." (Jones, Kindle Location 1617) Hence, here we have a Calvinist, a proponent on the P in the Calvinist TULIP, arguing for a conditional love of God based on our obedience to the law. In the Arminian camp, there are sinless perfectionist churches known as holiness churches that teach that a person can be perfected in love and live without sin. John Wesley was a proponent of this doctrine. Wolfmueller comments on his experience in American Christianity, saying, "Resolve to keep God's Law is, of course, a godly sentiment, but on the pages of my journal (and in my own heart), this resolve overshadowed everything else. Most especially, it overshadowed Jesus. The purpose of my life and my daily goal was to keep God's Law, and a bit more: to make God happy by my obedience. Each day would begin with a rally to assault sin and overcome it. Each day would end with defeat, sometimes despair. I was a loser in the battle to be holy. Like a worker with an overbearing boss, I assumed that the Lord was giving out daily evaluations, and most days were bad. Most days, I was sure God was frowning at me." (Wolfmueller p. 15)

The problem with all of these theologies, from Calvinist to Arminian to various strains of Baptist and big box Evangelicalism, is their failure to keep the Gospel as the central teaching for all people everywhere - including (and especially!) Christians. Instead, the Gospel is seen as a stepping stone to get oneself saved, whether it be by making a decision for Christ or by the sovereign Holy Spirit working apart from the means of grace. Once one is beyond the Gospel, in comes the Law, as a measuring stick for good living and pleasing God.

Of course, all of this is really, really, bad theology. There is, for all intents and purposes, no possible way to have any assurance that one is saved in any of these theologies, since every single one of them, at some point, puts all the assurance on the subjective decision making and doing/obedience of the Christian. None can base assurance on the completely objective work of Christ, outside of us. God demands perfection. The Law is God's Law. Hence, the Law requires perfect obedience. This is what Jesus has in mind when He says "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)

Those who admit that they cannot be perfect are honest, and hence can never be assured they are doing well enough, and those who think they can be perfect (in thought, word, and deed) are liars.

The Holy Scriptures, and Christ, give us a better way. Baptism, the Word, the Holy Supper. All of these are objectively outside of us and give us the faith we need.

This is why, in a Confessional Lutheran Church, you will hear both the Law and the Gospel in a sermon. The Law drives us to repentance. The Gospel, the good news of Christ's one-sided work for you, given to you in the means of grace, lifts us up as redeemed children of God.

Preaching the Christian and not the Christ puts one on sinking sand indeed.

By the way, 5 stars for Pr. Bryan Wolfmueller's fantastic work, "Has American Christianity Failed?"

+Pax+

No We're Not

Lutheranism is Lutheranism. We do not borrow some from Calvinism and some from Arminianism and some from Rome. We are Evangelical Catholic. We are Lutheran.

It's way too common for Evangelicals who have some amount of learning experience in theology to try to jam Lutheranism into the debate between Calvin and Arminius. This simply does not work, and I will show you why. We ought to give these folks a pass on this, as it is not any sort of malicious attempt against Lutherans in any way. However, we do need to get the word out there about what we believe. Education is paramount in this endeavor. It must be shown, as we on this blog try to do to the best of our abilities, that we simply do not fit within either of these radical reformation traditions.

I was guilty of this too at one time. When I first started digging into theology, I jumped into Calvinism and Arminianism. I was simply being a good evangelical, and after all, evangelicals fall into one of these two categories; or a mixture of the two. Ultimately I cast my lot with Calvin and the Reformed tradition. I saw everything through the lens of the sovereignty of God, predestination, and covenant theology. I thought Lutherans were essentially Arminians, because Lutheranism rejected the P in the famous TULIP.

Then I came across some learned Lutherans online. I didn't listen to them much at first. I thought Lutheranism was a jumbled irrational mess. Little did I know, my world was about to be rocked.

So, why don't Lutherans fit with evangelicals? Simply put, it's the Sacraments. Whereas we can definitely have a scholarly conversation with Calvinists and Arminians regarding election, free will, and other things, we begin in a completely different place. For us, we start and end with Christ crucified for the forgiveness of all of our sins.

Why the Sacraments? Because in Lutheranism, you simply cannot divorce the Sacraments in any way whatsoever from salvation and justification. In Calvinist Covenant Theology, the Covenant of Grace has a substance and an administration. That is to say, there are two aspects to this covenant. One is external and one is internal. The external covenant is the administration of the covenant, where the Word is preached and the Sacraments administered. The internal is the substance, where the Holy Spirit gives that special inward call to the elect alone and no one else. This strips the Sacraments of objectivity. In Arminianism, everything hinges on the free will decision of the individual. Hence, modern American Evangelicalism, which is strongly Arminian and in many cases outright Pelagian, is big on getting people to make a decision for Jesus, ask Him into their hearts, or come forward for an altar call. All of these practices assume a choice is needed to enact salvation. This is the horrendous error of decisional regeneration or decision theology.

We don't fit. In Lutheranism, Christ is right there for us in our baptism. Saving us. We are baptized into the Triune God, objectively. It's not part of an external covenant. It's grace for you, and it saves.

We also need constant forgiveness. How do we know we are receiving constant forgiveness? Well, because some dude in a white dress who is called and ordained stands in the place of Christ (cf. John 20:23) and pronounces "I forgive you all of your sins in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Why do we believe this? Because Christ Himself ordained the Office of the Holy Ministry and gave the Keys to the Kingdom to the Church.

How do I receive forgiveness in other ways? Well, because some dude in a white dress consecrates ordinary bread and wine and Christ feeds us His true body and blood for the forgiveness of sins (cf. Matthew 26:26-28).

How do I know I am forgiven? Because I am baptized into the Name of God. He saved me right there; His Word working through ordinary water. Because I eat the body and blood of Jesus, in my mouth, orally. Now, for any of you Calvinists or Arminians who happen to stumble across this blog post, be honest with yourself. According to your theology, us Lutherans are idolatrous heretics. We know we are forgiven because we eat and drink Jesus in our mouths. Think about that. We know we are forgiven because the guy in the white dress acts on behalf of Christ and forgives us all of our sins. Think about that.

I close with an excellent quote from Gene Veith. He states:

"To understand Lutheranism, it is necessary to recognize that the Lutheran understanding of salvation by grace and justification by faith cannot be separated from the Lutheran teachings of baptismal regeneration and the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine of Holy Communion. These teachings are all intimately connected with each other in Lutheran theology and spirituality. If you play them off against each other, thinking you can have Lutheran soteriology without Lutheran sacramental theology, you might have Calvinists or Baptists or Calvinist Baptists or something else, but you cannot have Lutherans. Nor can you have Lutheran Calvinists or Calvinist Lutherans or Lutheran Baptists or Baptist Lutherans." Gospel Coalition Debate

Exactly. We do not fit.

And no we are not ______. Fill in the blank.

We are Lutheran. Here We Stand.

+Pax+

Start Wrong, End Wrong.

Theologically speaking, when a theology begins in a place it shouldn't, it ends up in a lot of trouble in the end.

Two great examples of this are the radical reformation theologies of Calvinism, taught in the Reformed Churches as well as Presbyterian and some Baptists; and Arminianism, taught by most Baptists, Wesleyans, and Charismatic churches.

A Synod was convened at Dort in 1618 in which the Remonstrants (Arminians) were challenging the traditional staunch predestinarian doctrines of the Reformed Church (Calvinists). The Remonstrants brought five objections to Reformed Theology, and the famous 5 points of Calvinism was the Reformed response.

Interestingly enough, the bickering that existed between these two schools of theological thought in the early 17th century is alive and well today. It is also quite common for proponents of these two systems to lump everything theological into one system or the other. Hence, any Christian church that believes in some sort of free will in the conversion of a sinner is "Arminian" and any church that believes that God elects people to salvation is "Calvinist."

The problem is that this caricature given by many evangelicals is just not true. No form of sacramental Christianity fits into either of these categories.

Ultimately, the problem with both Calvinism and Arminianism is that they begin their theology in the wrong spot. Arminianism starts with the free will of man. Some Arminians may object to this, but the objection is empty. This is precisely where Arminianism challenges Calvinism and thus begins its theology as an anti-Calvinism of sorts.

When you start with the free will of man, everything in the theological system ends up being read through that lens. Hence, you end up with logical deductions made into dogma. For instance, in many Baptist churches, there is a doctrine called the Age of Accountability. This is a direct result of elevating free will to a primary status. It is surmised that since an infant or young child is not capable of understanding the Gospel and thus unable to make a free will choice, they are then not held accountable by God until they are able to choose one way or the other. Of course, Scripture nowhere teaches this doctrine. It is an example of something completely foreign to Scripture being made a doctrine due to a starting place that is erroneous. Not to mention, many Arminian churches are Baptist, and one of the main arguments they make against infant baptism is that the infant is not able to choose to be baptized. Some Arminians have even proposed blasphemous absurdities like Open Theism, in which God doesn't know the future simply to keep our free will truly free.

Calvinism, on the other hand, has its own difficulties. Generally speaking, Calvinism starts their theology with the absolute sovereignty of God over all things. This idea manifests itself in different ways. One way is that Calvinists tend to get involved with abstract in-house debates about the logical ordering of God's decrees in eternity past. Scripture, however, really doesn't give enough information for one to hold to any of these logical orders. This is also something Luther would term a theology of glory. The Calvinist here is peering into the hidden God.

One outworking of this idea is that objectively speaking, the sacraments are stripped of their power. Ultimately, if a person is elect, the sacraments are effacious for them. But if they are not elect, the sacraments are useless. In this manner, the Spirit is divorced from the places He said He will be in grace. For this reason, Calvinists have to invent novel theories for retaining infant baptism. Calvinism and Infant Baptism Ultimately, infant baptism makes very little sense at all in a Calvinist Theology. It can't be to save them like Scripture says, because there is no correlation (or at the very least, it is unclear) between baptism and God's decree to elect specific individuals in eternity past.

Calvinism also relegates Christ's work to a status that must fit within God's logical order of decrees. Suffice it to say, Christ's work is always logically relegated to a position after God's decree of election. Hence, the Calvinist will argue that Christ only died for the elect and no one else. It is difficult for the Calvinist to say that "In Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28) or "For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died" (2 Cor 5:14), because Christ is only for the elect in their scheme.

Some of the higher Calvinists even take their doctrine of sovereignty to a level where they are fully comfortable saying that God is the author of sin. Perish the thought!

The bottom line is that if a theology begins in the wrong place and reads their starting point into everything else, they end up contradicting Scripture and deviating from classic Christian theology all over the place once the doctrines are fleshed out. Both combatants of the radical Reformation do this repeatedly. As I have argued elsewhere, the Reformed Churches are not a Reformation (Reformed is a Misnomer) but rather a completely new thing. Not to mention the Arminian Remonstrance, which is even further off the rails.

The proper starting place in Christian theology is not philosophical debates about the human will or the hidden God in eternity past. It is Christ, revealed to us, crucified and risen. Only in Lutheranism is this the case.

+Pax+

"We are never told to tell the lost Christ died for them!"

One of the favorite arguments Calvinists use to argue their view Christ died only for the elect is that nowhere in the Bible are we told to preach to the lost Christ died for them personally.

But is that true? Besides problematic passages like 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 1 Timothy 4:10, etc., let me deal with their position according to what they agree are message to the lost.

They agree Scriptures teach all are invited to repent and believe in Christ.

Here's the thing though: believing in Christ is the same as believing He atoned for our sins. John 3:16 and Romans 3:25 make that clear.

Now, if Christ didn't die for the sins of some, and they are among those invited to come, their unbelief in the end would end up being really belief in the truth Christ didn't die for them. Some will say they are invited to believe in Christ, not Christ died for their sins.

But that is untenable. Salvation is in Christ crucified for our sins. Can't seperate belief in Him from belief in what He did for us. Indeed belief in Him is in what He came to do for us.

So it is equally untenable to say to the lost that He died for sinners but not necessarily them. The moment lost sinners are invited to faith in Him, they are invited to faith in what He did for them.

Nor is it tenable to say if Christ died for all, all must be saved on flimsy ground those atoned for cannot be again judged for their sins. The problem with such an argument is those who use it hold to the elect (whom they say Christ died for alone) are lost for their sins that He atoned for before they convert. The moment they affirm any of the elect are ever lost before conversion, they defeat their own double jeopardy Owenist arguments there and then.

When one is called to faith in Christ, it is faith in objective fact Christ is offered to them. And if He is offered to them, then so is what He did at the Cross.

If one can't seperate belief in Christ from belief in Christ died for us, then the command to believe in Christ to be saved is the same as command to believe Christ died for them. And if God commands us to believe Christ died for us when we were lost, then He died for us when we were lost no matter if we end up believing or not. Otherwise, God would be commanding something that isn't true for many folks who end up not believing.

The very passages Calvinists themselves agree teach we are commanded to believe in Christ actually are the very ones that say when understood properly believe in He who was crucified for the lost invited to receive salvation in Him. There's no way around that.

Here we stand.

Paedobaptism, Calvinism, and Federalism

I came across a Presbyterian (Presbyterian is a Reformed Church. AKA Calvinist. The blog I am critiquing is a conservative Presbyterian blog, not to be confused with the ultra-liberal PC-USA) blog defending the practice of paedobaptism from a Covenant Theology perspective yesterday and with the author's permission, I am going to interact with the blog. The blog I am referencing can be found here: A Case For Infant Baptism

Hopefully, by the end of my blog, you the reader will be able to see why we should heavily privilege the Lutheran case for infant baptism over the Presbyterian case for the same.

From the outset, we ought to be glad that Presbyterians employ the biblical practice of infant baptism. However, for the life of me, I can't make good biblical sense of their reasoning, or square it with what the Scriptures teach.

I also would be remiss not to mention that within Reformed Theology, there are numerous nuances and differing stances on the reasoning behind paedobaptism. I am interacting with Mr. Chris Cole's blog and not every nuance of Reformed paedobaptism. It is certain that someone along the line will read this and say that I am misrepresenting Reformed paedobaptism or that I really don't understand it. This is not that case. I am simply replying to one particular blog.

The title of Mr. Chris Cole's blog post is: Are the Children of Christians Little Pagans? A Case for Infant Baptism. Throughout this posting, I will be quoting from the aforementioned blog post with Lutheran responses underneath.

"Do credobaptists, that is, those who hold to the baptism only of professing believers, really think of their children as pagans, heathens, idolaters, atheists?"

Well, Lutherans are definitely not credobaptists, but we do have a response to this. I understand why Presbyterians formulate this argument. They are children of believers and will be raised in the church, and so on. One such argument put forth in Reformed circles here is called presumptive regeneration. This doctrine basically states that the election and regeneration of the children of believers is assumed. Therefore, it is valid to baptize them. Mr. Cole rejects this line of thinking in a later statement in his post. The other line of thought is what is loosely referred to as federal headship. In the words of Mr. Cole from a later section of his post, "Rather, they are federally holy, or holy collectively with their parents, not necessarily in a personal, redemptive sense."

The presumptive regeneration argument falls apart when we recognize that God has given specific means of grace wherein He has promised to meet us in grace and mercy and regenerate us. We don't need to say anything else here; Mr. Cole himself rejects this.

Back to the rhetorical posed by the author. Do Lutherans too see their children as pagans? Sinners in need of grace? Well, yes, we do. That is precisely why we bring them to Holy Baptism. They need Holy Baptism precisely because they are sinners and baptism is one place where God has promised to meet us in grace, bury and raise us with Christ (Rom 6:3-4), and save us (1 Pet 3:21).

He goes on to make his case by quoting Isaiah 54:13, Ezekiel 16:20, and Acts 2:38-39. He continues on, saying, "These aren't promises that all of the children of believers will eventually become believers." 

This is where the P in the famous TULIP just flat out gets in the way of Reformed Theology and causes numerous other "covenant" interpretations of Scripture. This federal holiness idea essentially wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants some sort of special, non-redemptive blessing from God for their children. It wants God to claim them for His own.

But what is the point of any of that if the blessings are ultimately non-redemptive? It seems like a grasping at straws to retain the practice of paedobaptism. It makes very little sense. What parent would want special blessings for their kids when they ultimately are not saving? And what sort of God would dole these blessings out when they ultimately just end up being a heap of condemnation? In the end, being federally holy but non-elect (this is a Calvinist term) would probably be the worst possible situation a person could be in. Ultimately there is very little grace for someone who has received the sign of the covenant of grace. Their baptism ends up screaming against them and condemning them. Does this federal holiness increase the child's chance that they are elect? No Calvinist would argue that, but the only way they could deny it is to divorce baptism from salvation completely. This stance almost smells like the preparationist nonsense you hear from Reformed Baptists like Paul Washer.

The P is short for the Perseverance of the Saints. This doctrine states that if a person is elect, they will be regenerated and can never fall from grace and be lost - even if they get it back later. Once regenerated, always in grace. Therefore, baptism can't save because there are clearly a lot of baptized non-Christians in the world. The P is a non-negotiable in Reformed Theology. In its wake, it ends up not allowing for biblical interpretations of plain and clear passages - such as those about Holy Baptism. But of course, the P fails to properly distinguish law and Gospel, taking only the promises of Christ's security seriously while inventing novel interpretations for the dire warnings of falling away from grace written all over Scripture; especially in Galatians and Hebrews.

The final paragraph in Mr. Cole's post is telling. He states, "We don't believe that baptism will save them. Nor do we believe that baptism is a promise of their future salvation." In contradistinction to Scripture, the Reformed federal argument actually says the exact opposite of what St. Peter says in 1 Peter 3:21. Not to mention, this baptism, at the font, with water and the Word, is salvation come to that infant in the here and now.

"Rather, we believe that God has placed His special claim on out children as His own, so that they have a right to the mark of the covenant of grace."

This is the final statement Mr. Cole writes. Here is where the rubber meets the road. Does baptism have to do with salvation or not? You can't have it both ways here. He seems to want to argue that God is claiming the children of believers as His own, but not actually saving them in the process. Or at very best, He might save them somewhere along the line.

Baptism simply cannot be divorced from salvation. The New Testament (as well as some Old Testament prophecy) is very clear that baptism buries us and raises us with Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Col 2:12). It gives the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38-39). It washes our sins away (Acts 22:16). It puts on Christ (Gal 3:27-29). And it saves us (1 Pet 3:21).

Now, I am not sure if Mr. Cole would argue for different baptisms in some of these passages. I will have to ask him. I refer to a common American Evangelical argument that Romans 6:3-4 (among many others) is referring to spiritual baptism of the Holy Spirit and not physical water baptism. But then, that would put the Presbyterian squarely in credobaptist dualism land, the exact place he would like to avoid.

At the end of the day, if you cannot argue that infants are sinners that need to be saved and that baptism effects this (i.e. it saves them), paedobaptism is either a) pointless, or b) a hindrance if the infant is non-elect and will never be regenerated. Some excess covenant blessing apart from salvation is, to put it bluntly, pretty useless if justification is not involved. Moreover, it's not biblical unless one forces a covenant theology onto the Scriptures.

Keeping paedobaptism alone does not prove the much desired catholicity the Reformed Churches want, especially when the practice is justified on reasons that sound nothing like how Scripture talks about baptism. Throw in a few other heterodox doctrines and the desired catholicity ends up lacking.

But I digress. The federal holiness stance, as well as the presumptive regeneration stance, both do not hold water when stacked up to Holy Scripture as well as the history of the Church. They simply do not say what Scripture says about baptism without encroaching an entire systematic theology onto the text, and in some cases saying the opposite thing that Scripture does. In the end, paedobaptism is a pointless practice unless baptism buries us and raises us with Christ and saves us. But hey, that is exactly what Scripture says! At the end of the day, we should greatly privilege the Lutheran doctrine of paedobaptism.

+Grace and Peace+

Ears to Hear - Butcher It Baby!

In the Gospels, Our Lord Jesus Christ uses the phrase "He who has ears to hear, let him hear" (Mat 11:15, Mar 4:9, Luk 8:8, Luk 14:35) and "If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear." (Mar 4:23)

Not surprisingly, this is a very misused phrase in Scripture. Aren't we all kind of like that sometimes though? The old Adam in all of us likes to take and abuse passages and phrases of Scripture to suit our own viewpoint.

Ultimately, the misuse of this phrase ends up being a sort of spiritual pride in most cases. In my Calvinist days, I would routinely hear some well meaning Calvinist folks use this phrase to decry people that rejected limited atonement or the universal saving will of God. They would quip that such a person who affirmed universal atonement (almost always the Arminians) just does not have ears to hear. That is to say, these Calvinistic folks were implying that the Spirit has given them ears so that they can properly affirm the letters and petals of the TULIP but that the other Christian over there (probably a rank Arminian!) is blind and deaf to the things of God. I am using this as an example. Other Christians do this as well - it is not limited to Calvinists, although abusing this phrase fits well with the Calvinistic system when you think about it.

Yet, I don't quite think this is what Jesus intends when He utters this phrase. In fact, in 4 of the 5 times this phrase is recorded for us in the Gospels, Jesus is using it in reference to understanding His parables.St. Mark and St. Luke record this phrase for us in the parable of the sower, for instance (Mar 4:9, Luk 8:8).

The only time Jesus uses the phrase not in reference to a parable is in Matthew 11. Here He is speaking about John the Baptist being the greatest man to be born among women, but He (Jesus) is greater than John.

So when Jesus uses this phrase, He is either using it to refer to His Godhood and status as Messiah, or He is using it to refer to parables with tricky meanings - which He ends up explaining to His disciples later anyways!

He is not intending the phrase to be speaking about denying clear and plain texts of Scripture in favor of some meaning that fits a theological system; especially when the meaning that is implied to be correct is quite foreign to a natural and plain reading of a text.

So when Scripture says that "God so loved the world..." (John 3:16) it probably means that "God so loved the world," not "God so loved the elect." Or when Scripture says that "God...desires all people to be saved" (1 Tim 2:3-4) it probably means that "God...desires all people to be saved" not that "God desires some people of all types of people to be saved." Or when Scripture says that Christ is "...the propitiation for our sins...and the whole world" (1 John 2:2) is probably means the whole world. Or when Scripture says that God "is patient...not wishing that any should perish" (2 Pet 3:9) it probably means that. It doesn't mean that God is wishing that all the elect are saved but not most of the human race. Or when Scripture says "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you" (1 Pet 3:21) it probably means that "Baptism...now saves you."

And on and on we go. But the point is painfully obvious. Saying that someone does not have ears to hear because they deny plain readings of clear Scriptures is foolish at best. One does not need some sort of secret spiritual knowledge to interpret a passage to mean something totally different than what it says. If anything, it takes some sort of special ability (not in a good way) to butcher the mess out of plain and clear passages to fit some sort of pre-conceived system.

+Grace+

Wait...What?

Samuel Bolton (1606-1654) was an English Churchman of the Puritan variety and also was delegated as a member of the Westminster Assembly. In other words, Bolton was a Calvinist.

Bolton once said, "The law sends us to the Gospel so that we may be justified; the Gospel sends us to the Law again to inquire what is our duty as those who are justified."

As Lutherans, we should have some major problems with statements such as this one. In Lutheranism, we often talk about God's proper work and His alien work. His proper work is the Gospel; what God has done in Christ to save us. His alien work is the Law.

You see clearly from statements such as Bolton's, Reformed Theology reverses this altogether. God's proper work in Calvinist world is the law. The Gospel is never God's proper work. Statements such as this one betray Reformed Theology's ideas about Christ and the Gospel. The Gospel is never God's final yes. It's never God's final word. It's never His proper work. The Gospel is only a means to drive us right back to the same thing that condemns us in the first place. Now why would God do that? Sounds a little silly when you see the statement for what it is. But the truth of the matter is, in Reformed Theology the end goal is always the law, not the Gospel.

Strikingly, this statement by a conservative Puritan is theologically reflective of much of mainstream Christianity now days. The Gospel is just a means, but then we must move beyond the Gospel to bigger and better things. In the case of Bolton and the Puritans (and modern denominations such as the OPC), we have to move right back to the thing that killed us in the first place: God's Law. In the case of much of modern day Christianity, it's a bunch of other cultural norms (or perhaps even counter-cultural norms).

It's hard to label this statement as legalism, since Bolton and the Puritans would never assent to a stance that spiritual life is gained through obedience to the Law, but to use a Lutheran term, it certainly bends heavily to the Pietistic side of things.

On the other hand, statements like this have a way of stripping the believer of all assurance of salvation. Instead of looking objectively to Christ, outside of you, the believer has to look to self, to see how well they are obeying the law that the Gospel drove them to. When you chuck the heterodox doctrine of limited atonement into the mix, this problem is magnified.

Puritans such as this simply will not look objectively to Christ crucified for their sins and the means of grace where Christ has promised to meet us - Word and Sacrament. They can't. Their theology will not allow it. Their rejection of the objectivity of the means of grace forces them to look to self for assurance. In this light, Bolton's statement is just consistent with his theology.

Statements like this get it all wrong. Bolton fails to realize that the entire life of a Christian is one of continual repentance, as Luther pointed out in the first of his famous 95 theses. The Christian life is never a life of continual victory and obedience to the law. It is one of continual repentance and forgiveness of sins. The third use of the law is there for Christians to see what is good and pleasing to God - not for us to be driven back to that law by the Gospel. The Gospel is always God's final word. It's His ultimate yes.

And if this is the case, the Gospel is not a means to an end, it is an end in itself. The Christian needs the law too, but mainly for repentance. We see the law and must admit we have not kept it, even while in Christ. Hence, we can never move beyond the Gospel. We must hear those sweet words of Absolution, of what Christ has done for us in the Word, and receive that body and blood in our mouths for the forgiveness of our sins. We continually need the Gospel. It is truly the last word, not a means to drive us back to the very thing that condemned us in the first place as fanatics like Bolton and the Puritans would have us believe.

+Pax+

Calvinist Canards

canard. noun, plural canards. 1) a false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or rumor.

Ahhhhh, the canards that come from the tough guy internet Calvinists. Today I have a fun one.

Canard: John Calvin's face.

The fun Calvinist canard of the day is this: If God wants to save everyone, everyone would then be saved. Or, it seems that you are saying that God is trying to save these people who are not saved.

Don't fall for it. It's a canard. What they are implying is that we (meaning everyone who isn't a Calvinist) have a God that tries His best but is unable to do anything about the situation. What they are indirectly implying is that only they have an Almighty, Sovereign God, and we have a weak beggar who is impotent to accomplish His will. Hence, limited atonement and so on. They are trying to pigeonhole you into an Arminian, Pelagian, or Open Theistic conception of God. Don't fall for it. We actually have a concept of God that is closer to Calvinism than those other things just mentioned. Of course, in their limited theological mind, anything that is not Calvinism does fall into those categories. But it just is not true.

These are the categories in which the militant tough guy internet Calvinist operates. So, why should we reject this question and/or charge?

Well, first of all, it betrays the inability of this sort of Calvinist to think in terms outside of absolute predestination and autonomous free will. It fails to recognize that all theology does not fall into one of two categories - Calvinism/Determinism or Arminianism/Pelagianism/Libertarianism. In fact, those systems of thought (I am referring specifically to Calvinism and Arminianism here) are Johnny-come-latelies in the theological arena. Before the Reformed Church erupted into this dichotomy with the Remonstrants, hardly any theological system started and ended all discussion based on this paradigm. In fact, Calvinism as well as Arminianism are radical departures from catholic Christianity. They are not a Reforming of the church - they are a completely new branch. The modern internet Calvinist wants to relegate everything to the doctrine of election, thereby placing the Sacraments and other super-duper important things on a secondary status.

Second, it's a backwards question. It likewise betrays the willingness of the internet Calvinist to start and base his whole theology off of God's hidden will (election in eternity past) and not in God's revealed will (Christ Incarnate, crucified, and risen for us). This makes Christ crucified an outworking of election.

Third, it gets the internet Calvinist into some pretty deep water regarding the work of the Spirit in saving sinners. This is why Calvinism has distinguished between the inward call (regeneration) and the outward call (preaching of the Word). The inward call is a special call the elect alone receive whereby they are made partakers of Christ and born again. This happens when the Gospel is preached, but it is the Spirit alone who regenerates, and only in the elect. How then can they affirm that the preaching of the Gospel is pure grace when it is heard by the hearers? Well, they cannot, because the Spirit refuses to give the inward call to the non-elect. Hence, it traverses awfully close to the slippery slope of separation of the spiritual from the natural means of grace.

It is far simpler, and more biblical, to simply say that the Spirit is at work in the preaching of the Gospel 100% of the time to 100% of the hearers. If they reject it, it's because they rejected it, not because there was no inward call involved. If they receive it, it is because the Holy Spirit gave it. Thus, grace received is 100% a gift of God, plus nothing. Whereas, grace rejected is 100% the work of man, nothing of God.

This whole idea of God trying and getting what He wants with 100% certainty is the reason why these internet Calvinists have to come up with novel interpretations of numerous plain and clear passages in Scripture. To name a few, 1 Tim 2:4-6, 2 Pet 3:9, 1 Tim 4:10, 1 John 2:2, and 2 Pet 2:1.

Instead, we are far better off Scripturally starting with and sticking to - God's revealed will given to us in Christ Jesus alone, and not trying to cram the revealed will into the hidden will that ends up with doctrines like limited atonement and rejects doctrines like baptismal regeneration. Worse yet, they have to reject some clear Scriptures to hold to what they do.

This is a canard. Moreover, it's a bad case of philosophical systematics trumping the revealed Word of Christ.

+Pax+

The Love of God is Found in Christ Alone

Staupitz: Martin, what is it you seek?

Luther: A merciful God. A God whom I can love. A God who loves.

Staupitz: Then look to Christ. Bind yourself to Christ, and you will know God's love. Say to Him, 'I am yours, save me.'

That is a scene from the movie Luther (2003). The young Augustinian monk Martin Luther is terrified of God. He hates God because all Luther sees is judgment and condemnation. Luther knows quite well that he is a sinner.

All of this is to say that Staupitz knew, and the young Martin Luther knew later, that the love of God is found in Christ alone.

There are a few different doctrinal things going on here. There is the love of God, but also there is God's wrath against sin and the topic of children of God. Much of this should be pretty easy to hash out.

First, God's love is found only in Christ and Him alone. More specifically, this love manifests itself in Christ's active and passive obedience on our behalf. St. John writes about this in his Gospel as well as the Epistle of 1 John. There are parallel verses here.

John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

This famous and oft-quoted verse is telling us not necessarily how much God loves us, but how God loves us. He does so by giving the Son, Christ. To put it in a very simple manner we can say: How does God love us? The answer is, that he gave His only begotten Son. This idea is paralleled in 1 John.

1 John 4:9-10: In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.


In a way, 1 John 4 is even more to the point. How did God love us? "...God sent His only Son into the world...In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent His Son..."

Thus, we see that the love of God is wrapped up wholly in Christ and His work.

That brings us to our next topic: sin and the wrath of God against sin. Let us put it clearly: God hates sin. In fact, God hates those who actually sin. Without Christ and His work, God's wrath abides on us all.

Psalm 5:5: The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers.

Psalm 11:5: The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.

Ephesians 2:1-3: And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

God hates sin. It is a violation of His Law and sin must be dealt with because God is Holy and Just. Humans are sinners. Based on nothing but us and our actions, God would have nothing but wrath towards us. All of us.

But God loves us. Not because of us, but because of Christ, the atonement for our sins. He loves us in the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (Jn 1:29).

Two things now must be answered. First, we have to determine who the children of God are. Is everyone a child of God? Christ died for everyone, right? Per Scripture, the answer to that is no, not everyone is a child of God. Yes, Christ died for everyone and yes, in Christ God loves everyone. But the term child of God is reserved for those who receive Christ only.


John 1:12-13: But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Here is our clear answer. Those who receive Christ are the children of God. There are numerous other passages in Scripture that speak of the concept of children of God. All of them are speaking only of those who are in Christ. None of them speak of all humanity.

The reason I discuss this topic is because it is quite popular now to say that everyone is a child of God. And per the Scriptures that is not true. It is true that God loves everyone in Christ and Him alone.

The second thing we must answer is the question: Who does God love and who does God hate? The answer is crystal clear: God loves everyone. Far from being a schizophrenic god who loves some and hates the rest, God lavishes His love on humanity on a bloody wooden cross, on which the God of glory died.

This is one of the gravest errors of (Hyper and High) Calvinist theology. In Calvinist theology, they rightly surmise that God's love is paramount at Calvary. Then they proceed to say that God's love bestowed in Christ and Him alone is only for the elect alone, because Christ only died for the elect. Therefore, God has nothing but sheer hatred towards the non-elect.

Protestant Reformed author David Engelsma has went to great lengths to show this is the case in his book Prosperous Wicked and Plagued Saints. It's an exposition of Psalm 73 aimed directly at the mainline Calvinist doctrine of "common grace." Engelsma, along with High and Hyper Calvinist theology, is simply in error here.

Instead of living in the Scriptural tension of Christ dying for the many (His chosen) and the all (total humanity), they erect a God with schizophrenia, making election the paramount decision God made pertaining to just about everything (it's called Supralapsarianism) and then all of God's workings in history are done in order to carry out election. Of course, one of the major drawbacks to this doctrine is that God simply creates billions of people for the sole purpose of damning them for the glory of Himself and the good of His elect.

I can't understand why this doctrine is as it is. There are other areas where Calvinists are more than happy to live in tension and believe Scripture in tension. Amillennialism is one such example. They joyfully talk about the already and the not yet, and speak of how we are living in this tension. Yet when it comes to the atonement, they are unwilling to surrender the golden calf of reason known as the TULIP. When it comes to that, it's black and white. God loves His elect, and He freakin hates everyone else. Damn sinners. Psalm 5:5 applies to those damn sinners, but not to the elect. But wait, aren't we all sinners, even as Christians?

Scripture sums up this tension in the atonement nicely.

1 Timothy 4:10: For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

God is the Savior of all people. This reflects the universality of the atonement spoken of in John 1:29, 1 John 2:2, and numerous other verses. But, He is especially the Savior of believers. This reflects the particularity of salvation spoken of in passages like Matthew 1:21, stating, She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.
Let us hold fast to the Word of Christ. In Christ, God is loving towards us. Towards all of us. Even the worst of us. Even the best of us. God is love, and this love is Christ.

1 John 4:9-10: In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Sasse: Destroying the Sacrament

"It seems very difficult, if not impossible, for those who are involved in a great historic decision to recognize its irrevocability. This is especially true of the doctrinal decisions made in the history of the church. It took two generations and long theological and ecclesiastical controversies before the decision on the homoousion doctrine adopted at Nicaea in 325 was repeated and confirmed by the Second Ecumenical Council in 381. In a similar way, two generations had to continue the theological work and the ecclesiastical controversies on the Lord's Supper in the 16th century before the Formula of concord in 1577 reaffirmed the decision of Marburg as far as the Lutheran church is concerned, and thus definitely decided that there is no middle road between Luther and zwingli, but only the choice between the est and the significat. even these decisions did not find general acceptance, and today, 400 years later, attempts are still being made to solve a problem which Marburg has already proved to be insoluble.

The only approach which at times became popular during these four centuries - for it seemed to offer at least a practical solution - was the idea of Zwingli, Bucer, Philip of Hesse, and other politicians: If a doctrinal agreement cannot be reached, there can at least be a mutual recognition and a common celebration of the Sacrament. The history of unions, however, shows that this apparently-practical solution is no solution at all. For, apart from the fact that a common celebration presupposes a common liturgy in which, if it is a real liturgy, the doctrinal differences are bound to appear in a different form, such practical intercommunion leads to a destruction of the Sacrament. For a Sacrament which is a mere rite performed without the necessity of believing a divine interpretation, may be a more-or-less impressive, mysterious action, but it is not the Sacrament of Christ, which is always constituted by the Word - as even the Roman church has not quite forgotten. Here lies the deeper reason why in all union churches - we must include also many Lutheran churches that for practical purposes have accepted the union - the disintegration of the Sacrament is inevitable.

What is still more surprising than the blindness of theologians as regards the definiteness of the decision of Marburg is the fact that even eminent historians do not realize that the controversies which followed Marburg were an aftermath only. There is a widespread conviction, even among serious students of the Lutheran Reformation, that the controversy between Luther and Zwingli was only the prelude to the real discussion that began when the notable mediators, first Bucer, and later Calvin, entered the scene. This view which, even in the case of historians, actually goes back to Reformed convictions concerning the Sacrament, is supported by the fact that, after all, Reformed Christianity is not Zwinglianism, but Calvinism. the immense tragedy of Zwingli's life; his early death in 1531, which was immediately followed by the death of Oecolampadius; the fact that the Reformation in German Switzerland had to be taken over at the time of its worst crisis by men of minor stature, while in Geneva Calvin began to shine like a star of the first magnitude: all this contributed to an underestimation of Zwingli. It seems that not until today does the Reformer of Zurich come into his own again, after the noteworthy editions of his works by Koehler, Farner, and others have inaugurated a new study of Zwingli's theology. 

This statement is, of course, not meant to minimize the significance of Calvin as a theologian, and as one of the most distinguished churchmen of all ages. Eminent as he may have been as a systematic theologian - he was more of a reproductive and systematizing mind than an original thinker - his doctrine on the Sacraments could be understood, as we shall see, by the Lutherans as only another version of Zwinglianism, It was not, as the common opinion is, a misunderstanding on the part of the Lutherans if they rejected it as a new, and even more dangerous, for of Zwingli's doctrine. There is no question that Calvin wanted to give more than Zwingli, being deeply convinced that he was closer to Luther, and that he had found the true via media between the two. This personal feeling, however, can never abolish the fact that even the most conscientious among Lutheran theologians, men who had a very clear picture of what had happened since Zwingli's death in the field of eucharistic doctrine within the Reformed churches, could not find any essential difference between Zwingli and Calvin.we must never forget that Calvinistic influences had meanwhile pervaded the Lutheran churches, and that many lutherans had sympathized with Calvin. and yet his doctrine was rejected by the vast majority of Lutherans. No one can read the report on the colloquy held in 1586 at Montbeliard (a German enclave in France at that time) at the request of the Duke of Wuerttemberg between Beza from Geneva and Jacob Andreae from Tuebingen, and their colleagues, without feeling that either party knew exactly what the other taught. No serious and unprejudiced historian can deny that, rather than misunderstandings, it was conflicting concepts of the Sacrament, as they had become evident at Marburg, that caused the negotiations and discussions of the next two generations to end in the same inevitable failure as at Marburg. Thus, the hopeless controversy was destined to continue, much to the distress of pious souls, and with the most harmful consequences for the churches involved."

Hermann Sasse, This is My Body, pp. 239-241 

Let us remember history. For all the platitudes and insistences of the Reformed church, even today, that they affirm the Real Presence in Holy Communion, they simply do not. The Marburg Colloquy was an eye-opening gathering of the two sides and affirmed that there is no via media between the true bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament and the denial of the same. Despite the best attempts of Martin Bucer and John Calvin, the great compromisers, the middle way that joins Luther and Zwingli does not exist. Ultimately, where Bucer and Calvin want to have a Real Presence, they both explicitly reject what the Real Presence actually is. The bread is the body of Christ and we receive this in our mouth. at the end of the day, despite Bucer and Calvin's best efforts, they have simply affirmed a version of ramped-up Zwinglianism.


Remember it was John Calvin himself who wrote these statements later in life in the infamous Consensus Tigurinus:


Article 16: Besides, we carefully teach that God does not exert his power indiscriminately in all who receive the sacraments, but only in the elect. For as he enlightens unto faith none but those whom he hath foreordained to life, so by the secret agency of his Spirit he makes the elect receive what the sacraments offer.


Here Calvin flatly rejects the idea that everyone who receives Christ's body and blood actually receives it. In other words, it is by faith that the benefits are received. Nevertheless, nobody receives Christ orally. This is contradictory to the Lutheran stance.


Article 17: By this doctrine is overthrown that fiction of the sophists which teaches that the sacraments confer grace on all who do not interpose the obstacle of mortal sin. For besides that in the sacraments nothing is received except by faith, we must also hold that the grace of God is by no means so annexed to them that whoso receives the sign also gains possession of the thing. For the signs are administered alike to reprobate and elect, but the reality reaches the latter only.


Once again, Calvin rejects the reception of the body of Christ in the bread and His blood in the wine.


Article 21: We must guard particularly against the idea of any local presence. For while the signs are present in this world, are seen by the eyes and handled by the hands, Christ, regarded as man, must be sought nowhere else than in Heaven, and not otherwise than with the mind and eye of faith. Wherefore it is a perverse and impious superstition to inclose him under the elements of this world.


Calvin here explicitly rejects the Real Presence, even calling it a "perverse and impious superstition."


Article 22: Those who insist that the formal words of the Supper, "This is my body; this is my blood," are to be taken in what they call the precisely literal sense, we repudiate as preposterous interpreters. For we hold it out of controversy that they are to be taken figuratively, the bread and wine receiving the name of that which they signify. Nor should it be thought a new or unwonted thing to transfer the name of things figured by metonomy [modern spelling: metonymy] to the sign, as similar modes of expression occur throughout the Scriptures, and we by so saying assert nothing but what is found in the most ancient and most approved writers of the Church.


Here Calvin aims his darts directly at Luther and the Lutheran churches, calling them all "preposterous interpreters," and insisting that the Words of Institution be taken figuratively.


Article 24: In this way are refuted not only the fiction of the Papists concerning transubstantiation, but all the gross figments and futile quibbles which either derogate from his celestial glory or are in some degree repugnant to the reality of his human nature. For we deem it no less absurd to place Christ under the bread or couple him with the bread, than to transubstantiate the bread into his body.


Calvin now equates the Real Presence as taught in Lutheranism with Romanist transubstantiation and calls it "absurd."

These are the thoughts of Calvin, straight from a statement he drew up. The spiritual presence view of Calvin and Bucer is to be rejected by the Lutheran church as nothing more than Zwinglianism with a twist. But at the end of the day, it is the same exact thing. The Calvinist, as well as the Zwinglian, must reject that This (the bread) is My (Christ's) Body. They must by default say that This is not my body. This bread is just bread, inventing slick explanations and redefinition of terms in order to claim that the Real Presence is upheld. Yet, it is not.

No wonder why later Lutheran pastors and theologians regarded Calvin's theories as more dangerous than Zwingli's.

Let us hold fast to the words of Christ.

+Pax+