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. 

THE GOSPEL CREATES AND SUSTAINS THE CHURCH

The Church is identified by the pure preaching of the Gospel and the pure administration of the Sacraments according to the Gospel. All doctrines in the Church are taught as Gospel-centered and Christ-centered, and the Sacraments are Gospel-centered and Christ-centered.

Where a church departs from these, it is heterodox. However, God is patient with us, as we all have bad theology somewhere. But the Church should never tolerate false doctrine in any form, not for the sake of "being right," but for the sake of the care of the souls She is entrusted with.

When I was a Calvinist, I cared about "correct doctrine" simply for the sake of "being right" so I could "please God" and "avoid idolatry." The mindset was one of philosophy, and the hidden G-d.

Glory to Christ that for historic and confessional Lutheranism, it is all about Jesus. Doctrine is always for the sake of the Gospel. The Sacraments are always for the sake of the Gospel. Jesus Christ got His theology perfect for us. Jesus Christ pleased God perfectly. Jesus Christ avoided idolatry.

Philosophy tries to climb its way up.

God in Jesus Christ comes down to us.

Continually.

For me.

For you.

Forgiveness.

Even when we don't feel it.

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+

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+

THE GOSPEL MUST APPLY TO *ME* AND TO *YOU*

I was talking with an evangelical friend of mine about how even the early church was not clear on the Gospel sometimes. I mentioned the apostle Peter and how the apostle Paul rebuked him publicly for not being clear on the Gospel.

My friend said, "Well, Peter was not clear on the *application* of the Gospel."

The statement was said in passing, but it got me thinking as to how stark the differences are between Lutheranism, which is the 200-proof Gospel, and the rest of Christianity. 

You see, for us Lutherans, the *application* of the Gospel *is* part of the Gospel, because if the Gospel does not *apply* to *me* in space and time, then it is not good news for *me*.

It is all about pastoral care.

It is about comfort and assurance.

If it is only general categories, then I am still left with doubt.

This is why the Sacraments are pure Gospel for us. They are the Gospel applied in space and time. They are not secondary. They are part of the Good News that Jesus applies His forgiveness to *me*.

We find the Revealed God in Jesus Christ as for us in Word and Sacrament.

For *me*.

For *you*.

Keep That Gospel Pure

There is only one Gospel. Scripture makes this explicitly clear.

Galatians 1:6-9: I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

St. Paul writes in his epistle to the Galatians that there is indeed only one Gospel. He goes even further and says that those who pervert it are accursed. In this brief post, we will examine how our friends in two different theological systems - Calvinism and Arminianism - flirt with this line.

Let us use another passage from St. Paul to guide us in our definition of the Gospel. Here it is:

1 Corinthians 15:1-5: Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.

Notice what St. Paul preached to these people. Notice that this is the Gospel by which they are saved. He preached to them that Christ died for them and rose again for them. He tells them that this is what is saving. Notice also that St. Paul says that the Gospel is all about Christ. In other words, St. Paul refuses to mingle law in with Gospel.

Calvinism messes with the Gospel with its doctrine of limited atonement. Calvinism cannot preach consistently to the sinner that Christ died and rose for them until after they are certain that the person is truly saved. But in Calvinism, how does one know who is truly saved? The only way one can make a judgment on this is by looking for a totally changed life. But then, who is to say that the person is not deceived if they fall away and reject Christ later in life? Calvinism desires to uphold monergism, but due to the doctrine of limited atonement, they rip the heart out of the Gospel. There is no surety of Christ for you no matter what in Calvinism. How do they know that Christ died for them? How can they objectively know this, with 100% certainty, if Christ only died for the elect? Pretty much they have to be certain they are elect. And in Calvinism, without a 100% certainty in Word and Sacrament and the atonement, they must look to their own faith to an extent.

Arminianism messes with the Gospel by inserting law into the Gospel, thereby diluting it and making it something other than pure grace. They do this by making a person's choice via their own free will the dominant factor in salvation. Christ's work is never enough in Arminianism and the will of the person must be exercised in order to make it effective. Hence, Arminianism adds something we must do to the Gospel. This is a grave error indeed! Arminianism, no matter what cute theological terminology is used, is a form of works salvation due to turning faith into a meritorious work. Not to mention all the off shoots of Arminianism such as Wesleyanism, Open Theism, and free will Baptist theology.

Ironically, these two bitter theological opponents ultimately put the sinner right back in the same place. Neither one can objectively put the sinner at the cross and in the pure grace of the Word and the Sacraments. Calvinism cannot objectively say that Christ is for you. Not at Calvary, and not in word and Sacrament. Reformed Sacramentology does not allow for this. Arminianism says that you must do something in addition to Christ's work and grace freely given.

Ultimately, both theologies put the sinner right back at themselves. Both have the sinner asking themselves if they are really truly saved.

In the end, both theologies have a problem with Christ's objective promises, despite one being monergist and the other synergist.

In Calvinism, Christ is for the elect. Period.

In Arminianism, Christ is for you, but only if you ____.

In Scripture, Christ is for you. Period. End of story. In His death and rising. In the Word. In the Sacraments.

Christ for you. That is pure Gospel.

+Pax+

Christ alone is our hope and assurance

To those who feel or felt burned by their church (regardless of what church or denomination it is) by all the burdens put on you to do your part, this message is for you:

It is finished. Christ was crucified for your sins. It is fully by God's grace. There is nothing you can do, no matter how small part of yourself, to earn that. Not a whiff of law nor act of obedience on your part. Grace is not only God's unmerited favor for you, by what Christ did, but it is also to you. That is the Gospel. That is the Good News. It is for you. And to you.

Christ paid for your sins to win forgiveness for all of you, not contingent on anything you do on your part, not even faith. He didn't just provide forgiveness for you at the cross, but He also provide forgiveness to you, when it is given to you to believe and receive what He has done.

Rejoice and be glad what He did for you and to you. It is finished. You are forgiven. It is true today as it is yesterday. It is true even in your moments of despair as in when it is in you feeling high. God's word stands and remains objectively true whether we feel high or low. And His word says God loves you so much that He gave Christ for us and to us, when we were sinners.

He didn't die for you hypothetically. He died for you truly. It isn't contingent on how well we keep God's law, much less man-made laws. Christ kept God's law for us. He did it all that He may be our substitute in our place to suffer God's wrath for our sins.

We are free from needing to keep God's law (much less man-made laws) to find assurance that only Christ can give. Look to Him and Him alone, and He will give you peace. His peace.

Whatever you do out of faith, in obedience to God's law or as good works, God accepts not because we are less sinners. But He accepts them because He sees Christ in you.

That's right. Christ's righteousness is imputed to you. He sees you as righteous not by what you do. But what Christ did for you and to you. It isn't earned. Not before you receive Him, nor after you receive Him.

Hope in Him alone. His love for you in the most sacrificial terms is real, not merely hypothetical. Nor contingent on what you do.

Cast all your burdens and cares unto Him, for He who paid for your sins also rose again for you to have hope,  and He promises to be with you always. Look to that promise you have in Him, where there is forgiveness, righteousness imputed unto you by His merits (not yours), and justification.

You truly are justified children of God. Christ made sure of that when He kept God's law perfectly and died in our place as the unblemished Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

He freely desires to justify you, not by anything you do. When you believe with repentant hearts what He did for you, you have that justification He won for. It is legal declaration that you are right with Him, even though you were and are sinners. It is given to you from outside yourself through His word that declares to you God no longer sees you as sinners worthy of death but sees Christ in you and by Him, you are justified.

He truly justifies you. And it is all because He loves you and desires to give you grace, peace and mercy unto you.

Rest in His love that He provides in Christ crucified and resurrected for you. There's your hope, there's your peace, there's your assurance. Look nowhere else for that.

Here we stand.

Gospel, Law, and Glawspel

St. Matthew 22:34-40: But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the prophets."

It is quite common in recent church history, especially in more liberal theologies, to see this passage as the Gospel in a nutshell. In other words, love God and love others is the Gospel.

Certainly, being a statement and command of Christ, loving God and loving others is of supreme importance. No Christian would dispute that. However, loving God and loving your neighbor is not the Gospel. The Gospel, or good news, is never a command, nor is the Gospel our actions, however loving they may be.

To be even more clear, those who claim that this passage in St. Matthew is a concise statement of the Gospel have actually missed the Gospel altogether.

Just read the passage. The Pharisee asked Christ, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" Jesus answered the Pharisee that the greatest commandment is to love God with all of your being. And the second one is to love your neighbor as if they were yourself.

In very plain language, these are commandments. In broad terms, anything that is a commandment is law, not Gospel. Gospel promises. It does not command. That is the office of the law. This is why, in our Lutheran Confessions of faith, we have excerpts in the Epitome and the Solid Declaration regarding the third use of the law. There is no third use of the Gospel or anything like that. The new obedience of the Christian is dealt with in terms of both law and Gospel, but it is always the law that makes the demands and tells us what should be done, never the Gospel. It is always the law that shows us what we ought to do and what we have not done. It is always the law that shows us our need to repent because it is precisely that law that shows us how short we really fall.

Let's push this a little further. Jesus' statements are a summation of the Ten Commandments. Love the Lord your God is a summary of the first table of the Law; commandments 1-3. Love your neighbor as yourself is a summary of the second table of the Law; commandments 4-10. In other words, if we hash this out to its conclusion, a theology that claims that Matthew 22:37-40 is the Gospel is ultimately doing the same exact thing as saying that the Ten Commandments are the Gospel. This is, ironically, a form of "Pharisaical Christianity." It's Gospel-less. Ultimately, this sort of theology teaches salvation by keeping the Law. How is this any different than the Pharisees? Hence, liberal theology that claims this is the Gospel is teaching a false Gospel.

Far from evicting obedience from the Christian faith, the Gospel - the real one - provides for the only sort of obedience that is genuine. Obedience done from love because our obedience does not contribute to our justification. We can never be declared righteous before God by that, because God's standards in this arena are perfection. Hence the work of Christ for us (the Gospel). Even so, our obedience in this life is never perfect. We are still simultaneously sinner and saint, after all. We need a righteousness that is above anything we could ever obtain through our love and obedience to commandments. We need a righteousness that is perfect. Only Jesus obtained that, and only Jesus can give us that.

That is why in the Divine Service we confess: "Most merciful God, we confess that we are by nature sinful and unclean. We have sinned against You in thought, word, and deed, by what we have done and by what we have left undone. We have not love You with our whole heart; we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves. We justly deserve Your present and eternal punishment. For the sake of Your Son, Jesus Christ, have mercy on us. Forgive us, renew us, and lead us, so that we may delight in Your will and walk in Your ways to the glory of Your Holy Name. Amen." (LSB - Divine Service I)

+Pax+

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.

Contemporary Worship, and Law & Gospel

Debates about contemporary worship are plethora these days, both in evangelical, fundamentalist, and Reformed circles. The fundamentalist and evangelicalism have still not dealt with it beyond the ubiquitous "preference" argument. It is all a matter of preference, they claim. The Reformed have dealt with it by creating a "new law" - the regulative principle of worship - that essentially says that if it is not commanded, it is forbidden.

We Lutherans are not immune to these issues, and it has become a real problem in some Lutheran circles. Even congregations that are fully confessional have decided to abandon or water down the liturgy in favor or "CoWo". Adherents usually say that it would be legalism to forbid it, and claim that it is needed to keep the congregation from dying, or to liven up. Many Pastors, not wanting to be accused of legalism, have simply capitulated and have made the change-over. Or, they have been convinced of the CoWo advocate's arguments that we need to worship in the context of our culture (which is code for basically adjusting the worship to meet sinful man's desires).

I propose that this issue be best approached from a different angle: law and Gospel. "But" you say "we have already tried that. We cannot create a new law to forbid it." This is true. If we really admit it, it may run counter to what we have always done, but we cannot point to Scripture and deny based on "thus sayeth the Lord."

But Law and Gospel is how this thorny issue will finally be resolved. And here is why.

Contemporary worship advocates are basically saying, when all is said and done, "you must lift up your hands and hearts toward heaven and praise the Lord. After all, the Savior died for you. Don't you want to do that? You do want to please God, don't you? You do want to tell him how you feel about him, and that you love him. Right?"

Therein lies the problem: CoWo is law.

What the CoWo advocate won't tell you is that CoWo is a basic denial of total depravity. They posit that you MUST lift yourself - and your voices - toward heaven, rather than, as in the liturgy, passively and quietly place ourselves before God, asking for His forgiveness in Word and Sacrament. Why must we? Can we? This is eerily similar to the Arminian argument that we can simply choose God as our Savior, which, similarly, is a complete denial of total depravity.  What if we don't "feel" like praising Him in that way? What if we are depressed and cannot fulfill this "new law" worship requirement? 

It is rather ironic that CoWo advocates are the real legalists in this debate. They are pushing a law-based worship. Yet, they are the first ones to accuse the liturgist of legalism. The CoWo advocate needs to be reminded that we are totally-depraved, poor, and lost sinners in desperate need of forgiveness. We are not cheerleaders for God, nor can we be. The next time a CoWo advocate, however well-meaning they may be, tries to convince you of including CoWo in your worship, tell them "That is a new law. I cannot even fulfill God's requirements in Scripture, and I am unable to do so. I am only a poor, miserable sinner that needs His forgiveness. I don't need any additional laws. No thanks."

CoWo is law. Liturgy is Gospel. 

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


 

Warning! There is but One Way!

Beware of inventing alternative ways of salvation, as many people within the church are oh-so-likely to do.

We Christians love to fill heaven (in our own minds) with all sorts of means of salvation. On one hand, this is not a bad trait to have. We love our fellow man. On the other hand, this might be the worst trait to have. We are flatly rejecting God's Word.

How many ways of salvation does Scripture tell us about? Just one. THE way of salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. Period. Plus nothing.

We are not saved by:

1. Innocence. The number one heaven-filler, if you ask most American Evangelicals, is innocence. The salvation by innocence dogma usually takes its form in the so-called "Age of Accountability." The problem is, the Scriptures do not teach this idea anywhere. On the contrary, the Bible says that everyone is a sinner. Yeah, that includes infants and young children.

Does this mean that all infants and young children are unsaved heathens who get to fan the flames? Well, of course not. God works faith even in them, and even in utero, if John the Baptist is any example.

2. Our Good Works. Many Christians have decided that living a good life is an alternate way to heaven. This is just as much nonsense as the innocence argument above. To think that a person can just do their best to please God and that will earn them heaven has numerous theological problems. First and foremost, it actually assumes that God is not holy. That's just a little bit of a problem...

3. Ignorance. Well, what about the bushman who has never heard the Gospel, someone may ask? Is he saved because he never heard? Well, no, unless you think he deserves to be saved. If this is the case, shouldn't we just not tell anyone about Christ?

We do our best to cling to the simple words of Scripture. By grace you are saved, through faith. (Eph 2:8-9)  How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? (Ro 10:14) Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)

The better question is why would we even want to go beyond what God's Word says about the topic?

Christ Died For YOU

Jesus Christ died for YOU. There are no conditions on this. No ifs. No buts. No candy and nuts.

Observe:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4: Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures

So says St. Paul. Notice what he says in this text.

He calls the people he is addressing brothers. So clearly these are people who are Christians. But it is the rest of what St. Paul says that should be an eye-opener for the Reformed man.

St. Paul says that he preached the Gospel to these brothers by which they are saved. This flatly implies that He preached it to them before they were in Christ.

What did St. Paul preach to them?

1 Corinthians 15:3-4: For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures
He preached to them that Christ died for our sins. This means that he preached to them that Christ died for the sins of people who were unbelievers at the time.

Limited Atonement does not allow a person to preach that, and thus they cannot proclaim the Gospel the way St. Paul did.

That's a pretty big issue.

+Pax+

Robbing the Gospel

There is a fair online presence of Hyper Calvinistic Baptists out there who go by the terminology of "sovereign grace." I am not talking about the C.J. Mahaney types, I am talking about another group entirely. This group of folks believes that anyone who rejects limited atonement is a reprobate. They are all supralapsarian (it's a Calvinist thing, see: Lap Who?) in their view of God's decrees. They believe that God has nothing but love for the elect and nothing but pure hate for the non-elect. They're also Baptist in their stance on Baptism.

Anyways, they're in essence promoting a sort of Gnosticism in some ways, but that is not what this blog is to be about.

This blog is how this group actually robs the Gospel of the one thing they earnestly seek to uphold: free and sovereign grace.

Here is an example from a "sovereign grace" pastor: Is the Gospel and Offer or Command?

Here you have it. This pastor, and all those in this group, insist that the Gospel is a command, yet also insist on sovereign grace alone in salvation. Truth is, the Gospel is not an offer or a command. There are two major problems with this theology.

First, they separate the Gospel from grace. They will protest this charge, but it is valid. The very definition they portray of "sovereign grace" actually denies that the Gospel itself is a means through which the Holy Spirit works, since the Spirit regenerates apart from means anyways in their theology.

Thus, grace actually comes *apart from* the Gospel itself.

Second, they actually rob the Gospel of actually being a one-sided divine promise of grace for you by turning it into a command. Making the Gospel into a command turns the Gospel into LAW.

The GOSPEL, not the LAW, is the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1). And turning the Gospel into a command turns the Gospel into Law and actually destroys the one thing these "sovereign gracers" seek to uphold: free grace.

+Pax+

Continual Christian Exhortation To Do Better?

Do Christians need continual exhortation to be spurred on to better works and love of God and neighbor?

That's a big question, and one that I think has a clear answer. I answer this with an emphatic: NO! Of course, there are plenty of examples of exhortation in the Scriptures, so there is a time and place for it.

This is, properly put, a Law and Gospel issue. The Law exhorts and commands, whilst the Gospel promises and forgives.

I think, when we consider the options, some clear answers emerge. I posit that there are two types of people who need to be bashed over the head with the Holy Law of God on a continual basis.

First and foremost, the Law shows us our sin. Thus, those who are unrepentant need to be preached the Law for the main reason that it indeed does reveal that we have not kept it and therefore must repent. Hence, St. Paul can write such passages like this:

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. ~Galatians 5:19-21

St. Paul here is clearly referring to unrepentant folks who engage in these things with no sorrow for their sin.

Those who are unrepentant need the harshness of the Law. No doubt about that.

The second type of person is the person that thinks they have made it and think they are doing such a wonderful job of living the Christian life that their works are better than other folks' works; even to the point of not sinning. They need the Law too, because in essence, they're unrepentant as well by way of denying their sin.

Those who claim they are in Christ and claim they do not sin need the Law preached to them continually. Why? They're liars. They do sin, and they're unrepentant of it.

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. ~1 John 1:8-10

Those who are repentant and have a Godly sorrow for their sin, however, need the Gospel preached to them in all of its glory and sweetness. They need that one-sided divine promise that says that they belong to Christ.

So, I answer thus: Does a repentant Christian with a Godly sorrow for their sin need to be hammered continually with the Law and with exhortation to do more works? No way. This will accomplish nothing but leading them to despair. They are already repentant of their sins, and all that continual exhortation will do is serve to show them more and more sinfulness within themselves.

Give them, that group or repentant people, that good old sweet savor of the Gospel.

Grace and Peace

We Need The Gospel Too, Ya Know

The Gospel is the sweet savor of salvation for all those who believe. It's the verdict rendered in the work of Christ alone that says 'not guilty!' It is not milk for the babes, nor is it simply something we need to tell unbelievers. It's not something we can move beyond or move past. It's not something we can brush aside as we move on to bigger and better things, or deeper Christian concepts.

It's our lifeblood. It's Jesus.

As I see it, having been through numerous churches in my years, the Confessional Lutheran churches seem to be the only ones who practice this. Now, hear me out. I do not mean to say that there is no Gospel in Evangelical churches, or Reformed Churches, or Orthodox churches, or Roman Catholic churches. Because, you know what, there is. Wherever God's Word is proclaimed and Christ crucified is preached, there is some Gospel there.

But, we need the Gospel continually. The pastor, priest, or whoever is giving the homily or sermon is quite simply put not doing their job if they do not preach Christ crucified for the forgiveness of all of our sins. Every sermon. And if they do not, they have just done the congregation a huge disservice.

We can never relegate the Gospel to secondary status. All too many churches and Christian believers categorize the Gospel as something they already know, so they think they do not need to hear it. What they really need, they surmise, are commands and instructions on how to live a holier life. Now, I grant you, Scripture is replete with commands on how to live. The Decalogue (10 commandments) is the prime example of this.

But...that pesky Law of God always accuses us and shows us that we have not loved the Lord our God with our whole heart, nor have we loved our neighbors as ourselves. We need the Law. The Law is good! (Rom 7) And even more than that, we need the Christ who kept it perfectly on our behalf.

This is why, when we enter the Divine Service, we not only invoke the Triune Name of God by beginning our liturgy in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; but also why the next thing we do is confess our sins and receive a one-sided divine forgiveness through the office of the pastor. As surely as Christ has forgiven our sins, our sins are forgiven by those who stand in the stead of Christ in the office of the ministry. This is why Confessional Lutheranism retains private Confession and Absolution. Yet, this is also why Confessional Lutheranism retains private Confession and Absolution apart from works of satisfaction (aka the Sacrament of Penance in the RCC). The works of satisfaction bit in essence turns the Gospel right back into the Law, as the Roman parishioners are required to do works of satisfaction after Confession, and so on.

But I am not intending to make this a discourse about Roman Catholic Sacraments. Rome has written plenty on that topic, and we will allow Rome to speak for herself in this matter.

Back to the Divine Service. As we enter we are absolved. This is an entrance or introduction of sorts, as we prepare for the Real Presence of Christ in the reading of the Holy Scriptures. Lutherans sometimes relegate the Real Presence to the Eucharist, but in reality, we would be remiss to mention that Christ is present in the Divine Service through the reading of the Word as well. The climax of the Liturgy of the Word in the Divine Service is the reading of the Holy Gospel; the very words of Christ Himself.

Yet, after the reading of the Word, we move on to the sermon (or homily). Here is a bridge from the liturgy of the Word to the Liturgy of the Sacrament, and the pastor has a simple, but also very difficult, task to accomplish here. The pastor's job in the sermon, every Sunday, is to deliver us the Law of God that kills us and shows us that we are by nature sinful and unclean and stand condemned before God. However, he is also bound to deliver us the Gospel. After preaching that Law, He is to preach Christ crucified for the forgiveness of our sins. The Gospel is not a crutch to bring us back to the Law. The Gospel stands by itself, proclaiming the forgiveness of sins because of Christ's merit, not ours. And done. That is a sermon.

Far from being some sort of "radical" Lutheranism, this is simply the pattern we see over and over in Scripture when the Apostles are preaching.

We need that forgiveness proclaimed every time we gather in the Divine Service in the presence of Christ Himself, angels, archangels, and the whole company of heaven.

Here is where, as I see it, only the Confessional Lutheran churches stand tall and faithful. Most churches will offer not a proclamation of the Gospel in a sermon, but a guide on what God wants us to do, how to live, or how to do this or that. Most pastors will offer suggestions (from Scripture, in their defense) on how to better follow Jesus by loving God and your neighbor. If the Gospel is mentioned and preached (praise be to God when it is!), it generally is used to move us on to 'bigger and better' things. Like following the Law (commands).

But, that puts us right back where we started. In despair. We hear that Word of God in the Law. We hear those commandments on how to love one another and love God. And once again, we realize that we are in deep trouble. We try to do them. We do our best to honor God. But if we're being honest, we fall completely and utterly short.

Proper distinction and proper usage of the Law and the Gospel seems simple, but in reality, it's not easy. Our pastors have a difficult task of moving us from the Law that condemns us to the forgiveness of sins in Christ that saves us, apart from the Law.

We need the Gospel just as much as every non-Christian in the world today. We need forgiveness just as much as them too. The Gospel does this. It is the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16). The Law is not.

Nor should we revert to a sermon format of Law-Gospel-Law (in essence this is what Reformed Theology does). Nor is it just to preach the Law by either preaching strictly on works and holy living or even turning the Gospel into a command to be followed (this is essentially what Rome does). We need Law to accuse and kill, and Gospel to save and forgive. I am not denying the third use of the Law, and our Confessions uphold it in strong language as well. The Divine Service, however, is to give to us the forgiveness of sins, something which the Law, nor our living, can ever possibly do.

The Gospel. It's everything. And you, Christian, need it continually. Just like every other person in this world.

The Gospel is everything because Christ and what He has done is everything.

Grace and Peace

Cheap Grace is the Dumbest Term in the History of Terms. And Stuff.

Dr. Michael Brown

Cheap Grace. It's a common term now days, espoused quite a bit by heterodox minglers of law and gospel. Dr. Michael Brown (Brownsville Revival, Charismatic Arminian) is one of the main opponents of cheap grace these days, but he refers to it as Hyper Grace. You know, because anything hyper is bad. Really what Dr. Brown is railing against is a sort of antinomianism. But I digress.


Anyways, the term cheap grace is completely foolish. It was actually Dietrich Bonhoeffer who popularized the term, and Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran, of all things. Granted, he was a liberal one.


Dietrich Bonhoeffer

At the root of the whole cheap grace discussion is not grace (gospel) at all, but law. Bonhoeffer, Dr. Brown, and others (John MacArthur, for instance) are worried that people peddle grace as a license to do what they want to: that is, as a license to sin.



John MacArthur

Now I do get it. Grace is not, nor has ever been, a license to sin. (Rom 6:1-4) But who is doing that really? Likewise, the solutions proposed by the anti-cheap grace advocates are not solutions at all, they're just more yokes to put the law back into the gospel.

The Gospel and the Law are two different words from God Almighty Himself. The Law kills us and drives us to Christ, who gives us pure unadulterated grace as a one-sided free gift in the Gospel.

The problem is, the more law we inject into the gospel, the less good news there is. Ultimately, the people who rail against "cheap grace" are railing against the Gospel being a pure and free gift, in a sense. They're worried that people are going to start rewriting St. Paul and saying: "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Heck yes!" But who does that?

They're worried that people are not going to be moral enough. They're worried that people aren't going to act right. Their problem is, the solution they come up with is to inject the law into the gospel.

The Gospel ceases to be good news when you do that. It puts conditions on the Gospel, and that is a huge error. It turns the gospel into just another command to be obeyed. In other words, it turns the gospel into law.

If they want to talk about the third use of the law or about sanctification or the new obedience, then by all means, let's talk about that. But let's not inject the law into the gospel and create a version of Christianity that teeters dangerously on works salvation.

Thus, ultimately, what these folks are worried about is cheap law, and ultimately, they're worried more about the actions of Christians (third use, sanctification) than they are with the Gospel (Christ for you outside of yourself), and they make the grievous error of mingling the two, thus downgrading the Gospel and grace and mixing our actions into it.

Ultimately, this turns Christianity into a law-based religion. And while I will not say that Dr. Brown, Dietrich Bonhoeffer or John MacArthur are not Christians (I have no reason to believe they aren't.), I will point out that all three of them have a big error when it comes to law and gospel.

They mix them badly and end up making the good news into less good news and robbing numerous Christians of assurance of their salvation by basing it upon their own changed life and actions and not on Christ crucified for the forgiveness of their sins, given to them in Word and Sacrament by promise.

Therefore, Dr. Brown, John MacArthur (who are opponents generally), and Bonhoeffer's stance on this particular topic is very heterodox. Christians are being robbed of the good news of Christ outside of them by these sorts of teachings.

And to sum, you cannot obey a promise, because it's something conditioned on the promise giver, not on you. And grace (Gospel) is a promise.

+Pax+