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.

The proof against baptismal grace? Actually, quite the opposite!

The often quoted prooftext from the Bible against the concept of baptism, as means of grace by which God joins us to Christ and His saving work, is 1 Corinthians 1:17. People love to jump at the statement in that verse that Christ did not send Paul to baptize to say, “see, that proves baptism does not save since if it did, Christ would have sent Paul to baptize.”

In actuality, when read in context of what Paul was trying to say, the passage is saying the exact opposite of what they are arguing. What was Paul’s point? Let’s back up to verse 11. The apostle mentioned there was a quarrel going on among the Corinthians. What seemed to be the problem? Verse 12 is where Paul stated that they were divided between those who said they followed Paul while others said they followed Apollos. And there were others who say they followed Cephas (or Peter). And of course, others said they followed Christ.

That was a huge problem because the Corinthians, except the ones who said they followed Christ, misunderstood the nature of baptism. Baptism was for the purpose of making us followers of Christ, not followers of those ministers who baptized us. God used them to baptize us. Paul made it clear in verse 13 that the issue in regards to baptism was indeed it saves, but that it saves in the name of Christ, not Paul. That was why he said in verses 14-16 he thanked God that he did not baptize but a few. It was so that most who were baptized can’t say they were baptized in Paul’s name as he pointed out in verse 15. His point was not that baptism did not save, but that it did not save in Paul’s name. That is a huge difference in what he said. 

If baptism does not save and is not a means of grace, Paul would have no need to say he was glad he was not sent to baptize so no one would make the mistake of thinking baptism was in Paul’s name or made those baptized followers of Paul (or whoever baptized them in person). He would have said it is irrelevant if he baptized or not, since baptism does nothing. His statements were the exact opposite: the fact that Paul hardly baptized disproved the claims salvation was of Paul or people were made followers of Paul via baptism. Or he would have said that he was glad he was not sent to preach the word so no one can say Paul saved, given folks who denied baptismal grace usually affirmed God saves through means of the word preached. 

If anything, the passage often quoted against baptismal grace proves baptismal grace. It is a fallacious argument to say that since they were not baptized by Paul, they were not baptized at all for the forgiveness of sins. And such an argument has an unintended nasty side effect: it ends up arguing against one’s own view of being baptized right away even for profession of faith. Take such an argument to its logical conclusion, and one can say baptism is not even needed to show one’s faith.

Other passages disprove this argument. We read in 1 Corinthians 6:11 that those very folks were indeed baptized. They were washed, sanctified and justified. Paul addressed the same point in 1 Corinthians 3 in regards to salvation being of Christ, and not of either Paul nor Apollos. What he said in verse 6 was he planted the seed, and Apollos “watered.” Whether watering here referred to baptism or not, the point stands. His ministry had people with different roles by which God used them to reach others. Just because Paul did not baptize does not mean it did not happened. Nor does it mean no one else in his ministry baptized. It is a fallacious claim to try to explain away many passages in Scriptures that say: 1) baptism that saves you now; 2) those who believe and are baptized will be saved; 3) repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the Holy Spirit; 4) buried with Christ in baptism and raised with Him to newness of life; 5) get up, be baptized and washed away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord, 6) buried with Christ in baptism and raised with Him to newness of life; 7) washed with water through the Word; 8) born of water and Spirit; 8) those who are baptized into Christ, through faith, are clothed with Him; and so on.

All this comes from the mindset baptism is our work, and works don’t save us. But none of the passages that say baptism saves say baptism is our work. If anything, we are told baptism is God’s work of grace to us. He is the main actor. We are the passive recipients. Faith alone receives the promises God presents in baptism: Christ Himself who comes to us to bring us forgiveness won for us at the Cross to us, newness of life the Spirit gives us, and salvation God gives us. It is pure grace. Here we stand.

Dispy Free Gracers Implicitly Deny Grace Alone

I came across an article published online by the Grace Evangelical Society titled How Lutherans Implicitly Deny Faith Alone in Christ Alone.

I found this article to extremely misrepresent Lutheran theology. I also think that much of this is due to the presuppositions of the author's own theology. In short, if you are going to critique Lutheranism using Dispensational Free Grace Baptist definitions of theological terms, you're going to end up saying that Lutheranism is outright heresy. Using the author's stances on these things, Lutheranism teaches salvation by works and not only implicitly denies faith alone, but outright rejects it entirely.

Of course we know that this is not the case. We (Lutherans) like faith alone. After all, it was Martin Luther who brought this doctrine back to the forefront in Christendom.

The problem with the author's critique in this article is that he brings his own definitions of things to the keyboard, without bothering to interact with how Lutheranism (and Scripture) sees these theological topics.

First and foremost, the author's definition of what "faith alone" means and the Lutheran definition of what "faith alone" means are not the same thing. As I am familiar with Dispensational Free Grace theology, I can say that faith alone in this theology is essentially what boils down to a positive choice to believe that Christ is your Savior. Ultimately, justification in this theology is a mental assent to the truth. To be sure, this is not completely untrue. Christ is a real person who really died for our sins and rose from the dead for us. There certainly is propositional content here. The right things regarding Christ should be believed.

In Lutheranism, this is not how we formulate faith alone. Rather, we see faith alone as trust. Not so much to proper mental attainment, but rather trust in Christ alone that He has got us and we are His. The first of the author's critiques points out that he is not representing Lutheran theology or soteriology in a fair light.

The author states, "Unfortunately, unlike Free Grace Theology, the Lutheran tradition has not kept to faith alone in Christ alone, despite their stated intention. Indeed, I believe the Lutheran tradition has adopted a number of doctrines in direct opposition to justification/eternal life by faith in Christ apart from works. Let me give three examples:"

He then proceeds to give three examples where he thinks that Lutheranism has abandoned sola fide.

"Infant Baptism. The fact that Lutherans baptize infants denies justification by faith alone. Infants cannot believe and yet Lutherans claim that they are justified in the act of water baptism."

The first thing I will point out here is that this short statement betrays what I have already stated above: The author's theology is in rejection of the biblical doctrine of sola fide. Even more so, implied in the statement is that baptism is a work.

Let us phrase this as clearly as possible. It is no more possible for an infant to believe than it is for an adult with a fully developed cognitive reasoning. In fact, I would almost go as far as to say that it's more unlikely for an adult to believe, since even our reasoning is sinful. To be even more clear: We are all dead in sin (Eph 2). No one seeks God (Rom 3). And nobody can choose to have faith. Such is Arminian free will doctrine, and it is false. The author implies that adults can believe. One must wonder on what basis this is true? Is it because adults have a more fully developed sense of reasoning? If this is the case, why not deny original sin? I mean, seriously, our reason, intellect, and thoughts are sinful. They are even more so the more developed our reasoning gets. Yet the author would have us believe that it is these more developed sinners who can believe, and the infants cannot.

So in what light can we say that Baptism justifies? Well, in the same light as Romans 3:22b-25: For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

St. Paul says here that we are justified by His grace as a gift, which is received by faith. Baptism is a means of grace. Simple enough.

The point? It is impossible for anyone to believe apart from God's powerful working of grace.

"By baptizing people who do not have faith, the Lutheran churches effectively teach that justification is apart from faith, not by it."

This is simply false, but it takes a couple Scriptures to show this. First of all, I would think that the author would agree that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, as Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches. Here is where it gets sketchy for the author's theology. Where is grace given to fallen sinful people? Does his theology have any means of said grace? As I am familiar with Free Grace theology, I am confident the author here would answer that the means of grace are the Word of God and prayer. In the first case I answer a hearty Amen! in the second case I ask two things: First, where does Scripture ever equate prayer with receiving grace? Second, isn't prayer a work? So, if the unsaved person prays to be saved, didn't they do something to be saved? The author may answer then that God perhaps prepared their heart by grace to say a prayer to Him to be saved. But where is this in Scripture? Also, where is this grace coming from? Yes I know: God. But more specifically, by what means? God does not function in a vacuum. He does not regenerate people apart from means. He does not separate the natural world from the spiritual world. We are not Gnostics, after all.

The point is this: God extends grace to people through certain specific means. In this way we can know God is coming to us in grace and mercy on behalf of Christ to save us and not in wrath to condemn us. If there are no natural, tangible, and objective means of grace, our assurance of salvation will be destroyed. How can we know it was God? Are we sure it was the Holy Spirit leading us? Such is the glaring error of the Pentecostal movement.

The means of grace are simple: Word and Sacrament. Natural means that actually carry with them spiritual promises. Baptism is a means of grace, not a work done by us for God. And on we go to the author's second critique.

"Baptismal Regeneration. Paul chastised the Galatians for thinking that circumcision was necessary for salvation. And yet Lutherans insist that we must be baptized in order to be saved. Water baptism was as much a work of the law as circumcision (Lev 16:23-24). How can Lutherans teach that making circumcision a condition of salvation is legalism but making baptism a condition of salvation is not?"

There are a few things to say here. I would like to begin with Leviticus. The author is stripping a ceremonial washing under the Law out of its context and applying it to New Testament Christian Baptism in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I highly doubt that Aaron bathing himself for ceremonial cleanliness was Christian Baptism into the Name of the Triune God. Jewish ceremonial washings are not Christian Baptism. Case closed on that one.

This of course destroys the rest of his argument here regarding circumcision. Of all people, a dispensationalist should recognize the movement from promise to fulfillment. This is why the New Testament repeatedly uses salvific language when talking about baptism. Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:27-29, 1 Peter 3:21, and Colossians 2:11-12, which actually states that Baptism buries us with Christ and raises us in faith. How can the New Testament use this language? Because grace saves, and Baptism is a means of grace.

Hence, the attempt to parallel circumcision to Baptism on a one-to-one basis is an error. Scripture never says that circumcision saves us, or buries us with Christ, or raises us in faith. But it does say all those things about Baptism.

"If Lutherans held consistently to faith alone in Christ alone, they would not make Baptism a condition of eternal salvation."

If we are to believe Scripture as it is written; particularly the passages that speak of what Baptism does, then this argument severely misses the point. To argue that Baptism is not a condition of eternal salvation is pretty much saying that grace is not a condition of eternal salvation. Moreover, if we are to believe Scripture, grace precedes faith. Grace first, faith results as a gift.

Of course, to be sure, it is precisely the powerful working of God that gives Baptism it's power. It's not the water per se. It's the Word of God working in and through the water.

"Loss of Salvation. Lutherans do not believe in eternal security...If Lutherans held consistently to faith alone in Christ alone, they would know that losing our salvation is impossible."

Except, Scripture is very clear that we can fall from grace, abandon the faith, be lost, and so on.

"If a believer commits a grave sin, or persists in sin, or has a lapse of faith, then they can lose their salvation, according to Lutheran theology."

The key word here is "believer." We know for certain that there are many people who are believers that later in life completely abandon the Christian faith and reject Christ altogether. The Free Grace proponent will say one of two things here. First, they may say that the person, despite abandoning Christ and becoming an atheist or some other nefarious thing, is still saved. Second, they may say that the person never really believed in the first place. The problem is, the Scriptures never once speak in either of these manners. On the contrary, Scripture speaks very sternly to believers that abandoning the faith is like, pretty bad. And stuff. Consider Hebrews 10:26-27, "For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries."

Those are very strong words. I am sure our dispensational friends have some interpretation that says this only applies to Jews, or people in the tribulation, or other such nonsense. But the fact of the matter is that they are simply wrong here.

To be plain, the security of the believer if for believers. If someone is no longer a believer, they are no longer in Christ and thus not secure. All they can expect is a fearful expectation of judgment and a fury of fire.

"To see why, consider the explanation that Lutherans can give as to how a person can lose their salvation. The answer always involves something that the believer does...This is another way of saying that justification by faith depends on our behavior. But if our salvation depends upon our behavior, then justification depends in part on our works, and is not by faith alone."

This is just not true of Lutheran theology. Certainly we do affirm that it is us who decide to throw Christ away. I won't argue with that. However, the author here implies, without actually consulting Lutheran thoughts on the topic, that this means that we teach that we must have to do something in order to keep our salvation too. This is not Lutheran teaching. The only thing we can contribute to our salvation is sin. We are responsible for falling away, throwing Christ out, and so on. But GOD, not us, is who keeps us in the faith, saves us, and extends to us the grace needed for the journey. We are passive recipients in all of this. It is God who works in us. It is all grace (through faith).

To summarize, I believe the author has inadvertently mixed up the biblical order. I don't think there is any room in his theology for that other great sola; sola gratia, or grace alone. He seems to be working with a definition of sola fide that necessitates that grace is a reward for faith. The theological problems with this are legion. The most glaring one however is something that the author seeks to avoid: justification by works. If grace is a reward for faith, then faith itself is turned into a good work. The problem is identical when one considers the normal means of salvation in dispensational churches: Saying a prayer to receive Christ. Funny enough, by the author's insistence on sola fide (which is a different formulation of it than classical Christianity), he undermines sola gratia.

Most dangerously, he calls grace works. The Scriptures are abundantly clear about the salvific nature of Baptism (as well as the Lord's Supper, for that matter). By that standard, Baptism must by necessity be gracious. We are saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9), and only grace can work faith in an individual. Yet our author here separates faith from the means of grace and ends up regarding means of grace (specifically Baptism) as works.

Ultimately it is the author's theology that ends up being justification by works, since faith is in essence a work. It's something you do to be saved in Free Grace theology. Make a decision, say a prayer, and so on.

But thanks be to God, he has given us tangible, objective, and natural means of grace by which He saves us. He does not separate out the natural world from the spiritual as the Gnostics did, but He sanctifies the natural and uses it for spiritual things. If God can work through the preaching of the Gospel in sound waves from the voice of a preacher that is heard by the recipient in numerous languages worldwide (this is a natural means...it's Physics), then He certainly can work through other natural means like water, bread, and grape juice...err, I mean wine. ;)

Free Grace theology is aberrant and heterodox at best. It simply cannot deal with the massive amount of texts on grace, faith, Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and the Word of God in a manner that is consistent with Scripture itself or the history of the Christian Church for 2000 years.

Restorationists need not apply here.

Pax

Uh...That Aint What It Says, Pelagians

It's pretty disturbing when people can make Scriptures means the opposite of what they plainly state. One such example is Romans 12:3, which I will post in a few different translations.

Ro 12:3 (KJV):  For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

Ro 12:3 (ESV): For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.

Ro 12:3: (NASB): For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.

Pelagians love to rip this verse out of its context in support of an inherent ability to choose Jesus and be saved by that choice. The argument goes something like this:

According to Romans 12:3, God has given everyone universally an amount of faith. Now it is up to them to use that faith properly and put it in Christ.

But that's not at all what it says. First off, it's addressed to believers in the church. It's not talking about everyone universally.

Second, this interpretation goes against other clear passages like Ephesians 2:8-9 that says we are saved by grace through faith.

Third, there are other Scriptures that flatly deny this interpretation, such as:

2 Thess 3:1-2 (ESV): Finally, brothers, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may speed ahead and be honored, as happened among you, and that we may be delivered from wicked and evil men. For not all have faith.

So, the Pelagians would have us believe that Romans 12:3 says that everyone has faith and just need to use it properly, but the same inspired author tells us in another writing that not everyone has faith.

On the contrary, this passage is addressed to believers, telling them not to think more highly of themselves that they ought to, because it was God alone who gave them that faith in the first place, and their brothers and sisters in Christ have been given that faith as well.

By grace. Not by nature.

Just another reason Pelagius and the folks who espouse the same crap he taught a millennium and a half ago are rightly considered heretics. Yes, even now.

American Pelagians

Mainstream Christianity in the United States is very Pelagian - at least in practice. A recent survey by Christianity Today of Evangelicals has revealed that 68% of American Evangelicals believe that people seek God first and then He responds with grace. 67% agree that people can turn to God on their own initiative. Over half -55%- believe that we must contribute to our own salvation. And 18% said that God loves them because of the good they do or have done. I have provided a link to the article below, which also points out that Arianism is alive and well, as well as the denial of the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

Evangelicals Favorite Heresies

I do think, however, that this result should not surprise us that much. After all, mainstream Evangelicalism has been severely influenced by humanistic methods and American ideals. The poster boy for Evangelicalism and the methods they use has got to be Charles Grandison Finney. The Mainstream Evangelical Church is held in captivity to many methods that originated with Finney and other preachers like him.

My point is, these Evangelicals believe these things because they are taught certain methods that are used to get people saved. They hear these methods week in and week out from the pulpit.

Functionally, Pelagianism relies heavily on a denial of original sin. the denial of original sin goes hand in hand with another doctrine that is nearly universally taught and assumed in Evangelical circles; the Age of Accountability.

When Evangelicals hear week in and week out that their infants and small children have not reached the Age of Accountability and only then are they responsible to make their own decision for Christ, what should we expect? Do the math. A person is innocent and thus saved until they can apprehend and understand their sin, the Gospel, and so on. And then, to be saved, they must make their own decision to follow Christ.

Where is grace in all of this? According to the Christianity Today poll, 68% of Evangelicals believe that grace is a reward or result of their own decision. We find God, then He helps us out.

Should we be shocked? No. Should we be outraged? Maybe. Should we be upset and saddened by these outright heretical teachings and beliefs? Absolutely.

The point is, they believe this because this is what the methods used teach them to believe. When you hear that you are saved by making a decision, saying a prayer, or coming forward for an altar call, what should we expect? It's all human initiative, and it's all unbiblical at best.

Traditional American values also play into this sort of theology. In America, we love the idea of individualism. We adore the "self-made man." We love to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps and create our own destiny. So why not import those ideas in some form into the church?

What can rectify this situation? Well, theologically, Evangelicalism doesn't have the answers to this. This is for a few major reasons.

1. They minimize the Ecumenical Creeds. The Ecumenical Creeds (Apostle's, Nicene, Athanasian) properly read and understood would do away with the Arianism and the denial of the personhood of the Holy Spirit. The shameful Word of Faith and Prosperity movement is a very big reason for the denial of the Spirit's personhood.

2. Their Ecclesiology is weak at best. They do not have a robust doctrine of the office of the ministry. A pastor in Evangelicalism is a hireling. It is not a divine call to preach Christ crucified and properly administer the Sacraments.

3. They do not have any Sacraments. This is a huge one. Evangelicalism rejects that the Sacraments are means of grace; divine gifts that deliver to us Christ the crucified. Where there are no Sacraments, Pelagianism is bound to take over. Where there are no Sacraments, the human will becomes the arbiter of salvation. It's not given to you. Rather, you must take it and appropriate it for yourself by your decision.

The Church catholic has always been creedal, confessional, and sacramental. Without the powerful creative Word working through sound, light, water, bread, and wine, we are left with an idea of grace as a nebulous thing that we get when we choose God. But how can we know we are receiving grace if it is not outside of ourselves and objective?

Thanks be to God, despite the outright Pelagianism and anti-Christian doctrines being taught in American Evangelicalism, God will have the last Word. His Church will be triumphant and He will continue to save people and lead us to everlasting life.

Amen

Becoming Lutheran

Why? Why am I a Lutheran? In this post, I'll attempt to answer that question, as well as give some background on how I got here. I am by no means a life-long Lutheran. Far from it, in fact. I wrote about this briefly before (From Calvinism to Lutheranism), but I intend to go a little deeper and give more of an explanation of my thoughts in this post and address more of the things flying around in my whirlwind of a mind.

I suppose I'll start from the beginning. I was raised in a Christian home with parents whom I respect and adore. My father was a pastor for many years in the Evangelical Covenant Church, although I also must comment that my dad was not Evangelical Covenant in theology (If there is such a thing. The ECC is open to pretty much anything these days.). He was a true blooded Baptist. He still is. And nobody studies the Word as much as that guy. So, suffice it to say, now as a Lutheran, I really don't agree with my father on many things within Christianity, but you're not going to hear me take shots at him. Far from it. Indeed, I am thankful and grateful for my Christian upbringing. My parents always tried to do what was right in the eyes of the Lord.

So, in short, I was raised in that environment. Baptist, pre-trib, dispensational, and so on. But mostly, I was raised to be a Christian, plain and simple.

I was baptized by full immersion in a lake when I was about 10 years old. It was Trinitarian, and my dad assisted in it. So, no need for me to be baptized again. ;)

Fast forward to 2007 or so. My wife and I had just moved to Michigan from Chicago and we ended up at a Bible Church in the area in which we lived. It was a vibrant church full of a lot of great people. They were big on weekday night studies in Scripture and I gained a lot from those. An inductive study on the book of Romans at that church was a big turning point for me. It led my fallen-away self back to the Gospel. But it also led me to the 5 points of Calvinism eventually.

You see, I have a very logical, mathematical, and scientific type of brain. Heck, I have a degree in Physics and taught high school Physics and Math in my life. That's just how I am wired. So, when I saw predestination all over Romans, my logical mind kicked in, and voila - Calvinism. When you take a doctrine like unconditional election (which is a true Scriptural doctrine) and jam your logic and reason onto it, everything else falls into place. Of course, when you do that, your primary operating assumption is the absolute sovereignty of God. Or we could say, that was my material principle. I interpreted everything in Scripture through that lens and made Scripture fit with the doctrine of election and predestination.

But I made one big faulty assumption. Where does Scripture itself tell us that the material principle and primary assumption is the hidden decree of God? Where does it ever even hint that is the central principle by which we should interpret all of Scripture. To put it bluntly, it never says that anywhere. Not to mention, there are other logical deductions that go hand in hand with that assumption. Namely, there are many Christians out there who are just confused and deceived. That's a logical deduction. They might not be elect. In other words, they might be non-elect, which is an idea that Scripture never uses, despite the rational sense it makes.

A logical mind like mine hates paradox and other things that I can't reconcile. I like to be able to figure it all out and put it into a neat little system where it all makes perfect sense and flows logically. Calvinism did that for me. I started with God's decree before the foundation of the world (heck, why not start at the beginning, right?) and saw everything as an outworking of that. Hence, you have the elect and the non-elect. You have those for whom Christ died (the elect) and those for whom Christ did not die (the non-elect). You have those whom God loves (the elect) and those whom God hates (the non-elect), or whom He only loves due to His "common grace," as many Reformed Theologians say. It all makes sense when you start with the hidden decrees of God and work from there.

Yet, the Holy Scriptures are full of paradox and things that we have a very difficult time reconciling. This does not mean that they can't be reconciled, but it does mean that God's ways are higher than our ways. Paradox is completely acceptable in theology, contradiction is not.

But there were a couple huge problems. God's Word says a lot of things that go against these doctrines, and God's Word must have the final say in these matters. This naturally led me to the work of Christ. Christ Himself is the key to the entirety of Holy Scripture, not God's decrees. Christ must be at the center. Christ must also be at the beginning. Where Calvinist Theology is very linear, starting at God's decrees, Roman Catholic Theology is very much grounded in Apostolic Succession and the magisterium of the Roman Church, Lutheran theology is like ripples on a lake. Christ is at the center, and all theology goes out from there, like the circular waves made when an object is dropped into water.

Recognizing that Christ is at the center of everything brought me to a couple huge questions: What did Christ do for us and how does He give it to us. Both Calvinists and Lutherans affirm that it is Christ alone that saves us.

The work of Christ is central. When we look at that in Scripture, it's very plain that it is available -and for- everyone universally. Far from resulting in free-will theology, this fact simply makes Christ's work, given by grace alone, universally available. Scripture says as much, stating in St. John 1:9,  The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. And again in Titus 2:11, For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people. But nowhere does Scripture ever add to those passages, "but only if you choose it."

That draws us headlong into the discussion of how God gives us that universally available grace. Scripture answers this as well.

Ephesians 2:8-9: For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Romans 6:3-4: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Romans 10:13: For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Colossians 2:12: having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

1 Peter 3:21: 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

St. Matthew 26:26-28: Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

And so on. Per the Holy Scriptures, grace is given to create faith in the finished work of Christ. We are saved by grace through faith. How is this grace given? Simply put, through various means. They are the preaching of the Gospel, Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution (St. John 20:23).

Lutheranism affirms all these things. It parrots Scripture. Is this a case of "we believe it but you don't?" Well, sort of, and that's a common criticism now days - to act offended when someone challenges your beliefs. (Postmoderism...grr...) We must however, allow God's Word to have the last word. We must allow God's Word to speak for itself and not try to rationalize something systematic on top of it to make it fit. Not dispensationalism, not covenant theology, not free will. None of that. We start with Christ. We end with Christ. The Bible is about Christ.

The second big problem was Church history. Reformed Theology loves to claim St. Augustine. But he was anything but Reformed. Sure, he held to double predestination like the Reformed, but he also held to baptismal regeneration and falling from grace. In short, the early church was never Calvinist. Many Calvinist doctrines were never taught by anyone in the early church. The Council of Orange (529), which Reformed folks love, actually condemns double predestination and upholds baptismal regeneration. And more importantly, Scripture bears this out because it does not teach double predestination and does teach baptismal regeneration.

On a final note, I must address one other issue that has popped up lately. I've been accused of being arrogant lately, multiple times. I've also been accused of thinking that nobody but Lutherans are saved. I apologize if my tone is not always amicable, but I will never apologize for standing firm in what the Scriptures state.

First of all, it's never arrogant to stand on what Scripture says. I think all Christians would agree. The charge of arrogance is leveled when you stand on something plainly written and someone doesn't agree with you. The true accusation is that you think you're right and they're wrong and that is arrogant.

Secondly, I have *never* even hinted that people outside of Lutheranism are unsaved. That would be a form of neo-Gnosticism (salvation by knowledge). We're saved by grace alone. There are saved Lutherans, saved Calvinists, saved Roman Catholics, saved Baptists, and so on.

I certainly am harsh on theologies that deviate from Scripture. I absolutely am. Why is that so? Plainly put, any doctrine that is in error regarding Christ will lead people away from Christ, not toward Him. The more we get Christ wrong, the less Christ looks like Christ and the more He looks like an impostor. There are numerous cults out there that claim Christ and are not Christian at all. The same principle applies to any church. The more the false doctrines creep in, the further a church gets from Christ. Eventually, it's not even Christian.

The point is, true and pure doctrine drive proper faith and practice. Wrong teachings cannot bring us closer to Christ, only further away.

So in that light, I will continue to be someone who boldly proclaims truth and does not hesitate to call out error.

So why am I a Lutheran? Because it's true.

+Pax+

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+

Directly Proportional Sacramentology

A church's specific view on something will determine how important they think a certain doctrine is. Hence you have theological liberalism clamoring for unity of everyone in Christendom. Some of the further left theological liberals are even ecumenical with other non-Christian religions.

My point here is that unity and truth go together. It's not as if they need to be "balanced." Being balanced is just a catch phrase people use too often now days. But nevertheless, the two go together. Unity must be in the truth, and the higher emphasis one places on certain doctrines, the more likely they are to be dogmatic about them and not budge on the importance of them.

Calvinists and Lutherans are a prime example of this. If you talk to your usual Calvinist who is knowledgeable regarding Reformed Theology and Lutheranism, they will generally say that Calvinism and Lutheranism are not that far apart. They tend to see Lutherans as a group that began the Reformation, but didn't quite reform enough; carrying over too many things from medieval Roman Catholicism. However, your usual knowledgeable Calvinist is very favorable to Lutheranism.

I assert that there are two reasons for this. First of all, Martin Luther was pretty cool. Pretty much everyone who is not a Roman Catholic or an adherent of Eastern Orthodoxy wants to claim Martin Luther. The majority of Reformed Christians that I run across now days seem to think that Martin Luther was a Calvinist and if he were alive today he would most certainly be Reformed, not Lutheran or anything else. (That's not true, but that is not what I am getting at here) That's the first reason.

The second reason is Calvinism's view of the Sacraments. Classically, Reformed Theology affirms the Sacraments as means of grace, although it is confusing as to how they are. Many of the Reformed claim that the Sacraments are means of grace in our sanctification, but not in our justification, thereby separating grace into two categories. In short, the Sacraments are given a second-place seat behind the Gospel. That is to say, Reformed Theology separates out the Sacraments from the Gospel itself. Ulrich Zwingli took a staunch memorialist stance on the Lord's Supper and rejected the Real Presence. John Calvin took a via media stance that attempted to assuage both the memorialists and affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Supper. (Then there is the Consensus Tigurinus...Lutherans are heretics pretty much.) Calvin tried to deal faithfully with both the Real Presence of Christ as well as the Ascension of Christ to the right hand of the Father. He ended up with what amounts to a spiritual presence only for the elect; and no presence whatsoever for the non-elect, who receive only bread and wine, while the elect receive Christ by faith via the work of the Holy Spirit raising us up in faith to the Throne Room of the Father. This is ultimately a denial of the Real Presence, despite Calvinist protests. Christ is not present in the bread and wine in this theology, or else the unregenerate would receive Christ as well. If He is present, everyone partaking would receive Him. Pretty simple.

In short, Reformed Theology has a "lower" view of the Lord's Supper. Thus, they can be lenient towards other views. After all, it's not the true body and blood of Christ, so they can tolerate other views. Hence, Calvinist seem to like Lutheranism in general; despite their obvious disagreements. Lutherans are monergists and affirm the solas, after all.

On the flip side, there is the Lutheran view of Reformed Theology. The Reformed can keep John Calvin. We posit that Calvin had a lot of errors and a very rationalistic theology. Calvin, along with Zwingli and the Reformed churches are what we refer to as the "Radical Reformation." In short, the Reformed got rid of a bunch of stuff just because Rome held to it, which is a terrible reason, considering Rome has a lot of things correct. That's what we think anyways. Exclusive Psalmody, no instruments in worship, a very strict regulative principle, and so on.

Then there is the Lord's Supper. And Holy Baptism. And the atonement. We see Reformed Theology's doctrine of the Lord's Supper as an explicit rejection of the Real Presence, and as such, a denial of the Gospel promises given therein. In other words, we argue that the Calvinists reject what the Lord's Supper is, and as such, make a huge blunder. We also argue that Reformed Theology's stance on the Lord's Supper is Nestorian. Nestorius was an ancient heretic in the early church who split the natures of Christ, more or less.

Thus, in Lutheranism, we do not tolerate aberrant doctrines of the Lord's Supper. This is precisely because we have a "higher" view of the Supper. (We do not think the Reformed think the Lord's Supper is unimportant, just wrong. And as such, a serious error.) Therefore, we see the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper as out of line with what the church has always held to and thus something that must be guarded against. They reject that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ. Therefore it's not even the Lord's Supper, it's something else. (Look up the Prussian Union sometime. If you go back even further to the Reformation era, check out the Crypto-Calvinist controversy.) We view the Lord's Supper as the objective Gospel given for you and to you in the Sacrament.

So, to summarize, the Calvinists are generally very favorable to the Lutherans. Sure, we carried over that old Roman idea that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ, but that's OK, because it's not that big of a deal.

Lutherans, on the other hand, are generally very unfavorable towards Reformed Theology. The Real Presence in the Lord's Supper is a non-negotiable. The true body and blood of Christ is not something to be trifled with or rejected. We see theories that reject the Real Bodily Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as crass and unbelieving. It's a huge deal.

Not to mention that whole assurance killing limited atonement thing. And double predestination. And rejection of baptismal regeneration. We affirm that the Reformed are Christians, but we cannot be in communion with them, no matter how much some of them protest that we are so close to each other.

We're not.

And on and on we go.

+Pax+

Grace, Doctrine, and Shenanigans

Erecting false dilemmas is a staple of theological liberalism in this day and age. The latest well meaning statement I ran across said something along the lines of how Christ came to bring us grace, not doctrine (name withheld to protect the innocent!). In a real sense, there is some truth in this, but ultimately, it falls short of being a solid idea.

First of all, Jesus did come to bring us grace. That's true. The cross of Christ is a life giving fountain of grace. He dies and rises for us. He did that, past tense. It's the Gospel and it's done. He also delivers this work to us in the present via His Word and Sacraments.

Wait a second. This is all doctrine. That is where the statement falls short of making any meaningful sense. The statement pits grace against doctrine. To be plain, this is a false dichotomy. Doctrine is teaching. Doctrine is content. We learn doctrine. We study doctrine. It's not a bad word, it's what we have! Christ came because we needed grace. That's the truth. But to separate grace from doctrine is a serious mistake. To pit them against each other turns grace into some random mystical thing that we have no clue about.

Ultimately, this is nothing more than theological liberalism masquerading in the form of anti-intellectualism. Would the theological liberals not have our pastors preach and teach from the pulpit? Would they have us not teach our children the truth about Christ? Does doctrine really not matter?

Come on. Think with me a bit here. How do we know what grace is without hearing about it? What about Jesus? How do we know who He is and what He has done for us?

That would be doctrine. Need some Scripture? OK.

Romans 10:14-15: 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? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”

Romans 16:17: I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.

1 Timothy 1:3-11: As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, ⁴ nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. ⁵ The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. ⁶ Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, ⁷ desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.

⁸ Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, ⁹ understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, ¹⁰ the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, ¹¹ in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

1 Timothy 4:6: If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed.

1 Timothy 6:3-5:  If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, ⁴ he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, ⁵ and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.

Titus 1:9: He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

So you see, the statement that Christ came to bring us needed grace but not doctrine is quite anti-Christian indeed.

+Grace and Peace+

The Law Kills, But the Gospel Gives Life

2 Corinthians 3:6b: For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Here is a short passage of Scripture that is set up -out of context- to combat people who rely on Scripture alone and hold that the Word is Sacramental. That is to say, the Scriptures are gracious and create faith.

The normal interpretation of the enthusiasts here is to set up a dichotomy between the letter (Scriptures) and the Spirit, which is separated from the Scriptures and therefore gives life independently from the Word. That is to say, the Spirit speaks to us directly apart from means. Even Reformer Ulrich Zwingli took this position.

The problem with this interpretation however, is that is not at all what St. Paul is saying. He is not demeaning the Holy Scriptures at all, nor is he setting up a false dichotomy between the spiritual and the natural. In some ways this interpretation reeks of Gnostic dualism.

So what is St. Paul saying? If we continue reading, he explains.

2 Corinthians 3:7-8: Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory?

He explains that the letter that kills is not the Holy Scriptures but is the Law. The Law kills us, precisely because it brings knowledge of sin (Ro 3:20) and we are incapable of keeping it (Ro 3:23) and are therefore guilty of breaking all of it (Js 2:10). St. Paul even goes as far as to say that the Law is the "ministry of death." The Law does not save us. It can't. The function of the Law is to command, not to give life. Only the Spirit can do that. Yes, the Law is holy, righteous, and good (Ro 7:12). After all, it is from God and reveals His standards. Jesus even ramped up the Law in the New Testament (Mat 22:36-40), saying that we must love the Lord with everything in our being and love our neighbors as ourselves.

So what then is the ministry of the Spirit? It's none other than the ministry of the New Covenant. In other words, it's the ministry of Word and Sacrament. Christ for you. The Spirit works through means. This is the clear teaching of the New Testament. He does not work in a vacuum separated from the means of grace. Not in the manner which the enthusiasts claim by speaking to us personally apart from Word and Sacrament, and not in the manner of the Neo-Calvinists and other non-traditional Calvinists, apart from Word and Sacrament based on a mysterious inward call.

We could phrase this passage in another way if we wanted: The Law kills, but the Gospel gives life. That is the point St. Paul is making. Only Christ's work at Calvary, given to us by the ministry of Word and Sacrament -the realm in which the Spirit works- gives us life.

+Grace and Peace+

Christians are Hypocrites

Darn right we are. We're no better than anyone else.

Wait a second. What did that just say? OK, allow me to spell it out for you. Christians are hypocrites. Yes, yes, yes we are. One of the most common accusations thrown at Christians is that we are hypocrites. And it's true. We are.



You Church People...

The problems are many in this discussion, but I suppose, since I decided to write a blog on it, I'll give some reasoning.


Yeah, like...everyone there.


First, Christianity is not a self-help program. Jesus is not something we add on to our life to improve ourselves. Much less, He is not an addition so that we can stand in the judgment seat and let everyone know how much better we are than them.

Second, Christianity is not moralism. This one is closely correlated to the previous one, but it needs to be said. Christianity is not about us being morally better. Does this mean that we do not desire to please God? Well, no. Does this mean that we accept sin as acceptable behavior? Well, no again. But then,we're every bit as sinful as anyone and everyone else.

Yep, all the time.

Thirdly, those outside the church see right through us. They should though, right? I mean, it's not like non-Christians are stupid. Lots of brilliant people in history have been non-Christians. So, being a Christian or not has nothing to do with intelligence. The problem here is that the world, just like many within the church, think church is about being better and improving yourself. So then when we aren't better, we get labeled as hypocrites, and the non-church people, who are just as sinful, get labeled as being more open, honest, and real. Sometimes it's because they reject that their sin is actually sin. That is most common. Other times it's simply because they're not "religious."

So then, what is the problem? Well, people have a completely incorrect view of what church is. Church people aren't better. And if they claim to be, they too have missed the point. We need the church precisely because we are not better and God judges by a perfect standard. More precisely, we need Jesus Christ. Not just church people, but everyone. He is also love and would have all people to be saved (1Tim 2:1-7).

Church is not a place to go to make yourself better. It's actually quite the opposite. It's a place to go to receive forgiveness of sins because you are not better and you know it. Because you ARE a hypocrite, you need to be forgiven. What we need is the Gospel! Self-improvement is not the good news if the standard is perfection and we cannot ever live up to that.

The world has missed the point too, or else they would be there as well. Many people within the church, as well as our culture at-large, don't know what the church is for.

It's not a self-help institution. It's not a place to get morally better.

It's a hospital for you, precisely because you're not morally perfect and never can be. We need grace and so does everyone else in this world.

+ Soli Deo Gloria +

Creeping Gnostic Means of Grace Denial

The means of grace. The sacraments. The Word. All of these are important terms in Christianity. And there are certainly a plethora of ideas on what constitutes the means of grace and the sacraments now days.

For this post, I'll try to keep it simple. The means of grace are ways through which the Holy Spirit works and gives grace to fallen humanity.

So what is the big deal here? Shouldn't we all be on the same page on this one? After all, the root question behind the discussion here is: How are we saved? How does God give us His grace? Are there specific manners in which He does this? Or are we the means of grace? Does He give us this grace via specific natural means which He has instituted? Or does He give us grace in response to our actions?

There are in essence 3 ideas on this topic and they can't all be correct.

1. God gives us grace in response to our choice of Him. Thus, our faith comes first and grace comes second, as a response.

This is a synergistic error. In essence, this error can take the form of Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism. All orthodox Chirstian bodies have repeatedly rejected this error as heretical. Ecumenical church councils have rejected this, as well as Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed Confessions, documents, and councils.

Ultimately, this view rejects means of grace in the natural world here and now altogether. In short, this view says that grace is given as a result of our decision. This means that this view rejects the sacraments as means of grace.

2. God gives grace first which creates faith, but the Holy Spirit works apart from means via a secret inward call to one of God's elect.

This view is held by *some* Calvinists. In other words, this view says that the Holy Spirit works apart from means and regenerates the elect, who then afterwards believe the Gospel.

Some Calvinists then go on to assert that the means of grace are for our sanctification after we are already regenerate and justified.

This view insists that any means through which the Spirit works violates monergism. They insist that the Holy Spirit is sovereign (true) and works independently apart from means, regenerating the person and creating faith as a gift of God.

There is much to be commended about this view. They correctly recognize that faith is a gift of God and only God Himself imparts it.

The big problem with this view is two-fold. First, in their effort to uphold the sovereignty of God, they fall into a Gnostic error without even realizing it. They basically argue that the Spirit does not use the natural world as means to save the natural world. This view proves too much in the end. I mean, Jesus is a man, right? Granted, none of these folks are interested in denying the incarnation, but why not? It's consistent with their theology in this regard.

3. God uses specific natural means through which He gives grace. The Holy Spirit works through these means in the salvation of sinners.

This is the orthodox view. This view says that God uses natural means through which to work, and these means are clearly described and given to us in Holy Scripture. All means of grace are driven solely by the creative Word of God. The means of grace are the means of grace precisely because God works through them in His creative Word.

In short, in Holy Baptism, we are washed with water and the Word. (Eph 5) It's the Word that gives Baptism it's power. In the Eucharist, we are fed with the Word Himself, receiving the body and blood of Christ. In Holy Scripture, we are given the very Word of God in written or spoken form.

In other words, God has chosen to use the natural world to save the natural world. He uses water, bread, wine, sound waves, and light waves.

Far from removing the sovereignty of God, this orthodox view actually reinforces the sovereignty of God, showing that God can supernaturally create faith and save the natural world by means of the natural world, precisely because God has power and control over the natural world.

Far from rejecting monergism, these means are monergistic and objective. They deliver Christ, who died at Calvary in the natural world, to us in natural means in which God has said He will be present.

What blessed assurance! God saves us by natural means and promises that we are His through these natural means.

How am I saved? Well, Christ saved me 2000 years ago at Calvary. Now He delivers that salvation to me in Baptism and the Eucharist, and gives me His Word in Holy Scripture to back up His promise and deliver me even more assurance.

How do I know I am saved? The means are objective. That's another beauty of it all. God saves me via Word and Sacrament, and I can know I am saved also because of this Word and Sacrament, which deliver me the faith that clings to Christ alone for my salvation.

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! ~Romans 11:33

Feel Good Tree Huggin Hibbity Dibbity

What is the purpose of Christianity? What is it about? Who is the central figure?

If you listen to your general run of the mill evangelical testimony now days, Christianity is something vastly different than what Scripture purports it to be.

Not so long ago, I had the privilege of hearing numerous testimonies at a church at which I am not a member. I like hearing testimonies. The majority of them were stories about how their lives have changed due to the ministry of the church. Marriages have been saved, people have been set on a course to financial freedom, and lives have been changed. Other testimonies focused on how good something made them feel, or how they just could feel the Spirit moving. All of that is good, of course. Lord knows He saved my marriage once upon a time, and He continues to uphold us by His hand of providence and grace.

But none of that is really Christianity.

The thing that saddened me is that not once did someone say anything about Christ crucified and the forgiveness of sins. What about the resurrection? Pfft. Not to be found. If an outsider were in attendance, they would without doubt come away from those testimonies thinking that Christianity is a self-help program to get your life on track. But can't they get self-help from the culture around them? Well, yeah, they can. You don't need Christ for that.

If this is the case; that Christianity is something to get your life on track, we're still all dead in our sins. And that's a huge problem of eternal proportions.

If this is the case; that Christianity is something to get your life on track, the best "Christians" out there are the best motivational speakers, psychologists, and shrinks.

If this is the case; that Christianity is something to get your life on track, Dr. Phil, Oprah, and other secular anti-Christian self-help gurus are the new Apostles. Perhaps we might throw Joyce Meyer and Joel Osteen into the mix here too, but they're anti-Christian as well.

Nobody wants to hear that they are a wretched sinner. Nobody wants to hear that they can do nothing to save themselves. Nobody wants to hear that Christianity is not a self-help program, because at our core we are sinful selfish beings. Our first question usually is "what's in it for me?" And Christianity ends up with a whole ton of people within the walls of the church who have no clue what Christianity is. This is a horrific shame.

Your quality of life, materially and relationally speaking, might get better as a Christian. But it might get worse. But you're forgiven. God has saved you, is saving you, and will save you. He gives you Himself in the Word, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper.

But it's OK, most people surmise. Because, you know, we all believe in Jesus. But which Jesus? Who is He? What has He done? Why, oh why, is the Good News not proclaimed over and over? Why are we not partaking of the Lord's Supper more often?

Michael Horton

Reformed author Michael Horton puts it well:

“Jesus was not revolutionary because he said we should love God and each other. Moses said that first. So did Buddha, Confucius, and countless other religious leaders we've never heard of. Madonna, Oprah, Dr. Phil, the Dali Lama, and probably a lot of Christian leaders will tell us that the point of religion is to get us to love each other. "God loves you" doesn't stir the world's opposition. However, start talking about God's absolute authority, holiness, ... Christ's substitutionary atonement, justification apart from works, the necessity of new birth, repentance, baptism, Communion, and the future judgment, and the mood in the room changes considerably.” 

Houston, we have a problem. The Church is not doing her job. People believe these self-help messages and feel good testimonies because that is precisely what they have been taught in the church.

People are looking for God in themselves and the change in their lives. But that's not where God is, according to Scripture. He's on the cross, dying for you. He's in the grave. He's risen from the grave for you. He's in His Word, given to you. And He is in His Sacraments; those places where He promises in His Word that He will be.

Christianity is not a religion of how much God changed my life or of how much I am doing for God. It's a religion (And please, please, please don't tell me Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship. That's a massive false dichotomy.) of Christ saving you. At Calvary, rising from the grave, in His Word, and in His Sacraments.

Because you...are a sinner. And you need forgiveness continually.

Why don't we hear that at most churches? Because they've exchanged the truth (even though they usually know this truth...it gets brushed under the rug) for some lies. That's why.