Bible Churches?

What exactly is a "bible" church? They seem to be everywhere. What do they believe? I will endeavor to show, in this post, that so-called "bible" churches aren't really faithful to what the actual bible teaches.

To begin, a bible church is typically non-denominational and independent. This is to say, the spectrum of beliefs in bible churches varies to an extent, since individual bible churches are not committed to any catechism or confession of faith. Generally speaking, a bible church will have an independent statement of faith developed by the elders or deacons of their church that is in accord with the bible, but is independent of any other church.

This being said, bible churches do have a specific large influence and, perhaps, starting point. Hence, bible churches, commonly, have specific beliefs that are in common with the vast majority of other bible churches, despite each individual church concocting its own unique statement of faith.

That influence is Dallas Theological Seminary, the classic American dispensational seminary.

A bible church will nearly always believe the following doctrines and openly teach them as biblical Christianity.

1. Premillennial and Pre-Tribulation Eschatology

This is not, I repeat, absolutely not, a Lutheran belief. This is the commonly held belief in a secret rapture where Christ whisks away his church and leaves all the unbelievers behind to endure seven years of God pouring out His wrath on the Earth, before Christ returns in judgment and sets up an earthly 1,000 year kingdom where Christ rules humanity from His throne in Jerusalem. This belief was popularized by authors such as Hal Lindsey (Late, Great, Planet Earth) and Tim Lahaye and Jerry B. Jenkins (Left Behind series).

The problem is, this theology was never taught in early church, nor did it have any adherents until very recent history. Certainly there were some premillennialists in the early church - Justin Martyr is an example of one - but no pre-tribulation teachers.

More so of a problem is that to get pre-tribulationism out of the bible, one must impose a systematic theology on to the Scriptures. Namely, dispensationalism. Dispensationalism would claim that theirs is the plain, literal reading of the Scripture, but as we shall see, it's not.

2. Expository Preaching

This is the method of preaching that works its way verse by verse through Scripture and explains and expounds on the passage being read. On the surface, this really isn't a bad thing. However, what gets lost in expository preaching quite often is a clear proclamation of the law and the gospel. This is not to say that bible church pastors and teachers reject the law and the gospel, but it is to say that when they preach, the law and gospel are not always clearly proclaimed, in distinction from a Confessional Lutheran sermon.

3. Credobaptism as an Act of Obedience to God

That is to say, bible churches are nearly always Baptist in their theology of baptism. The vast majority, I dare to say almost all, of bible churches will only baptize believers who can articulate their faith. They will not baptize infants. Also, they outright reject baptismal regeneration. Baptism is, in their theology, an act of obedience done by the believer as a response to a command of Christ.

The problem here is, their theology of baptism is not at all how the bible speaks of baptism. Here we could rattle off Scripture after Scripture that speaks against the bible church doctrine.

4. Holy Communion as an Act of Obedience

And by the way, it's just bread and grape juice, there is no bodily presence of Christ. Their theology tells them that the Eucharist is nothing more than a remembrance meal done in obedience to Christ. It is not, as Christ says, "...for the forgiveness of sins." (Mat 26)

I would argue, as a Lutheran, on the basis of Scripture, that numbers 1, 3, and 4 are outright wrong because Scripture says so - and the entire history of the church agrees up until recently - and number 2 runs the risk of shielding and hiding the gospel when in reality believers and unbelievers alike need to hear the gospel as often as possible.

The conclusion is that bible churches are not really bible churches in their beliefs. Certainly there are many things they also have right. They're trinitarians, for instance. They also affirm the inerrancy of Scripture and justification by faith alone (albeit a bit of a different idea than Luther).

However, at the end of the day, a bible church rejects all sorts of core biblical truth as a Lutheran understands Scripture.

+Pax+

The Eucharist Also Gives *Bodily* Healing. Here's How.

The Eucharist gives forgiveness of sins.

And where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.

Yesterday when I partook of the Sacrament of the Altar, I was especially aware of my weakness in body and soul. I have plantar fasciitis in my left foot, and I was in a lot of pain. I am also divorced, and I still feel the pain of that, not to mention my own sinfulness.

All of the above made me aware yesterday as I partook of Christ's Body and Blood that His Flesh and His Blood not only give spiritual healing and forgiveness, but also physical healing.

The Resurrection is physical, and our resurrection is physical.

Christ restores all things, and He gives that pledge and testament by giving to us His Body and Blood in His Holy Supper.

And the priest after distributing says the following:

"May this true Body and true Blood of Christ preserve Thy body and soul unto everlasting life."

*Body* and soul.

Romans 8 speaks of the hope in the redemption of our *bodies*.

This fat man with plantar fasciitis in his left foot will be healed on the last day.

This broken man with his heart broken and his sins ever before him will see restoration and eradication of his sin nature on the last day.

We thank You, Lord, that You have refreshed us with this most salutary Gift.

Lord, now lettest Thy servant depart in peace. For mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, which Thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples.

This nightmare of a life is almost over.

And our present sufferings are not worth comparing to the glory that will be revealed in us.

But even now we get a taste of the restoration of all things in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

Therefore with angels and archangels, and all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify Your glorious Name.

Blessed is He Who comes in the Name of the Lord.

And Christ comes to us in the Sacrament of the Altar, giving us His Body and Blood to eat and to drink for the forgiveness of sins, and giving us a foretaste of the inheritance which is to come.

The inheritance where all death, pain, and sorrow will be wiped away forever.

The inheritance where everything will be restored.

The inheritance where this nightmare will be over, and it will be as if only a dream.

Now we see through a glass darkly, but soon we will see face to face.

And when we see Him, we will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is.

And he who has this hope in Him purifies himself, even as He is pure.

This Blessed Hope is realized in His Holy Supper, as He continually comes to us and for us.

We don't have to wait for the last day to experience this. We experience it now, as Christ comes to us in His Supper.

Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

Objectivity of Christ > Baptist Decisional Theology

I was raised in a Baptist environment. The church(es) we attended were not necessarily Baptist in name, but certainly were hard line Baptist in theology. I was baptised as any good Baptist is - after I could properly articulate my faith and give a proper testimony. Thus, as numerous traditional church members can usually say; that they were baptised on the 2nd day, or the 8th or 10th day, I could say that I was baptised in about the 10th year, only after I could give a proper testimony. And of course after my baptism by full immersion in a lake, the congregation sang "I Have Decided to Follow Jesus." So, while my baptism is certainly valid, the underlying theology of baptism is in direct opposition to what the Scriptures teach about baptism.

Ultimately, when one's theology of the sacraments is completely emptied of their biblical import and meaning, defined by our Lord Jesus Christ, something else always rushes in to fill the void. So whereas a Lutheran can say "I was saved in my baptism," a Baptist would never say such a thing, because of the Baptist's theology of Baptism. In fact, to say such a thing would be paramount to heresy in a Baptist church. God forbid you were saved by your obedience! (Because baptism is nothing more than a work of obedience in baptist theology)

So what rushes in to replace the completely objective washing for the forgiveness of sins that is baptism? Why, it's my personal decision to choose Christ, of course! This is usually done by praying a certain prayer (the Sinner's Prayer or something like it), or walking forward at the end of the service to answer an "altar call" by submitting their life to Christ.

Far from being an isolated incident, I was asked, literally, numerous times: "If you don't know the moment you made a choice for Jesus, how do you know you're saved?" 

Yes, this is really a common question in Baptist circles; especially those of a more fundamental baptist ilk. The problems with this sort of statement and theology are numerous. First and foremost, the Bible doesn't teach it anywhere. Nowhere does the Scripture ever exhort us to make a decision for Jesus, or ask Him into our heart, make Him our personal Savior, have a relationship with Him (everyone already has a relationship with Christ. They're either under grace and saved, or they're lost. Either one is a relationship), or other such ideas. Second, it actually rails against what Scripture actually says about the topic. Whereas Scripture repeatedly tells us that we are dead in sins (Eph 2), unable to obey God (Rom 8, 1Co 2), and that God alone saves us unilaterally apart from ourselves (Eph 2, Rom 8, etc), and not because of ourselves and our choice(s); this theology says the opposite; namely, that we are able to decide for ourselves with our free will.

In opposition to this wrong headed theology, which is utterly subjective and based upon something we must do and decide, the Scriptures give us pure objectivity. This objectivity is rooted in an unchanging God, who cannot lie (Tit 1). This objectivity is based on the Christ who created the world (Gen 1, Col 1). But where is this objectivity found? In our choice? Or elsewhere?

Since our choices and decisions are based on us, they are therefore subjective and fleeting. Christ, however, is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13). God, in His infinite wisdom, has given us objective means based solely on Himself, that are for the forgiveness of sins and the salvation of the world. As Luther reminds us in his Small Catechism: "For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation." (SC VI)

Thankfully, God has seen fit to actually tell us where this objectivity is found. He has bound Himself to His Word, and His Word tells us that Baptism, the Word itself, Absolution, and the Holy Supper are the places in which He forgives sins. Far be it from overriding the cross and resurrection of Christ, these are the actual places that Christ has said deliver these benefits of the cross to us. In baptism, we are buried and raised with Christ (Rom 6, Col 2). In the Holy Supper of Christ in which we receive the body and blood of our Lord, we receive the forgiveness of sins (Mat 26, Mar 14, Luk 22, 1Co 10, 11). In the creative power of the Word of God, we are saved (Rom 10). This is the same creative Word that spoke the universe into existence (Gen 1). Christ has given us these means, based upon Himself, so that we would not be stuck floundering in subjectivity, and our salvation would be based on something certain and sure - Christ Himself. The predestination of God and His election to salvation is carried out, in time, through these means, which are always for you.

I'll take the Scriptures and the objectivity of our unchangeable God over myself and my choices all day, every day, and right on into eternity.

Praise be to God for His infinite wisdom.

+Pax+

Faith alone in Christ alone and the Visible Gospel

For the Lutheran view of sacramental grace and faith alone being complementary to each other to make any sense, start with our doctrine of the cross and law/gospel distinction.

We affirm that all are born into sin and thus by nature are opposed to the things of God. Under the law, all are guilty before God.

It is because all are bound to the sin under the law, the law can never save nor can it offer salvation to us.

Only the gospel can save us. What is the gospel? The gospel is God Incarnate, or God in the flesh, crucified for our sins. That is Christ took our place on the cross for our sins that kept us separate from God.

It is what Christ did that provided payment for our sins on our behalf. He provided the cure. Better yet, He IS the payment. He IS the cure.

Now objectively He provided salvation for on the cross. Folks will say if He did it for all, all must be saved. It does not follow. Payment made for us is not same as payment received. We still need to receive the payment which is in other words Him!

Suppose someone sent you a check to pay your fine for you. If you don't make use of it, it is of no benefit to you. Suppose there is a disease that affects everyone and is deadly to everyone. If a doctor discovers the cure objectively for all, it doesn't mean in subjective sense, all receives it. Some may not believe it is the cure.

Now, folks will say if Christ died for all, and not all are saved, it must mean His work on the cross doesn't save anyone. Again, that is incorrect. His work saves. In of itself, it saves. Independent of whether we believe it not, the work was finished in its saving value. It doesn't depend on us believing for it to be for us. It is objectively true for us even if we don't receive it, and in that case, it didn't get applied to us. But when receive in passive sense, it is applied to us. It is still on its own monergistic.

The gospel then is Christ crucified for our sins, and saves us by grace through faith in what He did for us. It is faith in that objective fact. Rejecting that makes God out to be a liar because it is true for those who don't believe also.

Folks will say if Christ died for them, then it is unjust for them to be in hell since their sins are paid for.

Again, that conflates what was done for at the cross with reception of that finished work.

As long as we are without Christ, we remain under law. The gospel is given for us objectively but unless it is possessed by grace through faith, it remains outside ourselves.

The gospel is offered to us and given to us objectively through outside means- word and sacrament. If it is faith alone that receives the cure or payment so to speak given for us and offered to us as gift wrapped to us in word and sacrament.

And what makes word and sacrament given to and for us? The work of God's grace to call us to receive what was done for us at the cross that is from outside ourselves and independent of anything we do.

Through such means we are called to receive Christ who comes to us via outward, objective and tangible means. In baptism through faith, we are clothed with Christ. We receive Him and His righteousness imputed to us, meaning from outside ourselves. It is foreign to who we are. Our assurance is in Christ and His objective word for us.

Hence, we can say the Sacrament is the Visible Gospel. It is offered to us from outside ourselves. Faith alone receives what God gives from outside ourselves. And what we receive is Christ Himself and His work that He comes with to present to us. It's the gospel given for us from outside ourselves that we receive by faith alone. Apart from reception of Christ, we remain under the law and outside the gospel of Christ crucified for us. What's done for us needs to be received for it to benefit us. Just as the sacrament which offers Christ's work to us is no benefit if we don't receive by faith, though God's promises for forgiveness as His word stands.

Here we stand.

Lutheran Sacraments Are Uniquely Lutheran

I was talking with my priest today about what Sacraments we Lutherans have in common with Roman Catholics.

The answer?

None.

We count their Baptism as valid, but they don't think it washes away future sins.

Our Baptism washes away all sins, past, present, future, and original.

Their Eucharist is their own doing, their own "sacrifice" offered for the living and the dead.

Our Eucharist is pure Gospel, with Christ coming down to us, giving Himself to us for the forgiveness of sins.

Their Absolution is dependent upon works of contrition, and upon supposedly reciting every sin one has committed.

Our Absolution is pure Gospel. It is impossible to remember every sin we have committed, and sinful desires (concupiscence) are indeed sin. Absolution for us is God's kind and gracious disposition toward us in Christ, forgiving us.

Their Holy Orders is based on supposed "apostolic succession," and leaves an "indelible mark" whether one has pure doctrine or not.

Our Holy Orders is purely based on the Gospel. Our priests are connected to the Gospel, and our apostolic succession is purely in the Gospel.

We do not consider Confirmation to be a Sacrament at all, but simply a rite. Rome considers it a sacrament because they see the sacraments as fuel for holy living.

We see the Sacraments as pure forgiveness. Not law, but pure Gospel.

Everything in Lutheranism is about the Gospel.

Epitome VII: The Lord's Supper

Whether in the Holy Supper the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are truly and essentially present, are distributed with the bread and wine, and received with the mouth by all those who use this Sacrament, whether they be worthy or unworthy, godly or ungodly, believing or unbelieving; by the believing for consolation and life, by the unbelieving for judgment? The Sacramentarians say, No; we say, Yes.

For the explanation of this controversy it is to be noted in the beginning that there are two kinds of Sacramentarians. Some are gross Sacramentarians, who declare in plain (deutschen), clear words as they believe in their hearts, that in the Holy Supper nothing but bread and wine is present, and distributed and received with the mouth. Others, however, are subtle Sacramentarians, and the most injurious of all, who partly speak very speciously in our own words, and pretend that they also believe a true presence of the true, essential, living body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, however, that this occurs spiritually through faith. Nevertheless they retain under these specious words precisely the former gross opinion, namely, that in the Holy Supper nothing is present and received with the mouth except bread and wine. For with them the word spiritually means nothing else than the Spirit of Christ or the power of the absent body of Christ and His merit, which is present; but the body of Christ is in no mode or way present, except only above in the highest heaven, to which we should elevate ourselves into heaven by the thoughts of our faith, and there, not at all, however, in the bread and wine of the Holy Supper, should seek this body and blood [of Christ].

Epitome VII: 2-5

Here we have direct statements from the Epitome of the Formula of Concord. These statements deal with our rejection of the Sacramentarian stances on the Holy Supper, precisely because the Sacramentarian stances disagree with the words of Christ in Scripture.

Who then, in modern terms, are we talking about? The gross Sacramentarians that the Epitome speaks of would be Baptists, Pentecostals, and so on. These are the churches that flatly accept Zwingli's purely symbolic reading of the last will and testament of Christ.

The subtle Sacramentarians the Epitome speaks about are the Reformed Calvinists, who claim to hold to the Real Presence but in essence reject it. The Reformed hold that the body of Christ is in heaven and will remain there until the second coming. There is some truth to that, but they miss the point that Christ is God and can make His body present wherever He wills it. They also are in rejection of the biblical stance on the communication of the natures of Christ. Likewise, another Calvinist canard to be aware of is the statement that "the finite cannot contain the infinite." This statement is foolish, as when taken to its conclusion, denies the Incarnation of Christ.

"Most injurious of all" indeed, as the Epitome states. Sneaky and subtle in an attempt to retain catholicity, but still just as Sacramentarian as Zwingli and the modern day Baptists and Pentecostals when push comes to shove.

+Pax+

GOD LOVES THE PHYSICAL BECAUSE GOD LOVES TO FORGIVE

Mankind's greatest need is and continues to be forgiveness from God and forgiveness from others. It is not even moral transformation, as moral transformation in this life will always be incomplete. We cannot be told to look to the quality of our faith, as that is always going inward and will always, always, always lead to despair. We will never, ever, measure up.

For those who are strong enough to simply say "Oh I know I'm forgiven", I truly am glad for them that their faith is that strong. But I don't know about you, but even though I know I'm forgiven, I do not always *feel* forgiven. 

This is serious pastorally. For those who do not have the Sacraments, my heart breaks for them because they are many times simply being told to look back again to their faith, which is already weak, if they don't feel forgiven. This is detrimental to their comfort, because they will never have enough faith.

But God Who is rich in mercy has given us the Sacraments and the Word of the Gospel to comfort us who have weak faith.

He has washed our sins away in the Waters of Holy Baptism.

Every time in Divine Service He comes down to us in the mouth of the minister and declares us forgiven in the Sacrament of Holy Absolution.

Then the Gospel is proclaimed and Christ Himself gives us His Body to eat and His Blood to drink for the forgiveness of our sins in the Sacrament of the Altar.

Even as the Sacraments are physical, God loves the physical. Christ clothed Himself with physical flesh to redeem the world.

Your sins are forgiven.

The Eucharist is Secondary?

When did the Eucharist become a secondary doctrine pertaining to Christian fundamentals? More importantly, why did it become secondary? For Lutherans, it has never been so. And I do believe we are in the right on this issue. In fact, up until the days of the Radical Reformation that resulted in Zwinglianism and Calvinism, the Eucharist was never a secondary issue. Of course, this is a direct result of heterodox and heretical stances on the Eucharist that deny that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ. The lower ones view of the Eucharist, the easier it is to relegate it to a secondary status that does not pertain to the fundamentals of the faith.

The Lutheran Father Martin Chemnitz, writing in the 16th century (1590) in his book The Lord's Supper, identified many of the problems even then.

"This irreverent desire to invent various interpretations for the last will and testament of the Son of God is confirmed by the proposal that there be a kind of immunity to criticism in this area, so long as one retains the fundamentals of the other articles of faith, since there is no danger to faith or loss of salvation no matter how a person wishes to treat, interpret, or understand the words of the Supper - so long as one accepts an interpretation which is in keeping with some passages of Scripture. Long ago Pelagius argued the same way - that it had nothing to do with the essence of religion how a person understood and interpreted the words of Scripture dealing with original sin in Rom. 5:12 ff., Eph 2:1 ff., or Ps. 51:5. thus it was said that the essence of the question was not a matter of faith.

Therefore, first and foremost in this whole argument, we must set forth and impress on hearts and minds by constant consideration the true, clear, and compelling reasons, affecting not only the ears and minds but also including dangers to conscience, in regard to the words of the Supper. They are the words of the last will and testament of the very Son of God and not a game or place for exercising the mind by dreaming up unending interpretations that depart from the simplicity and proper meaning of the words. The mind should treat and consider these words with neither temerity nor frivolity but with reverence and piety and in great fear of the Lord.

In the first place, it is certain and cannot be denied that the words of the Supper are not to be classified in the category of points in Scripture which can either be ignored or variously explained or even incorrectly understood and still have no bearing on faith or salvation. For these are the words of the last will and testament not of a mere man but of the very Son of God. He instituted it on the night in which He was betrayed, and it concerned the most important matter of all. He did so with the most serious emotions, words, and actions. Even in glory He repeated these words to Paul, thereby showing it was His will that this be the giving of a new and special dogma that should remain in the church to the end of time.

In the second place, when the last will and testament of a man has been executed, we are required under the law to observe the words with special care so that nothing be done which is either beside or contrary to the final will of the testator. Even the civil laws regard such a will as so sacred that they have determined that those who have made any profit at all from the will for themselves shall be deprived of it, and their inheritance through the provision of the laws themselves shall be taken away from them as being unworthy, on the grounds that they have departed from the will of the testator as it is stipulated in the words of the testament. Now, because the Son of God in His last will and testament has not permitted His heirs liberty of believing or doing whatever seems good to them, but has willed that we believe what He has spoken in His words of institution and do what He has commanded, therefore we should give very careful thought that we do not thrust anything upon these words of the last will and testament of the Son of God, lest we deprive ourselves of the benefit of eternal happiness conveyed to us by His will or our inheritance itself be taken from us as being unworthy because we have departed from the will of the Testator as it has been given to us in the words of His last testament.There is no doubt that all too many will come under judgment, sad to say, because of their shameful contentiousness.

In the third place, after citing the words of the testament of the Son of God, Paul adds an extremely severe threat of judgment and guilt if anyone judges or treats these mysteries in any other way than Christ the Testator has willed and determined in the words of His last will and testament. For he says: 'He who does not discern the body of the Lord eats judgment to himself and is guilty of the body of the Lord' (1 Cor. 11:29). Moreover, he is not speaking of the discerning of the human nature in Christ per se or in an absolute sense, but of the fact that what we eat in the Supper the Son of God calls His body. This Paul wants us to discern, not in accord with anyone's private conjectures but according to and on the basis of the words of Christ's testament, which Paul asserts he received by the revelation of the Son of God (1 Cor. 11:23). Therefore, if anyone departs from the true and genuine sense of those words, it is certain that he is not able to discern what he is eating in the Supper. But would this not simply be an innocent lapse? By no means, for he is eating to his own judgment and becomes guilty of the body of Christ, says Paul.

When we have given serious consideration to those points, we will see that they furnish the best antidote against the willfulness and impudence of human reason and create true reverence and piety in our handling of the words of the testament of the Son of God. at the same time they show how tragic and abhorrent is the mutilation to which the Sacramentarians have subjected these holy words of the last will and testament of the Son of God, tearing them limb from limb and picking them into small pieces by there various radical interpretations, so that there is scarcely anything left from the proper and true meaning of these words which is sound, inviolate, or untouched. No one would endure this patiently if it occurred in the secular realm in the case of the will and testament of a good man."

Martin Chemnitz, The Lord's Supper (pp. 25-28)

We do well to listen to Chemnitz here and relegate the Holy Supper of the Lord to secondary status. This is a result of various interpreters who deny that the bread and wine are the true body and blood of Christ. Let us never depart from our Confession here. For as the author of Hebrews writes, It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

On the other hand, we also must defend the practice of closed communion. St. Paul's warning in 1 Cor. 11 is enough in this area. Those who deny the body of Christ cannot be given the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper, lest they eat and drink judgment to themselves. Open communion based on personal decision of the communicant is not the biblical model in any way, shape, or form. It must be flatly rejected, lest we fail in the area of pastoral care.

+Pax+

God is For Us

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Romans 8:31-32 (ESV)

This is great news! God is for us, not against us. If a vengeful and wrathful God is what you seek, you must look somewhere other than Christ. For God gave up Christ to be crucified for us as an act of love. The Incarnation of Christ and His subsequent crucifixion and resurrection is all the proof we need that God is definitely for us.

Not only so, but this is the definitive proof that God has given us. We needn't look elsewhere to seek out God. Only in Christ is where He will be found. God does not desire for us to look elsewhere. We do not need dreams. We do not need visions. We do not need to raise someone from the dead, talk gibberish, or experience any other charismatic mania to know that God is for us. He has sent His Son to die for us and rise again, defeating Satan, sin, and death in one fell swoop.

Moreover, it is a surety. God has done it all and continues to do it all. Christianity is not a religion of ladder climbing, where God weighs our good against our bad and then makes an infallible judgment call on the quality of our lives. Whereas good works are very important to Christianity, they are never able to merit us any sort of standing or favor before God.

Instead, Jesus Christ comes to be born in a manger with animals around Him, lives a perfect life fulfilling the law on our behalf, and then dies for our sins and rises again. Continuing into today and throughout history until He returns, He will continue to save people through His powerful creative Word, given to us in the preaching of the Gospel, the Sacraments, and the Office of the Keys which He instituted.

Christ came and lived, died, and rose for you due to nothing good in yourself. (1 Cor 15:1-4, Jer 17:9, Rom 3:10-12)

God is for us.

The good news of this life, death, and resurrection is preached to you. (Rom 10:9-17)

God is for us.

You are forgiven of your sins in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (John 20:23)

God is for us.

He washes us in the waters of Holy Baptism and buries us and raises us in faith. (Rom 6:3-4, Col 2:12, Gal 3:27, Tit 3:5)

God is for us.

He gives us His true body and blood to nourish us, forgive our sins, and deliver to us life and salvation. (Mat 26:26-28)

God is for us.

And best of all, He is for all of us. desiring the salvation of everyone. (1 Tim 2:4-6, 2 Pet 3:9)

God is for us. All of us. Even you.

+Pax+

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+

Sasse: The End of Marburg

In his outstanding book entitled "This is My Body," Hermann Sasse writes the following regarding the end of the Marburg Colloquy of 1529.

Zwingli

Luther

"Nothing shows more clearly than the Marburg Articles that the doctrinal difference concerning the Lord's Supper is not, as Zwingli and his friends believed, a difference in one point of doctrine only -and a minor one at that- since  it is not an article of the Creed. Luther was right when from the very beginning he saw that, as the Words of Institution are the Gospel itself, a difference in the understanding of the Sacrament must reveal nothing less than a difference in the understanding of the Gospel. If he did not realize this in the atmosphere of the last days at Marburg, the reason was that he interpreted the Articles according to his theology, and took it for granted that Zwingli, in accepting the terms, also agreed with the content. Hre failed to see, as many Lutherans later in their discussions and negotiations with Reformed theologians also have failed to see, that Zwingli's theology, and later that of Calvin, allowed for a far more flexible use of theological terms.

The versatility of Zwingli and his friends and successors is not, as in the case of Bucer, determined by their characters; it is rather a different understanding of Christianity. Koehler has repeatedly called our attention to the fact that the controversies on the Sacrament between the Reformers were instrumental in creating the concept of what Bucer called ratio Christianismi, the essence of Christianity. The idea belongs to the humanist interpretation of the Christian faith. Erasmus distinguished between those vital truths of the Bible which are sufficient for Christian piety, and questions and answers which should not be discussed. Erasmus connected this distinction with the interpretation of the Bible, the single passages of which are often understood differently. While for Erasmus, who remained a faithful son of the Roman church, the church and ecclesiastical tradition were the final authority in defining what is essential and what not, for Zwingli this authority was, of course, Holy Scripture. For him the Word of God was clear and sufficient, provided the Holy Spirit enlightens the hearer or the reader. Thus, he himself was absolutely sure about his understanding of John 6 as the key to the understanding of the Words of Institution, without asking whether perhaps the difficulty of a literal understanding of these words had not driven him to John 6 as a possible means of avoiding that difficulty. Whatever the more-or-less unconscious motive of always resorting to John 6:63 may ha ve been, Zwingli was deeply convinced that he, and not Luther, followed Scripture.

How, then, is it to be explained that he was prepared to recognize Luther as a brother in the faith, in spite of what he regarded as Luther's grave error? The answer is that for him the Sacrament, and the doctrine on the Sacrament, did not belong to those essentials of the Christian faith concerning which there must be unity within the church. In contradistinction to Luther, the understanding of the Gospel on which there must be unanimity is independent of the understanding of the Lord's Supper and of the Sacraments in general. The Sacrament for Zwingli is not part of parcel of the Gospel; it is an ordinance of Christ, to be performed by Christians. This performance may have some effect on the soul of the faithful, insofar as the 'sign' makes the Word of the Gospel clearer. But the Sacraments can never be means of grace in the strict sense. They only signify the grace which has been given without them, as he puts it in Art. 7 of his Fidei Ratio:

"I believe, indeed, I know, that all the sacraments are so far from conferring grace that they do not even convey of distribute it."

Here lies the deepest reason for the for the differing attitudes of Luther and Zwingli, not only toward the Sacrament as such, but also toward the doctrine, that is, the understanding of the Sacrament. If the Sacrament, though performed by man, is an act of God, and if this act (as other passages of the Lutheran Confessions indicate even more clearly) is more than a sign, namely, an instrument by which God gives something, then the denial of this character of the Sacrament is nothing less than a destruction of the Sacrament. The Sacrament is either a means by which God gives His grace, or it is no Sacrament at all - at least, not in the sense in which the church for 1500 years, since the days of the apostles, had understood the Sacrament. Nothing can conceal the difference between churches for which the Sacraments are instruments of divine grace and churches which deny this.

The most important result of Marburg was that the difference became unmistakable clear. For Luther the right understanding of the Sacrament as a means of grace, the understanding of the Words of Institution in their simple, literal sense, was an ecclesiastical article of the Christian faith. He never demanded the acceptance of a theological theory. His doctrine on the ubiquity of the body of Christ, or any other theological attempt to explain the mystery, was not even mentioned. The suggestion which he made after the colloquy, and which was meant to settle the controversy, shows what he regarded as essential and what not, namely, the confession that
"the body and blood are truly, that is, substantively and essentially - though not quantitatively, or qualitatively, or locally - present, and are given."

The disagreement concerning this question caused Luther to refuse the fraternal handshake and recognition as a brother in the faith to Zwingli at the end of the colloquy. He did not do it lightheartedly, as is shown by his attempts to save the union after the breakdown of the discussions. He had to take this stand because nothing less was at stake than the Word of God, the Sacrament of Christ, and thereby the existence of the Church. Not the existence of a Lutheran church; Luther was never interested in that. Denominations in the modern sense had not yet come into existence after the unity of Western Christendom had failed. The question for Luther was whether or not the Sacraments, as a means of grace, and whether the Sacrament of the Altar, as the Sacrament of the true body and blood of Christ, were rooted in the Gospel and therefore essential for the Church. He could not but answer this question in the affirmative. A church without the Sacrament as real means of grace was for him a church without Christ, who had instituted Baptism as a washing of regeneration and the Supper as the Sacrament of his true body and blood. This is the reason why he could not recognize Zwingli as a brother in the faith.

...

Whether such assumptions are necessary presuppositions for an understanding of the Word of God, as Zwingli believed, or whether they are philosophical prejudices which prevent the true understanding of God's Word, as Luther was convinced, that is the question which at the time divided the two Reformers and their followers. It is a questions which cannot be answered by a compromise. This was seen quite clearly, not only by Luther, but also by Zwingli. There is no via media between est and significat. It shows the greatness of Zwingli in contrast to Bucer, Calvin, and all prophets of a middle road between Wittenberg and Zurich. Whatever shortcomings he may have had, he was a clear thinker. The issue between Luther and Zwingli was a question of faith, and therefore, a question of conscience. While, in other points, as the Marburg Articles show, he could yield in a way which seems to indicate that either he did not fully realize the seriousness of the questions involved, or he acted as a politician, here the point was reached where he could not give in. It is of no avail to ask who is responsible for the failure of the colloquy, which Luther had anticipated from the outset. As believing Christians we shall have our personal convictions as to who was right and who was wrong. The church historian can only state the fact that each one was bound in conscience to follow his understanding of the Word of God.

          ...

The issue between Luther and Zwingli, between the Lutheran and the Reformed churches of the 16th century, was solely whether the two doctrines on the Sacrament were theological opinions which could and should be tolerated in one and the same church, or whether they had to regard one another as heretics, which made altar -and church- fellowship impossible. While Zwingli regarded Luther's view as wrong, he was prepared to tolerate it because, in his opinion, the question of the Sacrament did not belong to the essentials of the Christian faith. He found, in this respect, many followers in the Reformed churches; however, in the 16th century, as a consequence of the bitter controversies, other Reformed theologians denied the possibility of such intercommunion. Luther, on the other hand, never had any doubt that the denials of bodily presence and bodily eating in the Sacrament was a heresy that made intercommunion impossible. As he left Marburg, hoping that the other side would eventually see this heresy, and accept the Real Presence in the sense of his last suggestion, so during the following decade he left nothing undone to win over as many as possible of those who in the days of Marburg had stood against him. However, when he saw that all his attempts were in vain, and that the old heresy appeared in new forms, he had to repeat his no of Marburg, as he did in his Short Confession shortly before his death:

Hermann Sasse, This is My Body, p. 227-232, 236-237

There you have it, straight from the historical account as given by Hermann Sasse. In Sasse's account, we can glean many truths, especially from a Lutheran perspective.

Most of all, what we should take from this is that for Lutherans, the Real Presence is the Gospel given to us in visible form. We do not agree with Zwingli, the Reformed churches, and most of all modern American evangelicalism, that the Holy Sacrament of the Altar is a secondary matter of the Christian faith. Anything that involves the Gospel is primary and cannot be compromised. Thus, as Zwingli and the modern Reformed church would like to claim Luther and the Lutherans for their side as one greater whole, we cannot agree.

We do not agree with the Reformed churches and their offspring that the Sacrament is secondary and that we should overlook errors on this matter for the sake of union. We take St. Paul's warning in 1 Corinthians very seriously. This means that Lutheran churches cannot in good faith offer the body and blood of Christ to those who deny that it is the body and blood of Christ.

Moreover we cannot, as Luther did not at Marburg in 1529, offer the right hand of fellowship to people and churches that we see as having a grave error regarding the Gospel.

Where Zwingli and modern ancestors of the Reformed church see Holy Communion as a secondary, we see it as being of first importance. Where people may cry that we must stick to Christ alone regarding the fundamentals, we reply that this doctrine is in fact part of that. It is part and parcel of the Gospel and of Christ alone. Not to mention, it is paramount regarding the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Here we stand. We can do no other.

This is My Body.

+Pax+

Christ is Sufficient

Christ is sufficient. This is most certainly true. If there is anything humanity needs to do in order to be saved, two things are also true. First, Christ would be insufficient, in Himself, as a Savior. Second, nobody would be saved.

Christ did it all. There is nothing more that needs to be done in order to be saved. Works will not get you there, for there is one who died and rose on your behalf and made satisfaction for all of your sins. Not just some, and certainly not just your sins before you became a Christian. No. All of them. Not only so, but Christ Himself established a Church and He delivers this free grace to us through Word and Sacrament. He washes us clean in our Holy Baptism. He pronounces us forgiven in absolution. He delivers us His Word in the preaching of the Gospel. He feeds us His body and blood for the forgiveness of our sins. It's all a one-sided deliverance of gifts. This is Gospel. This is THE Gospel. To turn around and say that we have to add to that is to effectively deny the Gospel. To say that there is something more to add is to claim that Christ did not do enough. May it never be so!

If Christ is not sufficient by Himself, nobody would be saved. Not one. If you think that Christ saved you, but now it's up to you to make good of grace to finish your salvation, then it's safe to say that you probably don't understand grace or your sinfulness. Different churches sometimes teach exactly this idea in different ways. Some churches flatly say that we are justified by faith plus works. Hey, 10 points for honesty and clarity. Others give you Christ and then take Him right back once you've made a decision - putting you on the treadmill of living out the life in a victorious way.

The truth is, even for the Christian, you can never move beyond the Gospel. You can never move beyond Christ. He is the center of everything for us. And Christ has done it all.

But Christ had to do it all, didn't He? I mean, just look at what the Holy Scriptures say about who we are and what we have done.

Jeremiah 17:9: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Romans 3:10-12: as it is written, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

Then go ahead and read verses 13-18. Not to mention, keep in mind that it's impossible to totally stop sinning, and God still has a standard of absolute perfection. Of course, that is why Christ does it all. The epistles of St. Paul point this out quite nicely. He writes numerous letters to first century churches addressing sin problems. 1 Corinthians is a great example. And he never hesitates to call these people brothers. They're simultaneously sinner and saint. Thus says St. Paul.

And to further the good news, Christ directly delivers His grace and good gifts to us directly and objectively through means. He does not grace us secretly in a Gnostic manner so then we can turn around and show Him how obedient we are by getting baptized and eating crackers and Welch's grape juice. That's not what the Scriptures say. The Bible does not talk about these sacraments in an ornamental fashion. It talks about them in a Sacramental fashion. They are God's objective means to save us.

That completely sufficient Christ gives us Himself in completely sufficient means of grace. Pretty nice, huh?

Hence, it's quite important that your theology and worship majors on the majors, so to speak. Who is Christ? What do we believe? How is man made right before God? To put it simply, if worship and theology is not Christocentric, it's missing the point and ends up majoring on the minors, so to speak.

The completely and perfectly sufficient Jesus at the center. All the time. For you.

+Pax+

Sacramentarians and the Eucharist

Who actually has the Lord's Supper? That is a question that doesn't get asked too often. Of course, every church body that administers the Lord's Supper thinks it has it. In fact, it would seem that churches who have a lower view of the Lord's Supper pretty much assume that every Christian church has it because after all, it is only bread and wine (or crackers and grape juice), and a bare remembrance of Christ's work on our behalf.

As Lutherans, we take a different stance on this question. In short, we see the plain reading and meaning of the Words of Institution as paramount. In other words, if a church reads the Words of Institution and their doctrine is that the Words of Institution actually mean what they say, they have the Lord's Supper. It is valid. Thus, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, and some Anglicans (mainly Tractarian churches) have a valid Eucharist. Examples of churches that do not have a valid Eucharist would be mainstream Evangelical churches, any Baptist church, the Methodists, Wesleyans, and yes, even the Reformed churches, who confess a completely different sort of presence where the believer is lifted up to heaven by faith.

On the other hand, if a church reads the Words of Institution as "This is a symbol of My body" or something along those lines, they do not even have the Lord's Supper. It's something else. Or as they say themselves, it's just bread and grape juice. The same goes for any aberrant doctrine that rejects the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Consider St. Paul's warnings in his first epistle to the Corinthians.

When we say these things, we are simply agreeing with the churches themselves that they do not believe that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ. Thus, they do not partake of the Lord's Supper.

Consider a parallel to Holy Baptism. When we baptize, we invoke the Triune Name of God. People are baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. In other words, baptism is into the Name of the Trinity.

The same parallel applies here. If a church baptizes persons into the Name of the Trinity and actually holds to the doctrine of the true biblical Trinity, it is a valid Baptism. Hence, the majority of churches that call themselves Christian have a valid baptism because they actually believe the words spoken in Baptism. They confess the doctrine of the Trinity.

Here is an example of a church that does not: Latter Day Saints, or Mormons. The LDS church baptizes into the Name of the Triune God but they do not confess the Trinity. In fact, they believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different gods. Hence, a Mormon baptism is invalid.

To have a valid baptism, church must utilize the Triune formula as well as confess the doctrine of the Trinity. Or else, what they are doing is not baptism. Likewise, in the Lord's Supper, a church must utilize the Words of Institution as well as confess what the Words of Institution actually mean; that this bread is the body of Christ and that this wine is the blood of Christ. If not, what the church is doing is not the Lord's Supper. It's pretty simple really.

Far from being sectarian and asinine, we are simply agreeing with what those churches actually confess regarding the Lord's Supper (or Baptism, in the case of the LDS). They themselves will tell us that the bread is NOT the body of Christ and the wine (or juice) is NOT the blood of Christ. Therefore, it is not the Lord's Supper and no member of a Lutheran church should be communing at these churches.

I'm pretty sure many believers in these churches that reject the Real Presence will be up in arms about this idea, but again, we are simply agreeing with what they themselves believe and confess.

Pretty straightforward.

+Pax+

Ordinary and Mundane yet Sacred and Sanctified

How often is it heard in Christian circles how 'God spoke to me,' or 'the Lord led me,' or how you could 'feel the Spirit moving?'

It's quite common, to be sure. People want to have those experiences. They want to feel God. But God has not promised to intervene directly in our lives in a personal way. What I mean by that is that nowhere in Holy Scripture does Christ promise to speak directly to us as a form of revelation. The ironic thing is, despite the non-existence of a sure word from Christ promising this, it is very popular for well-meaning Christian folks to make these claims. God spoke to me and the Spirit led me. Hence the language, verbiage, and dare I say it, leaven, of the barely 100 year-old Pentecostal movement that has invaded Christianity and called itself orthodox, when it is not.

But none of that is the main thrust of this post. The last days are here and Christ is taking the mundane and making it Sacred. Mundane simply means natural and ordinary. And this is precisely what Christ does. The God who owns the universe and created it, shows us His power over it repeatedly. Not by giving us a private revelation or sending the Spirit to "move" (whatever that means) during the chorus of some great contemporary worship tune as the guitar player and the lead vocalist are half in tears pouring their heart out.

But by usual, normal, ordinary, mundane things. Like water, for instance. Christ does not change the water by substance or make it something other than it is. It's still water. But He shows His power over it and through it by saving us through water, by His powerful Word. I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Just as Noah and his family were brought safely through the water, we are saved through it in our Baptism.

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. ~1 Peter 3:18-22

Normal. Ordinary. Mundane. Now Sacred. God speaks and we are saved through the water. Imagine that.

What about bread and wine? Does Christ not do the same thing there? He takes the ordinary and makes them Sacred. Christ gives us bread and wine and tells us to take and eat, this is My body, and take and drink, this is My blood.

What about normal human speech? That's pretty mundane. We may have hundreds of different languages, but God's Word is spoken in them all. He takes normal human speech and proclaims Christ crucified to you, and the Spirit works through this normal human speech.

I always have a chuckle when our Reformed friends, especially the Reformed Baptists, somehow think that the Holy Spirit is not "sovereign" unless He works completely independently of means. This is usually based on ripping John 3:8 out of context. I get that they want to let God be God. And that is good. Yet, separating the Holy Spirit out from the means of grace and concocting extra terminology to support this system, such as "inward call," well, it's silly.

Everyone wants to be orthodox in their beliefs, it is true. But this separating out of the Spirit from the means is not orthodox. In fact, it stinks of Gnosticism. It's dualist to the core.

And dang it, all of this "inward call" speak sounds a lot like "God told me so," at least on a functional level. Either way, it is the Spirit directly intervening to you apart from means of grace. Even if one argues that the means of grace are means of grace for the elect alone, they're still left with the same problem of the inward call apart from means.

But then, that is all you're left with when you separate the means of grace out from the work of the Spirit. You're left with a dualistic theology of separation of natural and spiritual. And you are left with a God who is not sovereign, as the Calvinists would have us believe, but rather is Gnostic according to historical Christian beliefs and heresies. That is what happens when you deny that God takes the ordinary and mundane and makes them Sacred by working through them.

The hijacking by the Reformed of the term monergism is a shame. Certainly, they are monergists, but it's an unbiblical version of it.

Yet, when you deny that God takes the ordinary and mundane and uses them for Sacred purposes, I suppose that is all one is left with. When you deny that God takes the ordinary and the mundane and uses them for saving purposes, you're still stuck in the same spot. No, this is not a misunderstanding of Calvinism (as Calvinists will try to tell you). This is exactly what they teach. The means of grace are only for the elect. Hence, it's not really the means of grace that are means, but the "sovereign" Holy Spirit showing up when He wants to for the elect and them alone. No wonder the Crypto-Calvinist controversy was such a big deal. Well, that and the Calvinists were lying their way into Lutheran churches and universities.

That is not biblical monergism because there is no objectivity. There is no "for you" and "for certain" in the Sacraments.

Put this faulty version of monergism to bed. Yuck.

Grace and Peace

TO MESS WITH THE SACRAMENTS IS TO MESS WITH THE GOSPEL

Coming from evangelicalism, to Reformed theology, finally to home in Lutheranism, one will notice very quickly that Lutheranism is all about pastoral care. As my colleagues and fellow contributors to this website have correctly pointed out, pastoral care looks very different in Lutheranism when compared to other branches of Christianity. In fact, Lutheranism is not academic, but pastoral through and through. It was birthed from Luther's struggles with assurance, particularly battling issues such as assurance he was of the elect.

One of the major means of grace God gives us for assurance of salvation is the Sacraments. These Sacraments are connected to universal grace and the universal saving intention of God in Christ, Who died for the sins of all who have ever lived. God wants us to know that He loves us and that Christ died for us. He wants us to know that His intention for the world is one of grace and mercy. This Gospel message, which is Good News, is one that is *for you*. Without the "for you", the Gospel is truncated and perverted. And God gives the Sacraments *for you* so you can *know* His kind and merciful saving intention toward you.

For these reasons, let us look at how messing with the Sacraments, then, takes away the "for you" of the Gospel, and therefore messes with the Gospel itself.

PASTORAL CARE IN EVANGELICALISM

Most evangelical brethren will admit that Christ died for all, but usually mean this in a vague sense of "died for all so it can be appropriated when we believe." Evangelicals do not believe that Christ actually objectively reconciled and justified the whole world. (There are even some Lutherans that do not yet recognize universal objective justification, but perhaps that can be discussed in a future post.) This way of looking at the atonement inevitably leads a person to ask, "Do I have faith?" "Have I appropriated Christ?" This is why many evangelicals end up getting rebaptized, walking forward, or "rededicating" their lives many, many times. Baptism becomes something that they do for God, rather than something that God graciously does for us. Instead of it being an efficacious means of grace and regeneration and salvation, it instead becomes an act of obedience or "ordinance" commanded by God to show a sign that one already believed. This turns a person toward their own faith.

Because of this, if someone doubts that they have faith under evangelicalism, one must inevitably be turned back *to* their faith, hence rededication, rebaptism, etc. One will wonder if they have faith or not, or if they have enough fruit. The evangelical pastor, therefore, has no objective means to turn one to, other than ask them "do you have faith in Christ?" The poor soul is already doubting if they have faith, or if they have true fruit or enough fruit. To turn the doubter back to their fruit or their faith many times just makes things worse.

PASTORAL CARE IN REFORMED THEOLOGY

Although Reformed theology does talk about the sacraments as "efficacious", they mean it in a completely different sense than Lutheranism or the historic Church. For 1,500 years, the Church in all Her branches always believed, taught, and confessed that the Sacraments *objectively* work salvation and give the Spirit because of God's *universal* saving intention. However, under Reformed theology, Christ made an atonement *only* for the sins of the *elect*. The Spirit's intention in the sacraments under Reformed theology is only to be present for the elect, and only to be present for those who have faith. Ironically, then, the doubter is once again turned toward their faith.

Better forms of Reformed theology, such as the WSCAL brethren, will indeed tell a person to look to the sacraments--but they nonetheless confess that the Spirit may not necessarily be present there, except only for the elect. How does one know they are of the elect? How can they look to the sacraments if God's saving intention is only particular, and not universal? Further, the Reformed confess that it is possible that one may have false faith, even though they may have all the fruit that appears to be of "true faith." How, then, can one know? Ironically, just like the Arminian who denies the sacraments but confesses universal grace, the Reformed end up turning a person back toward their own faith.

So, we see that *both* universal grace *and* *objective* Sacraments are necessary for assurance.

PASTORAL CARE IN LUTHERANISM

In Lutheranism, we want to know that we have a gracious God. Even in other sacramental forms of Christianity--such as Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism--although they share with us objective Sacraments, they nonetheless do not keep the doctrine of justification and the forgiveness of sins as *primary*. For Rome, the sacraments are simply things we do for God to achieve merit before Him. For the East, the sacraments are simply vehicles to aid us in theosis and progress in sanctification. Unwittingly, then, they simply become aids or works. They become law. This turns a person back to their efforts.

But in Lutheranism, the Sacraments are all about the forgiveness of sins, humankind's greatest need. In Holy Baptism, God washes away *all* our sin, both original and actual, past, present, and future. Holy Absolution, therefore, is a return to our Baptism. We never get past our need for forgiveness of sins. We do not always "feel" forgiven. So God gives us these wonderful means of mercy and kindness for our assurance. These Sacraments are for us beggars. In the Holy Supper, Christ gives us His very Body and Blood to enjoy, to become one with us and with each other, for us, for the forgiveness of all of our sins. We never get past our justification. We are passive beggars who receive Gifts from God in Word and Sacrament. And because of this, we relate to humankind actively out of thankfulness to God, because our relationship to God coram Deo is always passive, completely righteous before Him because of what Christ has done, and because of His objective Gifts of grace and mercy given in the Sacraments. The Sacraments do *not* depend upon our faith. The Sacraments are objectively gracious because of God's universal grace.

So the Lutheran pastor counsels the doubter by pointing them to the objective universal grace, atonement, and justification given to them and for them on the Cross and in the Sacraments. The Lutheran pastor never turns a person back to his or her faith. God gives us the Sacraments to offset our speculative tendencies. To correct our doubting. To prove God is objectively gracious. As my pastor rightly said to the doubters, "The Sacraments say 'Shut up.' The Sacraments say 'Open up.'"

Receive.

The King is for you.

Jesus died for you.

You are the saved, beloved, child of God, washed clean in the waters of Holy Baptism, granted forgiveness of sins in Holy Absolution, and given Christ's Body and Blood to eat and drink for the forgiveness of sins in the Sacrament of the Altar.

This God is gracious. He is for you.

Luther and Zwingli - Miles Apart, Then and Now

The Marburg Colloquy of 1529 was an historic event in Church history. It was here that Martin Luther and Huldrich Zwingli squared off in a monumental theological discourse. Truth be told, Philip of Hesse called for the Colloquy in an attempt to unite Luther and Zwingli for political reasons, mainly in order to form a formidable alliance in defense against the Roman Catholic regime that sought to unify Christendom by force if possible. Theology was only a secondary concern for Philip.

Anyhow, the Colloquy did not achieve the desired result for Philip of Hesse. By all accounts, Zwingli was willing to extend the right hand of fellowship to Luther, but Luther refused. Why?

Well, anyone who has read anything about the Colloquy knows that the major point of disagreement revolved solely around the Eucharist, or Lord's Supper. In fact, Luther and Zwingli mainly came to agreement (loosely perhaps) on every other article of doctrine that was discussed. But not on the Lord's Supper.

The vehement disagreement came about regarding what exactly was received in the Lord's Supper. Zwingli and his theological offspring want to make the whole discussion about ubiquity (omnipresence of Christ...that monstrous phantasm, per Calvin), but that is not ultimately, at least for Luther, what the disagreement was about.

Martin Luther simply refused to concede that the words "This is My body" spoken by Christ meant anything other than they read. Despite Zwingli's appeals to philosophical ideas and other texts of Scripture that have nothing to do with the Lord's Supper, Luther would not be moved from the simple and plain words of Christ. This is My body. At it's core, the disagreement was about the plain words of Scripture.

But also for Luther, and for all of traditional orthodox Christianity, the Eucharist is a Christological thing. For Zwingli it was a mere symbol. However, even Zwingli's symbolic view was also a derivative of his Christology.

To put things quite simply, Zwingli's stance was that Christ in His deity is omnipresent but cannot be according to His humanity. Hence, Christ is not present in the Eucharist because His body is not there. his body, in fact, absolutely can't be there in Zwinglian Christology. Therefore, when Christ says "This is My body" He must be, by irresistible necessity, be speaking figuratively.

Luther, on the other hand, held that due to the communicatio idiomatum (communication of the natures), Christ can be present anywhere and everywhere all at once. And, not only according to His divinity. Christ is not a nature, nor is He two natures (even though He certainly has two natures), but rather Christ is a person. He is the second person of the Trinity, to be precise. Because Christ is God, Christ the person (both man and God) can be present bodily wherever He wants to be. Because Christ is man, Christ the person (both man and God) can die on a cross. Because Christ is God, a man can rise from the dead. Well, you get the idea. Hence when we receive the body of Christ in the Holy Supper, we receive the whole Christ, both human as well as divine.

In fact, Zwingli's Christology is an age-old Christological heresy called Nestorianism. The separation of Christ's human nature (stuck in one spot) from His divine nature (able to be everywhere) splits Christ the person into two. Thus Nestorianism.

It is also hugely telling that Zwingli was willing to extend fellowship to Luther and Luther would have none of it. This too is a theological outworking of both men's stances on the Holy Supper, although it was certainly true that Zwingli was far more concerned with political and military things than was Luther. If, according to Zwingli, the Holy Supper is mere bread and wine that symbolizes Christ's body and blood, it truly is no big deal to have fellowship with someone who believes in the Real Presence. In other words, if the Holy Supper is merely symbolic, it becomes something of a secondary doctrine. Certainly it is not as important as the Gospel or the article of justification, for instance.

However, if the Holy Supper is truly Christ's body and blood for us in grace for the forgiveness of our sins as scripture declares, then the Supper IS the Gospel in a very tangible, objective, and visible way. It is, to be clear, a means of grace by which Christ and all of His benefits are actually and truly delivered to us in and with the bread and wine.

Therefore, for Luther and all Lutherans to this day, the Lord's Supper is of primary importance. In fact, fellowship in the faith is, in Luther's world, altar fellowship. This is to say that because of what we actually are given and receive in the Holy Supper, we will not have communion with other Christians who deny that. For Luther, this is akin to a denial of the Gospel itself, because the Supper is the Gospel delivered to us in bread and wine.

If the Supper truly is this, it is a primary doctrine of the Christian faith, not a secondary one of lesser importance on which we can agree to disagree. Once we see the Supper for what it is, we truly recognize that it is our lifeblood. It is grace for the journey, grace to forgive us of our sins, and grace to strengthen our faith.

If the Supper truly is this, St. Paul's warning to the Corinthian church takes on a whole new meaning when he says, "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy
manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." (1Co 11:27-29)

This is why Luther could not have fellowship with Zwingli. To Luther and all of the crazy Lutherans in the past and today, Zwingli, like his spiritual offspring today (Reformed, Baptists, Wesleyans, Pentecostals, etc), denied what the Lord's Supper is, and this was nothing short of a denial of a chief article of the Christian faith. This is why we will not commune at a Reformed or Baptistic church, and also why we practice closed communion and will not allow a member of a church who rejects the Real Presence to commune at our altar. In fact, closed communion was pretty much the universal practice of the church until very recent church history. Funny thing, it is the churches who reject the Real Presence and in some ways have been influenced by theological liberalism that are the champions of open communion. After all, if the Eucharist is but a pious remembrance, partaking of symbols, then why shouldn't we open it up to anyone and everyone who claims Christ is their Savior?

This is also why Martin Luther, who fought against the abuses in the Roman Church, could say, "It is enough for me that Christ’s blood is present; let it be with the wine as God wills. Before I would drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts, I would rather have pure blood with the Pope." (LW 37, 317)

And Luther also said, regarding the symbolic stance, "He thinks one does not see that out of the word of Christ he makes a pure commandment and law which accomplishes nothing more than to tell and bid us to remember and acknowledge him. Furthermore, he makes this acknowledgment nothing else than a work that we do, while we receive nothing else than bread and wine." (LW 40, 206)

In other words, this symbolic stance is a pure rejection that the Sacrament is a means of grace, and in fact is nothing more than an affirmation that the Lord's Supper is a work of man.

When seeing the colloquy in this light, it should be simple to see why Luther refused fellowship to Zwingli and his followers.

For a fabulous and complete treatment of this very topic, pick up a copy of "This Is My Body" by Hermann Sasse. You won't regret it!

Grace and Peace


 

Epitome VII - The Real Presence and the Calvinists

If you have ever bothered to delve into the different stances that different theologies hold to regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, you will find out a few interesting things as well as a wide spectrum of beliefs on the topic.

For instance, you don't have to look far to see that the Roman Catholic Church holds to a dogma called transubstantiation. In this dogma, it is held that the bread and wine is completely obliterated and that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ only. Clearly, Roman Catholicism, despite what we Lutherans see as a rationalistic error in going far beyond Holy Writ (i.e. St. Thomas Aquinas and transubstantiation), affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper.

However, you will also find the opposite end of the spectrum represented as well. Baptists of all stripes completely reject the doctrine of the Real Presence in favor of the bread and wine (err...grape juice) being mere symbols of Christ's atoning death for us. As a former Baptist, I have been in communion services where the pastor actually states in the Words of Institution that Jesus said that "This is a symbol of My body." Far from ripping on Baptists here, I am simply relaying what was said. And to be sure, the pastor was doing nothing but being faithful to what that particular church believes about the Lord's Supper. Hence, as a symbols, the elements don't really matter much either, and oyster crackers and grape juice will do just fine.

There are, however, two other views of the Lord's Supper that are very common. One of them is the Lutheran view, which I am not going to delve into in too deep of a manner here. Simply put, we affirm the Real Presence. We receive Christ orally because He said so. This (the bread) is My body. To which we say 'Amen!'

The other big elephant in the room is the classical Calvinist stance on the Lord's Supper. To be fair, John Calvin attempted to resolve two different biblical teachings. First, he desired to uphold his view of the Ascension of Christ to the right hand of the Father. Second, he desired to hold to the Real Presence as well. Thus Calvinists will argue up and down that they hold to the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper. But do they? Well, not according to what has always been classified and defined as the Real Presence.

The Epitome of the Formula of Concord says this:

Epitome VII, 2-5

STATUS CONTROVERSIAE.
Chief Controversy between Our Doctrine and That of the Sacramentarians regarding This Article.

Whether in the Holy Supper the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are truly and essentially present, are distributed with the bread and wine, and received with the mouth by all those who use this Sacrament, whether they be worthy or unworthy, godly or ungodly, believing or unbelieving; by the believing for consolation and life, by the unbelieving for judgment? The Sacramentarians say, No; we say, Yes.   For the explanation of this controversy it is to be noted in the beginning that there are two kinds of Sacramentarians. Some are gross Sacramentarians, who declare in plain (deutschen), clear words as they believe in their hearts, that in the Holy Supper nothing but bread and wine is present, and distributed and received with the mouth. Others, however, are subtle Sacramentarians, and the most injurious of all, who partly speak very speciously in our own words, and pretend that they also believe a true presence of the true, essential, living body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, however, that this occurs spiritually through faith. Nevertheless they retain under these specious words precisely the former gross opinion, namely, that in the Holy Supper nothing is present and received with the mouth except bread and wine. For with them the word spiritually means nothing else than the Spirit of Christ or the power of the absent body of Christ and His merit, which is present; but the body of Christ is in no mode or way present, except only above in the highest heaven, to which we should elevate ourselves into heaven by the thoughts of our faith, and there, not at all, however, in the bread and wine of the Holy Supper, should seek this body and blood [of Christ].

Let us phrase this as simply as possible. The Reformed Churches, following Calvin, affirm a spiritual presence by faith. This is to say that Christ, being ascended, does not actually come to us in the Lord's Supper, because He is in heaven. We feed on Christ only by our faith through the working of the Holy Spirit lifting us up to heaven to receive Christ's benefits.

Despite the very common Reformed efforts to claim that the Lutherans and the Reformed aren't all that different, they are simply wrong. Zwingli was the first to try that at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529. Luther would have none of it. Even Calvinists to this day try very hard to distance themselves from the Zwinglian stance on the Lord's Supper. But in reality, how much different are they? If Christ is not bodily present in the bread and wine, there is no Real Presence. And if you would like to see what the Lutherans think about this, just read the section from the Epitome I posted above. But please, don't tell us how much we have in common and how we both affirm the Real Presence. We are not in communion and will never be in communion this side of heaven.

Even Dr. Martin Luther himself said, "I would rather have pure blood with the Pope, than drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts." (Luther's Works, 37, 317)

Let us be even more clear. The Calvinist stance, while giving lip service to the term Real Presence, explicitly denies it.

The Real Presence means that Christ and all of His benefits are there for us in the bread and wine. The bread is the true body of Christ. Likewise, the wine. In Reformed Theology, following Calvin, even the believer only receives bread and wine orally, although the believer receives Christ's benefits by faith, being lifted to the Throne Room of God the Father.

This is not an affirmation of the Real Presence. This is a denial of it!

It's simple: If Christ is not received in the mouth by every single person receiving the Lord's Supper, there is no Real Presence. The Real Presence means Christ is actually really there, according to what He Himself said in the Words of Institution.

Ultimately, even Calvin recognized this as seen here in a document (Consensus Tigurinus 1549) of which Calvin was the author.

The Real Presence, far from being an early church and medieval superstition, is something that the Church has always believed, because it takes Christ's Words at face value. Jesus said "This is My body." To say "it's a symbol of His body" is essentially to say "This is not My body."

Let us be clear. Reformed Theology denies the Real Presence while trying to say that they affirm it by redefining what "Real Presence' means. When they employ that terminology, it certainly does not mean that Christ's body and blood are truly present and we receive them in our mouth. It's devious in one sense. I get it, the Reformed are trying to uphold their catholicity, and they see clearly that the entire Church affirmed the Real Presence. But to redefine it to mean something it is not while simultaneously denying what it actually is...That's a pretty dangerous stance to take, wouldn't you say?

Grace and Peace