There is such a beautiful Lutheran hymn: There Many Shall Come From the East.
Each stanza ends with: Have mercy on us, O Jesus!
One of my most favorite lines in the hymn, in this pain-filled, trial-filled great tribulation of tears and travail, is this one:
"All trials shall be like a dream that is past."
It is difficult for me to sing the whole stanza #3 without tearing up and even weeping.
All trials shall be like a dream that is past,
Forgotten all trouble and mourning.
All questions and doubts have been answered at last,
When rises the light of that morning.
Have mercy upon us, O Jesus!
O come quickly, Lord Jesus!
2/20/20
Classical Lutheran Education
What is Classical Lutheran Education and Why is it Important?
(Note: The following is an essay I wrote for my school’s blog. I am blessed to be a classical Lutheran educator. If you are considering a classical Lutheran school where your child will be educated in the historic and confessional doctrines of the Lutheran faith, please feel free to visit both www.ccle.org and www.memoriallutheranschool.org.)
One of the things that distinguishes classical Lutheran education from public education is not only the “classical” of a classical school, but also the “Lutheran” of a Lutheran school. For many folks, when they hear the word “classical,” this usually evokes in their minds pictures of prep students, people who study dry, dusty books, or people who usually reject any or all uses of technology in the classroom. Yet, classical Lutheran education is an entire way of thinking. In fact, this thinking is starkly contrasted with the popular public pedagogies of our day; so much so, in fact, that it would be helpful for us to discuss the differences between modern education in the public schools, and classical Lutheran education.
WHAT IS PUBLIC EDUCATION?
First of all, public education is pluralistic. “Pluralism” for the purposes of this essay can be defined as the acceptance or basis of more than one view as the background and interpreting principle of a society or institution. In this case, the society that is pluralistic is our country, the United States. It is pluralistic because we accept all religions or faiths into our society, given the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights. Therefore, when any institution of higher learning is “public” in our country, it is funded by our tax dollars. Since the public of our country is composed of several faiths, then by definition the schools funded by the public’s taxes must be pluralistic. If the government of a pluralistic society were to use public funds in preference of one religion, one could easily argue that that said government would be violating the very definition of a public school. This opens up debate over constitutional law, of course, but that is beyond the scope of this essay.
Secondly, public education’s main purpose is to serve the public through preparing their students for the job world. When one has a pluralistic classroom, usually one cannot concern oneself with questions of ethics, virtue, morality, religion, the spiritual, etc. Indeed, the focus in our modern times has been to neglect the humanities in favor of the sciences, because the other above issues must be left for the parents.
Thirdly, public education is diverse. All kinds of children from all kinds of backgrounds and faiths have to be served in public education, and therefore it is difficult, if not impossible, to discuss questions of the deeper issues such as goodness, truth, and beauty. Related, subjects in the public schools most of the time have to be compartmentalized, and separated without connection. It is rare to see a connection in postmodern society between school subjects, since postmodernism tends to deconstruct even language itself. It has led to a disordered way of thinking (or more precisely, lack of thinking).
So, to summarize, the main purpose of public education is to prepare a child for the job world in our diverse and pluralistic society. Questions of morality, ethics, religion, etc., are usually deferred to the parents. Public education is less concerned with the good, true, or beautiful, and more concerned with telling children what to think and how to do.
WHAT IS CLASSICAL LUTHERAN EDUCATION?
The public school pedagogies in general are to be contrasted with the main purpose of classical Lutheran education. So what is classical Lutheran education?
First of all, classical Lutheran education is ”classical.” This goes without saying, of course. But what do we mean by classical? Classical education is concerned with the good, the true, and the beautiful. The classical pedagogy desires to train up our children in the virtues. It is geared toward the development of the whole child, both spiritual and physical. Indeed, one may say that classical education is concerned with the making of a person. Classical educators also recognize that the child develops in various stages. We commonly call these stages the grammar stage, the logic or dialectic stage, and the rhetoric stage.
Each stage is geared toward the development of the whole child. Although we recognize that all three stages also overlap, the focus of the grammar stage is laying the foundation through rhyme and repetition; the focus of the logic stage is to teach the children critical thinking, making connections, and how to think; and the focus of the rhetoric stage is to teach the children to be confident, articulate, and well-written and well-spoken.
Second, classical Lutheran education is “Lutheran.” Indeed, how could we be concerned with the making of a person if we left religion and truth out of it? How could we care about the good, the true, and the beautiful if we did not show them that the pure Gospel found in Lutheranism shows us that Christ is our ultimate Good, that Christ is our ultimate Truth, that Christ is Beautiful because not only is He good in and of Himself, but that He also makes us beautiful by giving us His Righteousness on the Cross and delivering it to us and wrapping us in it in Holy Baptism? Our students learn then that Lutheranism is good, true, and beautiful, because we are convinced that the Bible is the Word of God, and that the true understanding of the Word of God is summarized in Lutheranism’s confessional documents. Which leads us to our next point.
Thirdly, classical Lutheran education is catechetical. We place a heavy emphasis on catechesis, or training in the Lutheran faith, not only for our confirmands, but for all our students. We do indeed serve students of different backgrounds here at Memorial Lutheran School. But we are unashamedly Lutheran. We cannot talk about the good, true, and beautiful, if we were silent about what is “true.” Therefore we catechize our students to learn Dr. Martin Luther’s Small Catechism. We have daily chapel services in which our students learn and participate in the historic liturgy of the Church. We teach our students the Book of Concord, which is a summary of the Lutheran faith. And we believe that in doing so, they will rejoice in the Gospel that was placed on them in their Baptisms, and they will desire in turn to serve their neighbors out of thankfulness to God.
So we may say that the “classical” trains our children in how to think and what to do, and the “Lutheran” does the same. The main purpose, therefore, of a classical Lutheran education is to continually train our children in their standing before God (coram Deo) in the Gospel as forgiven completely in Christ, and to respond in love to their neighbor (coram mundo) in service and good works. So classical Lutheran education teaches our students how to think and what to do. The job world is only one of many benefits that a child trained under the classical Lutheran pedagogy will receive. We train them to go out in society as well-rounded individuals who will love and serve their neighbor, and to rejoice in the pure Gospel of the forgiveness of sins in Christ apart from works.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we have seen that public education is pluralistic and teaches children what to think and how to dothings. Its main purpose is to send workers into the job world. Whereas classical Lutheran education is centered on truth and goodness and beauty and teaches children how to think and what to do for their neighbor. Public education tends to therefore usually place the focus on technology and acquiring skills. Classical Lutheran education places the focus on the forgiveness of sins, and to become thinkers and articulate individuals who will serve their neighbor and bring this goodness, truth, and beauty into society.
We have not had time in this essay to discuss the differences that become fleshed out in the various school subjects, but that will be reserved for a future essay.
So we must conclude by asking ourselves, do we want an education for our children that may train them to be workers for society, or do we want an education for our children that will train them to be thinkers that bring the Good News of the Gospel of the free forgiveness of sins in Christ to our society?
For this classical Lutheran educator, the Answer is clear.
10/1/19
Bible Churches?
What exactly is a "bible" church? They seem to be everywhere. What do they believe? I will endeavor to show, in this post, that so-called "bible" churches aren't really faithful to what the actual bible teaches.
To begin, a bible church is typically non-denominational and independent. This is to say, the spectrum of beliefs in bible churches varies to an extent, since individual bible churches are not committed to any catechism or confession of faith. Generally speaking, a bible church will have an independent statement of faith developed by the elders or deacons of their church that is in accord with the bible, but is independent of any other church.
This being said, bible churches do have a specific large influence and, perhaps, starting point. Hence, bible churches, commonly, have specific beliefs that are in common with the vast majority of other bible churches, despite each individual church concocting its own unique statement of faith.
That influence is Dallas Theological Seminary, the classic American dispensational seminary.
A bible church will nearly always believe the following doctrines and openly teach them as biblical Christianity.
1. Premillennial and Pre-Tribulation Eschatology
This is not, I repeat, absolutely not, a Lutheran belief. This is the commonly held belief in a secret rapture where Christ whisks away his church and leaves all the unbelievers behind to endure seven years of God pouring out His wrath on the Earth, before Christ returns in judgment and sets up an earthly 1,000 year kingdom where Christ rules humanity from His throne in Jerusalem. This belief was popularized by authors such as Hal Lindsey (Late, Great, Planet Earth) and Tim Lahaye and Jerry B. Jenkins (Left Behind series).
The problem is, this theology was never taught in early church, nor did it have any adherents until very recent history. Certainly there were some premillennialists in the early church - Justin Martyr is an example of one - but no pre-tribulation teachers.
More so of a problem is that to get pre-tribulationism out of the bible, one must impose a systematic theology on to the Scriptures. Namely, dispensationalism. Dispensationalism would claim that theirs is the plain, literal reading of the Scripture, but as we shall see, it's not.
2. Expository Preaching
This is the method of preaching that works its way verse by verse through Scripture and explains and expounds on the passage being read. On the surface, this really isn't a bad thing. However, what gets lost in expository preaching quite often is a clear proclamation of the law and the gospel. This is not to say that bible church pastors and teachers reject the law and the gospel, but it is to say that when they preach, the law and gospel are not always clearly proclaimed, in distinction from a Confessional Lutheran sermon.
3. Credobaptism as an Act of Obedience to God
That is to say, bible churches are nearly always Baptist in their theology of baptism. The vast majority, I dare to say almost all, of bible churches will only baptize believers who can articulate their faith. They will not baptize infants. Also, they outright reject baptismal regeneration. Baptism is, in their theology, an act of obedience done by the believer as a response to a command of Christ.
The problem here is, their theology of baptism is not at all how the bible speaks of baptism. Here we could rattle off Scripture after Scripture that speaks against the bible church doctrine.
4. Holy Communion as an Act of Obedience
And by the way, it's just bread and grape juice, there is no bodily presence of Christ. Their theology tells them that the Eucharist is nothing more than a remembrance meal done in obedience to Christ. It is not, as Christ says, "...for the forgiveness of sins." (Mat 26)
I would argue, as a Lutheran, on the basis of Scripture, that numbers 1, 3, and 4 are outright wrong because Scripture says so - and the entire history of the church agrees up until recently - and number 2 runs the risk of shielding and hiding the gospel when in reality believers and unbelievers alike need to hear the gospel as often as possible.
The conclusion is that bible churches are not really bible churches in their beliefs. Certainly there are many things they also have right. They're trinitarians, for instance. They also affirm the inerrancy of Scripture and justification by faith alone (albeit a bit of a different idea than Luther).
However, at the end of the day, a bible church rejects all sorts of core biblical truth as a Lutheran understands Scripture.
+Pax+
To begin, a bible church is typically non-denominational and independent. This is to say, the spectrum of beliefs in bible churches varies to an extent, since individual bible churches are not committed to any catechism or confession of faith. Generally speaking, a bible church will have an independent statement of faith developed by the elders or deacons of their church that is in accord with the bible, but is independent of any other church.
This being said, bible churches do have a specific large influence and, perhaps, starting point. Hence, bible churches, commonly, have specific beliefs that are in common with the vast majority of other bible churches, despite each individual church concocting its own unique statement of faith.
That influence is Dallas Theological Seminary, the classic American dispensational seminary.
A bible church will nearly always believe the following doctrines and openly teach them as biblical Christianity.
1. Premillennial and Pre-Tribulation Eschatology
This is not, I repeat, absolutely not, a Lutheran belief. This is the commonly held belief in a secret rapture where Christ whisks away his church and leaves all the unbelievers behind to endure seven years of God pouring out His wrath on the Earth, before Christ returns in judgment and sets up an earthly 1,000 year kingdom where Christ rules humanity from His throne in Jerusalem. This belief was popularized by authors such as Hal Lindsey (Late, Great, Planet Earth) and Tim Lahaye and Jerry B. Jenkins (Left Behind series).
The problem is, this theology was never taught in early church, nor did it have any adherents until very recent history. Certainly there were some premillennialists in the early church - Justin Martyr is an example of one - but no pre-tribulation teachers.
More so of a problem is that to get pre-tribulationism out of the bible, one must impose a systematic theology on to the Scriptures. Namely, dispensationalism. Dispensationalism would claim that theirs is the plain, literal reading of the Scripture, but as we shall see, it's not.
2. Expository Preaching
This is the method of preaching that works its way verse by verse through Scripture and explains and expounds on the passage being read. On the surface, this really isn't a bad thing. However, what gets lost in expository preaching quite often is a clear proclamation of the law and the gospel. This is not to say that bible church pastors and teachers reject the law and the gospel, but it is to say that when they preach, the law and gospel are not always clearly proclaimed, in distinction from a Confessional Lutheran sermon.
3. Credobaptism as an Act of Obedience to God
That is to say, bible churches are nearly always Baptist in their theology of baptism. The vast majority, I dare to say almost all, of bible churches will only baptize believers who can articulate their faith. They will not baptize infants. Also, they outright reject baptismal regeneration. Baptism is, in their theology, an act of obedience done by the believer as a response to a command of Christ.
The problem here is, their theology of baptism is not at all how the bible speaks of baptism. Here we could rattle off Scripture after Scripture that speaks against the bible church doctrine.
4. Holy Communion as an Act of Obedience
And by the way, it's just bread and grape juice, there is no bodily presence of Christ. Their theology tells them that the Eucharist is nothing more than a remembrance meal done in obedience to Christ. It is not, as Christ says, "...for the forgiveness of sins." (Mat 26)
I would argue, as a Lutheran, on the basis of Scripture, that numbers 1, 3, and 4 are outright wrong because Scripture says so - and the entire history of the church agrees up until recently - and number 2 runs the risk of shielding and hiding the gospel when in reality believers and unbelievers alike need to hear the gospel as often as possible.
The conclusion is that bible churches are not really bible churches in their beliefs. Certainly there are many things they also have right. They're trinitarians, for instance. They also affirm the inerrancy of Scripture and justification by faith alone (albeit a bit of a different idea than Luther).
However, at the end of the day, a bible church rejects all sorts of core biblical truth as a Lutheran understands Scripture.
+Pax+
9/30/19
Lutheranism and the Problem of Evil
I desired to learn more about the problem of evil as a refutation of the existence of God and some of the solutions put forth by numerous theists of varying stripes. To my dismay, much of what I found and read - scholarly articles and non-scholarly articles alike - was unhelpful. What I ended up coming across were endless philosophical proofs and arguments for and against the problem of evil. Seemingly the most common defense from the Christian side is to argue in some form for libertarian free will. To be sure, on a philosophical level, this argument does offer a solution to the problem. Yet, I am equally convinced it misses the point in some ways. In its most basic form, the problem of evil states that;
1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god does not exist.
Basically, that's what it argues at its simplest level. Despite premise one being solvable philosophically, I argue that this is an off the rails adventure of missing the point, for some major reasons.
First, with a tip of the cap to presuppostional apologetics, the terms "good" and "evil" can't even be used without the existence of an objective unchangeable standard for what constitutes such things. Namely, the God of the bible, who gives these terms objective definition.
Second, theologically, the existence of the problem of evil argument at all shows clearly the law of God written on the hearts of all people everywhere; as unbelievers reject God on the basis of things that God alone can define in an objective manner. Hence, why do these persons even object when their rejection of God, by definition, makes good and evil wholly subjective? If this be the case, according to their own worldview, these terms themselves are nothing more than preferences and subjective opinion, which reduces their arguments to nothing more than irrational mumbo jumbo - that is, if their worldview is correct.
Get it? The argument of the problem of evil not only presupposes that "good" and "evil" are real, but for them to be real, it also presupposes the existence of God: the very thing it seeks to disprove!
Whereas this response and argument shows clearly the irrationality of an atheistic worldview, it too, is not the point.
The point is Jesus. That may sound reductionistic and may be dismissed as unscholarly, but it is the Christian answer to this issue. How so? Because in the Incarnation of Christ, God Himself not only suffers, but also swallows up evil in Himself by dying on the cross. (Isa 53, 2Co 5:21)
You've suffered? God knows what that is like. Jesus suffered and died.
You've been wronged by evil? So has God. Read the Passion narrative in the Book of John.
Sadly, the mainstream Christian message being taught and heard today is not Christian at all. Jesus is viewed as a means to make your live better or to make us all happier. It's a therapeutic message, but it's not the Christian one. It's what Martin Luther (and Lutherans today!) would call a theology of glory. In stark opposition is the Christian theology of the cross.
Mankind and Satan brought evil into the world in the garden, but Christ has done all that is needed to solve it. He has borne our sins in His body on the tree. He has suffered, died, and risen.
With all due respect to Christian philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga and his free will defense as a philosophical solution to the problem of evil, their arguments steer us away from the cross and are thus nothing more than the triumph of reason and a theology of glory. Fun to read and dissect, but the world needs Christ suffering, dying, and rising for them.
Christ has done it all. The problem we brought to this world is solved fully and completely in Christ and His work.
+Pax+
1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god does not exist.
Basically, that's what it argues at its simplest level. Despite premise one being solvable philosophically, I argue that this is an off the rails adventure of missing the point, for some major reasons.
First, with a tip of the cap to presuppostional apologetics, the terms "good" and "evil" can't even be used without the existence of an objective unchangeable standard for what constitutes such things. Namely, the God of the bible, who gives these terms objective definition.
Second, theologically, the existence of the problem of evil argument at all shows clearly the law of God written on the hearts of all people everywhere; as unbelievers reject God on the basis of things that God alone can define in an objective manner. Hence, why do these persons even object when their rejection of God, by definition, makes good and evil wholly subjective? If this be the case, according to their own worldview, these terms themselves are nothing more than preferences and subjective opinion, which reduces their arguments to nothing more than irrational mumbo jumbo - that is, if their worldview is correct.
Get it? The argument of the problem of evil not only presupposes that "good" and "evil" are real, but for them to be real, it also presupposes the existence of God: the very thing it seeks to disprove!
Whereas this response and argument shows clearly the irrationality of an atheistic worldview, it too, is not the point.
The point is Jesus. That may sound reductionistic and may be dismissed as unscholarly, but it is the Christian answer to this issue. How so? Because in the Incarnation of Christ, God Himself not only suffers, but also swallows up evil in Himself by dying on the cross. (Isa 53, 2Co 5:21)
You've suffered? God knows what that is like. Jesus suffered and died.
You've been wronged by evil? So has God. Read the Passion narrative in the Book of John.
Sadly, the mainstream Christian message being taught and heard today is not Christian at all. Jesus is viewed as a means to make your live better or to make us all happier. It's a therapeutic message, but it's not the Christian one. It's what Martin Luther (and Lutherans today!) would call a theology of glory. In stark opposition is the Christian theology of the cross.
Mankind and Satan brought evil into the world in the garden, but Christ has done all that is needed to solve it. He has borne our sins in His body on the tree. He has suffered, died, and risen.
With all due respect to Christian philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga and his free will defense as a philosophical solution to the problem of evil, their arguments steer us away from the cross and are thus nothing more than the triumph of reason and a theology of glory. Fun to read and dissect, but the world needs Christ suffering, dying, and rising for them.
Christ has done it all. The problem we brought to this world is solved fully and completely in Christ and His work.
+Pax+
8/19/19
Gnesio Philippist Calvinists and Stuff
Oh the Calvinists. So much misinformation and bearing false witness. I'm not sure if their foolishness is intentionally misleading or just misinformed. I'll assume the latter to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Lutherans and Calvinists have been linked together in many ways since the days of the Protestant Reformation. Suffice it to say, from a Lutheran standpoint, we do not believe the same things as the Calvinists, nor are we very close to believing the same things; much less be in communion together.
Here is a prime example of Calvinist misinformation, which, if a person were to do an historical study of what actually happened, would immediately see that this misinformation is just plain wrong.
The recently deceased Reformed pastor and theologian R.C. Sproul stated the following:
While discussing the Reformed doctrine of predestination in his book Chosen by God, Sproul gives a list of theologians in history who affirm predestination and those who deny it. He states: "We cannot determine truth by counting noses. The great thinkers of the past can be wrong. But it is important for us to see that the Reformed doctrine of predestination was not invented by John Calvin. There is nothing in Calvin's view of predestination that was not earlier propounded by Luther and Augustine before him." (Sproul, p. 167) So far, so good. The early Luther, while as yet an Augustinian monk in the Roman Church, did hold to double predestination. No Lutheran should dispute that, since Luther is quite clear that he did. He (Luther) did, however, hold to a doctrine of single predestination later in life, which the Calvinists cannot bear to admit in many cases. However, that is not what this post is about. Rather, it is Sproul's next statement that throws up all sorts of misinformation.
He continues, "Later, Lutheranism did not follow Luther on this matter but Melanchthon, who altered his views after Luther's death. It is also noteworthy that in his famous treatise on theology, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin wrote sparingly on the subject. Luther wrote more about predestination than did Calvin." (Sproul, p. 167)
Nope. Wrong. Incorrect. The part of the statement to which I refer is Sproul's claim that Lutheranism followed Melanchthon and not Luther on this matter. This is simply false. It is well documented that this is not the case. The most important documentation that refutes Sproul's statement is actually our Lutheran Confessional documents the Epitome of the Formula of Concord and the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord. In fact, these documents were written in view of Melanchthon's compromising and synergism, among other controversies that had crept in to the Lutheran church.
Indeed, the Evangelical Catholic Church (Lutheran) did struggle with this issue in the 16th century. The same issue popped up in the United States in the 19th century, with the first president of the Missouri Synod, C.F.W. Walther, staunchly defending the classic and Confessional Lutheran stance on predestination and monergism.
Back to the 16th century. From the years 1555-1560, the synergistic controversy was fought in the Lutheran churches. The wavering and compromising Melanchthon had written that there are three reasons people are saved. Per Melanchthon, these three are the Holy Spirit, the Word of God, and the nonresistance of a person's will. It is this third reason put forth by Melanchthon that is a problem, since it teaches synergism.
Against Melanchthon, there were the Gnesio, or genuine, Lutherans, who espoused the biblical form of monergism, even opposing Melanchthon. Sadly, one of the Gnesio Lutherans in the monergism camp named Matthias Flacius, over-reacted and ended up teaching error regarding original sin, saying that original sin is the very substance of fallen humanity, which would cause God to be the author of sin.
Enter the Formula of Concord. The first two articles of both the Epitome and the Solid Declaration are on Original Sin and Free Will, respectively. The first article regarding Original Sin corrects Flacius' error while also strongly upholding the Biblical doctrine of Original Sin. The Epitome states, "We believe, teach, and confess that there is a distinction between man's nature and original sin. This applied not only when he was originally created by God pure and holy and without sin [Ge 1:31], but it also applies to the way we have that nature now after the fall. In other words, we distinguish between the nature itself (which even after the fall is and remains God's creature) and original sin. This distinction is as great as the distinction between God's work and the devil's work." (Ep: I, 2)
Here is a clear rejection of Flacius' error.
However, the Epitome also states, "On the other hand, we believe, teach, and confess that original sin is not a minor corruption. It is so deep a corruption of human nature that nothing healthy or uncorrupt remains in man's body or soul, in his inward or outward powers [Ro 3:10-12]" (Ep: I, 8)
The Epitome and the Solid Declaration have much more to say about Original Sin, but this will suffice for the purpose of this blog.
Likewise, the Formula of Concord also formally adopted Luther's -not Melanchthon's- view of the will of man.
"This is our teaching, faith, and confession on this subject: in spiritual matters the understanding and reason of mankind are <completely> blind and by their own powers understand nothing, as it is written in 1 Corinthians 2:14..." (Ep: II, 2)
"Likewise, we believe, teach, and confess that the unregenerate will of mankind is not only turned away from God, but also has become God's enemy. So it only has an inclination and desire for that which is evil and contrary to God, as it is written in Genesis 8:21, 'the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth.' Romans 8:7 says, 'The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.' Just as a dead body cannot raise itself to bodily, earthly life, so a person who by sin is spiritually dead cannot raise himself to spiritual life. For it is written in Ephesians 2:5, 'even when we were dead in our trespasses, He made us alive together with Christ.' And 2 Corinthians 3:5 says, 'Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God.'" (Ep: II, 3)
"For without his grace, and if He does not grant the increase, our willing and running, our planting, sowing, and watering (1 Co 3:5-7) -are all nothing. As Christ says <in John 15:5>, 'apart from Me you can do nothing.' With these brief words the Spirit denies free will its powers and ascribes everything to God's grace, in order that no one may boast before God (1 Co 1:29[2 Co 12:5, Jer 9:23]). (Ep: II, 6)
These Confessional statements are a clear rejection of Melanchthon's synergism and a clear affirmation of monergism. The Formula of Concord has much more to say on these topics, especially in the Solid Declaration. If the reader would like more information, go to http://www.bookofconcord.org or pick up a copy of the Book of Concord; the Epitome and the Solid Declaration are the last two Confessional documents in the book. I heartily recommend the Reader's Edition of the Book of Concord edited by Rev. Paul McCain. It can be found and purchased at http://www.cph.org.
Hence, it should be quite clear to the serious student of history and reader of the Lutheran Confessional statements that R.C. Sproul's statement that Lutherans follow Melanchthon and not Luther is in error. Frankly, we follow Scripture alone, but we happen to agree far more theologically with Dr. Martin Luther than we do with the wavering and compromising Philip Melanchthon after Luther's death.
I find it hard to believe that these statements and issues still exist in Calvinist circles and it makes me wonder why. Lutherans are not synergists, at least not Confessionally. Per Scripture, as well as the Book of Concord, we are monergists.
Not only that, but we also strongly affirm predestination. However, we affirm, with Scripture, that predestination and election pertain to believers, not unbelievers. If the reader would like to see what the Lutherans believe regarding predestination, read the Epitome XI and the Solid Declaration XI.
Nope, sorry R.C., we disagree with the post-Luther Melanchthon in the strongest manner possible.
+Pax+
Lutherans and Calvinists have been linked together in many ways since the days of the Protestant Reformation. Suffice it to say, from a Lutheran standpoint, we do not believe the same things as the Calvinists, nor are we very close to believing the same things; much less be in communion together.
Here is a prime example of Calvinist misinformation, which, if a person were to do an historical study of what actually happened, would immediately see that this misinformation is just plain wrong.
The recently deceased Reformed pastor and theologian R.C. Sproul stated the following:
While discussing the Reformed doctrine of predestination in his book Chosen by God, Sproul gives a list of theologians in history who affirm predestination and those who deny it. He states: "We cannot determine truth by counting noses. The great thinkers of the past can be wrong. But it is important for us to see that the Reformed doctrine of predestination was not invented by John Calvin. There is nothing in Calvin's view of predestination that was not earlier propounded by Luther and Augustine before him." (Sproul, p. 167) So far, so good. The early Luther, while as yet an Augustinian monk in the Roman Church, did hold to double predestination. No Lutheran should dispute that, since Luther is quite clear that he did. He (Luther) did, however, hold to a doctrine of single predestination later in life, which the Calvinists cannot bear to admit in many cases. However, that is not what this post is about. Rather, it is Sproul's next statement that throws up all sorts of misinformation.
He continues, "Later, Lutheranism did not follow Luther on this matter but Melanchthon, who altered his views after Luther's death. It is also noteworthy that in his famous treatise on theology, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin wrote sparingly on the subject. Luther wrote more about predestination than did Calvin." (Sproul, p. 167)
Nope. Wrong. Incorrect. The part of the statement to which I refer is Sproul's claim that Lutheranism followed Melanchthon and not Luther on this matter. This is simply false. It is well documented that this is not the case. The most important documentation that refutes Sproul's statement is actually our Lutheran Confessional documents the Epitome of the Formula of Concord and the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord. In fact, these documents were written in view of Melanchthon's compromising and synergism, among other controversies that had crept in to the Lutheran church.
Indeed, the Evangelical Catholic Church (Lutheran) did struggle with this issue in the 16th century. The same issue popped up in the United States in the 19th century, with the first president of the Missouri Synod, C.F.W. Walther, staunchly defending the classic and Confessional Lutheran stance on predestination and monergism.
Back to the 16th century. From the years 1555-1560, the synergistic controversy was fought in the Lutheran churches. The wavering and compromising Melanchthon had written that there are three reasons people are saved. Per Melanchthon, these three are the Holy Spirit, the Word of God, and the nonresistance of a person's will. It is this third reason put forth by Melanchthon that is a problem, since it teaches synergism.
Against Melanchthon, there were the Gnesio, or genuine, Lutherans, who espoused the biblical form of monergism, even opposing Melanchthon. Sadly, one of the Gnesio Lutherans in the monergism camp named Matthias Flacius, over-reacted and ended up teaching error regarding original sin, saying that original sin is the very substance of fallen humanity, which would cause God to be the author of sin.
Enter the Formula of Concord. The first two articles of both the Epitome and the Solid Declaration are on Original Sin and Free Will, respectively. The first article regarding Original Sin corrects Flacius' error while also strongly upholding the Biblical doctrine of Original Sin. The Epitome states, "We believe, teach, and confess that there is a distinction between man's nature and original sin. This applied not only when he was originally created by God pure and holy and without sin [Ge 1:31], but it also applies to the way we have that nature now after the fall. In other words, we distinguish between the nature itself (which even after the fall is and remains God's creature) and original sin. This distinction is as great as the distinction between God's work and the devil's work." (Ep: I, 2)
Here is a clear rejection of Flacius' error.
However, the Epitome also states, "On the other hand, we believe, teach, and confess that original sin is not a minor corruption. It is so deep a corruption of human nature that nothing healthy or uncorrupt remains in man's body or soul, in his inward or outward powers [Ro 3:10-12]" (Ep: I, 8)
The Epitome and the Solid Declaration have much more to say about Original Sin, but this will suffice for the purpose of this blog.
Likewise, the Formula of Concord also formally adopted Luther's -not Melanchthon's- view of the will of man.
"This is our teaching, faith, and confession on this subject: in spiritual matters the understanding and reason of mankind are <completely> blind and by their own powers understand nothing, as it is written in 1 Corinthians 2:14..." (Ep: II, 2)
"Likewise, we believe, teach, and confess that the unregenerate will of mankind is not only turned away from God, but also has become God's enemy. So it only has an inclination and desire for that which is evil and contrary to God, as it is written in Genesis 8:21, 'the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth.' Romans 8:7 says, 'The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.' Just as a dead body cannot raise itself to bodily, earthly life, so a person who by sin is spiritually dead cannot raise himself to spiritual life. For it is written in Ephesians 2:5, 'even when we were dead in our trespasses, He made us alive together with Christ.' And 2 Corinthians 3:5 says, 'Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God.'" (Ep: II, 3)
"For without his grace, and if He does not grant the increase, our willing and running, our planting, sowing, and watering (1 Co 3:5-7) -are all nothing. As Christ says <in John 15:5>, 'apart from Me you can do nothing.' With these brief words the Spirit denies free will its powers and ascribes everything to God's grace, in order that no one may boast before God (1 Co 1:29[2 Co 12:5, Jer 9:23]). (Ep: II, 6)
These Confessional statements are a clear rejection of Melanchthon's synergism and a clear affirmation of monergism. The Formula of Concord has much more to say on these topics, especially in the Solid Declaration. If the reader would like more information, go to http://www.bookofconcord.org or pick up a copy of the Book of Concord; the Epitome and the Solid Declaration are the last two Confessional documents in the book. I heartily recommend the Reader's Edition of the Book of Concord edited by Rev. Paul McCain. It can be found and purchased at http://www.cph.org.
Hence, it should be quite clear to the serious student of history and reader of the Lutheran Confessional statements that R.C. Sproul's statement that Lutherans follow Melanchthon and not Luther is in error. Frankly, we follow Scripture alone, but we happen to agree far more theologically with Dr. Martin Luther than we do with the wavering and compromising Philip Melanchthon after Luther's death.
I find it hard to believe that these statements and issues still exist in Calvinist circles and it makes me wonder why. Lutherans are not synergists, at least not Confessionally. Per Scripture, as well as the Book of Concord, we are monergists.
Not only that, but we also strongly affirm predestination. However, we affirm, with Scripture, that predestination and election pertain to believers, not unbelievers. If the reader would like to see what the Lutherans believe regarding predestination, read the Epitome XI and the Solid Declaration XI.
Nope, sorry R.C., we disagree with the post-Luther Melanchthon in the strongest manner possible.
+Pax+
8/12/19
The Eucharist Also Gives *Bodily* Healing. Here's How.
The Eucharist gives forgiveness of sins.
And where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.
Yesterday when I partook of the Sacrament of the Altar, I was especially aware of my weakness in body and soul. I have plantar fasciitis in my left foot, and I was in a lot of pain. I am also divorced, and I still feel the pain of that, not to mention my own sinfulness.
All of the above made me aware yesterday as I partook of Christ's Body and Blood that His Flesh and His Blood not only give spiritual healing and forgiveness, but also physical healing.
The Resurrection is physical, and our resurrection is physical.
Christ restores all things, and He gives that pledge and testament by giving to us His Body and Blood in His Holy Supper.
And the priest after distributing says the following:
"May this true Body and true Blood of Christ preserve Thy body and soul unto everlasting life."
*Body* and soul.
Romans 8 speaks of the hope in the redemption of our *bodies*.
This fat man with plantar fasciitis in his left foot will be healed on the last day.
This broken man with his heart broken and his sins ever before him will see restoration and eradication of his sin nature on the last day.
We thank You, Lord, that You have refreshed us with this most salutary Gift.
Lord, now lettest Thy servant depart in peace. For mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, which Thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples.
This nightmare of a life is almost over.
And our present sufferings are not worth comparing to the glory that will be revealed in us.
But even now we get a taste of the restoration of all things in the Most Blessed Sacrament.
Therefore with angels and archangels, and all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify Your glorious Name.
Blessed is He Who comes in the Name of the Lord.
And Christ comes to us in the Sacrament of the Altar, giving us His Body and Blood to eat and to drink for the forgiveness of sins, and giving us a foretaste of the inheritance which is to come.
The inheritance where all death, pain, and sorrow will be wiped away forever.
The inheritance where everything will be restored.
The inheritance where this nightmare will be over, and it will be as if only a dream.
Now we see through a glass darkly, but soon we will see face to face.
And when we see Him, we will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is.
And he who has this hope in Him purifies himself, even as He is pure.
This Blessed Hope is realized in His Holy Supper, as He continually comes to us and for us.
We don't have to wait for the last day to experience this. We experience it now, as Christ comes to us in His Supper.
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
And where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.
Yesterday when I partook of the Sacrament of the Altar, I was especially aware of my weakness in body and soul. I have plantar fasciitis in my left foot, and I was in a lot of pain. I am also divorced, and I still feel the pain of that, not to mention my own sinfulness.
All of the above made me aware yesterday as I partook of Christ's Body and Blood that His Flesh and His Blood not only give spiritual healing and forgiveness, but also physical healing.
The Resurrection is physical, and our resurrection is physical.
Christ restores all things, and He gives that pledge and testament by giving to us His Body and Blood in His Holy Supper.
And the priest after distributing says the following:
"May this true Body and true Blood of Christ preserve Thy body and soul unto everlasting life."
*Body* and soul.
Romans 8 speaks of the hope in the redemption of our *bodies*.
This fat man with plantar fasciitis in his left foot will be healed on the last day.
This broken man with his heart broken and his sins ever before him will see restoration and eradication of his sin nature on the last day.
We thank You, Lord, that You have refreshed us with this most salutary Gift.
Lord, now lettest Thy servant depart in peace. For mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, which Thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples.
This nightmare of a life is almost over.
And our present sufferings are not worth comparing to the glory that will be revealed in us.
But even now we get a taste of the restoration of all things in the Most Blessed Sacrament.
Therefore with angels and archangels, and all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify Your glorious Name.
Blessed is He Who comes in the Name of the Lord.
And Christ comes to us in the Sacrament of the Altar, giving us His Body and Blood to eat and to drink for the forgiveness of sins, and giving us a foretaste of the inheritance which is to come.
The inheritance where all death, pain, and sorrow will be wiped away forever.
The inheritance where everything will be restored.
The inheritance where this nightmare will be over, and it will be as if only a dream.
Now we see through a glass darkly, but soon we will see face to face.
And when we see Him, we will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is.
And he who has this hope in Him purifies himself, even as He is pure.
This Blessed Hope is realized in His Holy Supper, as He continually comes to us and for us.
We don't have to wait for the last day to experience this. We experience it now, as Christ comes to us in His Supper.
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
8/3/19
Unrepentant Christians?
There are, unfortunately, some theologies out there that affirm the existence of an unrepentant Christian. Some branches of dispensationalism do this, separating the number of saved persons into carnal Christians and spiritual Christians. Some proponents of this view, Zane Hodges being one example, go to such an extreme that a person who has accepted Christ may fall away to such a point that they totally reject Him and become completely anti-Christian, yet still be saved the entire time.The topic can be tricky, because it is God who brings a person to repentance, and God will do this in his own manner, by His Word. However, I think the Scriptures speak pretty clearly on this topic.
One massive stumbling block to the doctrine of repentance and the biblical report is the doctrine of once saved always saved; or in Reformed Theology, the Perseverance of the Saints. These doctrines generally state that a person who is saved by grace will always stay saved, no matter what. In American Evangelical circles (i.e. Baptist), once a person has made a decision for Christ, they are saved for all eternity with no chance of ever falling away and being lost. the Reformed version of this argues that God will bring the elect person back to repentance in His time.
But is this the biblical report? I do not think it is, although I have much greater sympathy for the Reformed version than I do the American Evangelical version, since the Reformed version at least affirms the necessity of repentance.
I think we can look at three passages and see what Scripture has to say on the topic. Two of the three passages are from Jesus, and one is from the book of Hebrews.
In the Gospel of St. Luke, Jesus speaks of the Tower of Siloam and repentance. The passage can be found in St. Luke 13:1-5. Twice, our Lord says, "...unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." (v. 3, 5) Hence, Christ says that no repentance ends in death. Clearly He is also not speaking of physical death.
The second passage, also from the mouth of Christ, is the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant, found in St. Matthew 18:21-35. Christ concludes the parable with the following words: "Then his master summoned him and said to him, you wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you? And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from the heart." (v. 32-35) Here we see Christ being very clear that a servant who does not forgive will not be forgiven. Unless the servant repents.
Finally, we have in the book of Hebrews the following warning: "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." (Hebrews 10:26-27) Strong words.
We should be able to see quite clearly that a person who does not repent is not in a state of grace. They are unsaved. This applies to non-believers as well as persons that were previously believers. An unrepentant Christian is an oxymoron. An unrepentant person is not a Christian. They are unsaved; not in a state of grace.
Luther writes, in the Smalcald Articles, "It is, accordingly, necessary to know and to teach that when holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed from them [they cast out faith and the Holy Ghost]. For the Holy Ghost does not permit sin to have dominion, to gain the upper hand so as to be accomplished, but represses and restrains it so that it must not do what it wishes. But if it does what it wishes, the Holy Ghost and faith are [certainly] not present. For St. John says, 1 John 3:9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, ... and he cannot sin. And yet it is also the truth when the same St. John says, 1:8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." (SA III, III, 43)
The Lutheran Church has always taught that repentance is needed for all sin, for everybody. Repentance has two parts. They are contrition and faith. The Augsburg Confession states:
"Of Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance. Now, repentance consists properly of these two parts: One is contrition, that is, terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ's sake, sins are forgiven, comforts the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance." (AC XII 1-6)
One massive stumbling block to the doctrine of repentance and the biblical report is the doctrine of once saved always saved; or in Reformed Theology, the Perseverance of the Saints. These doctrines generally state that a person who is saved by grace will always stay saved, no matter what. In American Evangelical circles (i.e. Baptist), once a person has made a decision for Christ, they are saved for all eternity with no chance of ever falling away and being lost. the Reformed version of this argues that God will bring the elect person back to repentance in His time.
But is this the biblical report? I do not think it is, although I have much greater sympathy for the Reformed version than I do the American Evangelical version, since the Reformed version at least affirms the necessity of repentance.
I think we can look at three passages and see what Scripture has to say on the topic. Two of the three passages are from Jesus, and one is from the book of Hebrews.
In the Gospel of St. Luke, Jesus speaks of the Tower of Siloam and repentance. The passage can be found in St. Luke 13:1-5. Twice, our Lord says, "...unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." (v. 3, 5) Hence, Christ says that no repentance ends in death. Clearly He is also not speaking of physical death.
The second passage, also from the mouth of Christ, is the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant, found in St. Matthew 18:21-35. Christ concludes the parable with the following words: "Then his master summoned him and said to him, you wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you? And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from the heart." (v. 32-35) Here we see Christ being very clear that a servant who does not forgive will not be forgiven. Unless the servant repents.
Finally, we have in the book of Hebrews the following warning: "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." (Hebrews 10:26-27) Strong words.
We should be able to see quite clearly that a person who does not repent is not in a state of grace. They are unsaved. This applies to non-believers as well as persons that were previously believers. An unrepentant Christian is an oxymoron. An unrepentant person is not a Christian. They are unsaved; not in a state of grace.
Luther writes, in the Smalcald Articles, "It is, accordingly, necessary to know and to teach that when holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed from them [they cast out faith and the Holy Ghost]. For the Holy Ghost does not permit sin to have dominion, to gain the upper hand so as to be accomplished, but represses and restrains it so that it must not do what it wishes. But if it does what it wishes, the Holy Ghost and faith are [certainly] not present. For St. John says, 1 John 3:9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, ... and he cannot sin. And yet it is also the truth when the same St. John says, 1:8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." (SA III, III, 43)
The Lutheran Church has always taught that repentance is needed for all sin, for everybody. Repentance has two parts. They are contrition and faith. The Augsburg Confession states:
"Of Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance. Now, repentance consists properly of these two parts: One is contrition, that is, terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ's sake, sins are forgiven, comforts the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance." (AC XII 1-6)
Here, in these two quotes from the Lutheran Confessions, we see the proper use of both the Law and the Gospel. Contrition is a Godly sorrow for sin, both original and actual. This is a function of the Law. Faith is a function of the Gospel, which receives the good gifts of God; namely, the forgiveness of sins via Word and Sacrament.
As we can see, per the Scriptures and the Confessions, there is no such thing as an unrepentant Christian who is in a state of grace.
Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. St. Matthew 3:2
+Pax+
7/28/19
Nonsense and Paradox!!!
I had a really hard time swallowing Lutheranism for a very long time. This time occurred, of course, before I became a Lutheran. You see, the Lord has given me what you would call a very logical and analytical mind. I'm always searching for the reason behind the reason. I like everything to make perfect sense on a logical level. I have an undergraduate degree in Physics, and once upon a time I taught high school Physics and Mathematics. Those two disciplines make sense! You can work out how things function, and come to an unchangeable answer; written in stone. 2+2 is always 4, according to the rules of addition. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and so on.
Coming into an interest in theology, I applied this methodology to Scripture. I remember vividly in years past my coming out of the closet (no, not like that, ya perv) moment theologically speaking. After months of pouring over the Scriptures and trying to make it all make sense (logically), I proudly announced that I was a 5 point Calvinist. The TULIP all fit together in a nice little system that made sense to me. If the Father elected some, the Son by logic must have only atoned for those same people, and the Spirit, by logic, must only regenerate those same people as well. And of course, it makes no logical sense that God, in His infinite wisdom, would even bother trying to save anyone else but those same people; the Elect of God.
It all made perfect sense logically. It made God nice and neat. The Trinity was in perfect unity in my mind.
But, the problem was, I found myself justifying numerous verses and passages in Scripture to fit this logical system. I could give numerous examples straight from Holy Writ. 1 Timothy 4:10 is a good one to use.
1 Timothy 4:10b: "...we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe."
The Calvinist wrenches and claws at this verse, finding alternative interpretations of it in order to avoid the obvious and plain conclusion that Christ died for all people universally. They will say (some of them) that if this teaches a universal atonement for all humanity indiscriminately, then the whole TULIP falls apart, because due to logic, predestination can't be true, neither can irresistible grace be true, and so on. The Calvinist surmises that one cannot logically hold to both an unconditional election of grace and a universal atonement at the same time (save for the Amyraldians, or 4 point Calvinists), for this would put the Trinity at odds with each other and make God illogical. Not only so, but the doctrine of predestination so clearly found in Scripture must by necessity be double. That is to say, that if God predestined a specific number of people to be saved, then by logical necessity, He must also have predestined by rest to hell by His non-choice of them to be saved. Or, in higher versions of Calvinism, He predestines them to hell by His direct action. This is all to say, that while all Calvinists hold to a doctrine of double predestination, some believe that God is passive in His reprobation, others believe that He is active. The recently deceased Calvinist author and pastor R.C. Sproul, in his book Chosen by God, has a chapter entitled "Double, Double, Toil or Trouble," in which he argues at length that predestination, by logical necessity, must be double. It cannot be any other way in the Calvinist mind. The also deceased Calvinist author Gordon Clark was so bent on logic that he posited ideas such as that God is logic (his idea of the logos of John 1:1), and also that Christ was and is two persons, because he surmised that the Council of Chalcedon did not go far enough in defining their Christology. Personally, I think Clark was a rank heretic, but I digress.
I never considered Lutheranism for a long time because the theology held to tensions in Scripture that the logical thinker simply has a very difficult time abiding. We know, as Lutherans, that we strongly affirm the doctrine of predestination as laid out in the Scriptures. This is to say, we affirm, with Scripture, that God predestines a specific finite number of persons to be saved, and He does this by His own choice apart from anything in us and apart from looking through time and seeing who will choose Him. This predestination is God's choice alone, and the number of the predestined to be saved cannot change, because it is based on God's sole determination.
But He also says, in Scripture, that He desires to save every person universally. Say what? No! That can't be! It doesn't fit logically!
But He also never says, in Scripture, that He has predestined or elected the rest of humanity to be damned. There is no such biblical category as the "non-elect." What? No! But it has to be that way! It's logic!
But He also says, in Scripture, that Christ died for all humanity universally, and that this atonement was effective for everyone.
But He also says, in Scripture, that baptism now saves you and that people can and do fall away from grace and are lost.
I see, in retrospect, that this particular use of logic as a means to fit the Word of God into a Systematic Theology is a sinful use of a gift of God. That is to say, when we are using our logic and reasoning as a hammer to have to explain away plain and clear passages of Scripture, we are using a good gift that God has given us - the ability to think logically - in a sinful manner. We are in essence saying that our reasoning and logic trumps what God has so clearly spoken.
Far from being some sort of triumphalist idea that we Lutherans believe God and you rationalists don't, this is simply agreeing with what God has said. Who are we to question Almighty God? To do this is not to exegete Scripture properly, but is, to put it simply, a ploy of Satan to make us question "Did God really say?"
I hated the paradox. I hated that God seemed to say both things sometimes and didn't clearly lay out a Systematic Theology for us that fit Him logically into my brain. Lutheranism was very hard for me to accept, but at the end of the day, as Christians, God is true and we are sinners. Lutheranism affirms this and allows Scripture to speak on its own apart from our logical and rational attempts to fit it into a system.
The problem is, when our Systematic Theologies end up saying something that is the opposite of what Scripture tells us, it is not the Scriptures that are wrong, it is our theology.
The Old Adam, the sinner that all of us are, lives on in us, even when we do theology and read the Scriptures. It's true. We are sinners and beggars in need of God's grace.
Scripture doesn't contradict, but it does give us a lot of paradox. We are simply to say amen, let it be so. God has spoken, are we are to believe every word that comes from the mouth of God.
Lutheranism has answers to this. It's found in the affirmation of paradox, but also in the paradigm of law and gospel. But that is a topic for another time.
+Pax+
Coming into an interest in theology, I applied this methodology to Scripture. I remember vividly in years past my coming out of the closet (no, not like that, ya perv) moment theologically speaking. After months of pouring over the Scriptures and trying to make it all make sense (logically), I proudly announced that I was a 5 point Calvinist. The TULIP all fit together in a nice little system that made sense to me. If the Father elected some, the Son by logic must have only atoned for those same people, and the Spirit, by logic, must only regenerate those same people as well. And of course, it makes no logical sense that God, in His infinite wisdom, would even bother trying to save anyone else but those same people; the Elect of God.
It all made perfect sense logically. It made God nice and neat. The Trinity was in perfect unity in my mind.
But, the problem was, I found myself justifying numerous verses and passages in Scripture to fit this logical system. I could give numerous examples straight from Holy Writ. 1 Timothy 4:10 is a good one to use.
1 Timothy 4:10b: "...we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe."
The Calvinist wrenches and claws at this verse, finding alternative interpretations of it in order to avoid the obvious and plain conclusion that Christ died for all people universally. They will say (some of them) that if this teaches a universal atonement for all humanity indiscriminately, then the whole TULIP falls apart, because due to logic, predestination can't be true, neither can irresistible grace be true, and so on. The Calvinist surmises that one cannot logically hold to both an unconditional election of grace and a universal atonement at the same time (save for the Amyraldians, or 4 point Calvinists), for this would put the Trinity at odds with each other and make God illogical. Not only so, but the doctrine of predestination so clearly found in Scripture must by necessity be double. That is to say, that if God predestined a specific number of people to be saved, then by logical necessity, He must also have predestined by rest to hell by His non-choice of them to be saved. Or, in higher versions of Calvinism, He predestines them to hell by His direct action. This is all to say, that while all Calvinists hold to a doctrine of double predestination, some believe that God is passive in His reprobation, others believe that He is active. The recently deceased Calvinist author and pastor R.C. Sproul, in his book Chosen by God, has a chapter entitled "Double, Double, Toil or Trouble," in which he argues at length that predestination, by logical necessity, must be double. It cannot be any other way in the Calvinist mind. The also deceased Calvinist author Gordon Clark was so bent on logic that he posited ideas such as that God is logic (his idea of the logos of John 1:1), and also that Christ was and is two persons, because he surmised that the Council of Chalcedon did not go far enough in defining their Christology. Personally, I think Clark was a rank heretic, but I digress.
I never considered Lutheranism for a long time because the theology held to tensions in Scripture that the logical thinker simply has a very difficult time abiding. We know, as Lutherans, that we strongly affirm the doctrine of predestination as laid out in the Scriptures. This is to say, we affirm, with Scripture, that God predestines a specific finite number of persons to be saved, and He does this by His own choice apart from anything in us and apart from looking through time and seeing who will choose Him. This predestination is God's choice alone, and the number of the predestined to be saved cannot change, because it is based on God's sole determination.
But He also says, in Scripture, that He desires to save every person universally. Say what? No! That can't be! It doesn't fit logically!
But He also never says, in Scripture, that He has predestined or elected the rest of humanity to be damned. There is no such biblical category as the "non-elect." What? No! But it has to be that way! It's logic!
But He also says, in Scripture, that Christ died for all humanity universally, and that this atonement was effective for everyone.
But He also says, in Scripture, that baptism now saves you and that people can and do fall away from grace and are lost.
I see, in retrospect, that this particular use of logic as a means to fit the Word of God into a Systematic Theology is a sinful use of a gift of God. That is to say, when we are using our logic and reasoning as a hammer to have to explain away plain and clear passages of Scripture, we are using a good gift that God has given us - the ability to think logically - in a sinful manner. We are in essence saying that our reasoning and logic trumps what God has so clearly spoken.
Far from being some sort of triumphalist idea that we Lutherans believe God and you rationalists don't, this is simply agreeing with what God has said. Who are we to question Almighty God? To do this is not to exegete Scripture properly, but is, to put it simply, a ploy of Satan to make us question "Did God really say?"
I hated the paradox. I hated that God seemed to say both things sometimes and didn't clearly lay out a Systematic Theology for us that fit Him logically into my brain. Lutheranism was very hard for me to accept, but at the end of the day, as Christians, God is true and we are sinners. Lutheranism affirms this and allows Scripture to speak on its own apart from our logical and rational attempts to fit it into a system.
The problem is, when our Systematic Theologies end up saying something that is the opposite of what Scripture tells us, it is not the Scriptures that are wrong, it is our theology.
The Old Adam, the sinner that all of us are, lives on in us, even when we do theology and read the Scriptures. It's true. We are sinners and beggars in need of God's grace.
Scripture doesn't contradict, but it does give us a lot of paradox. We are simply to say amen, let it be so. God has spoken, are we are to believe every word that comes from the mouth of God.
Lutheranism has answers to this. It's found in the affirmation of paradox, but also in the paradigm of law and gospel. But that is a topic for another time.
+Pax+
7/24/19
Objectivity of Christ > Baptist Decisional Theology
I was raised in a Baptist environment. The church(es) we attended were not necessarily Baptist in name, but certainly were hard line Baptist in theology. I was baptised as any good Baptist is - after I could properly articulate my faith and give a proper testimony. Thus, as numerous traditional church members can usually say; that they were baptised on the 2nd day, or the 8th or 10th day, I could say that I was baptised in about the 10th year, only after I could give a proper testimony. And of course after my baptism by full immersion in a lake, the congregation sang "I Have Decided to Follow Jesus." So, while my baptism is certainly valid, the underlying theology of baptism is in direct opposition to what the Scriptures teach about baptism.
Ultimately, when one's theology of the sacraments is completely emptied of their biblical import and meaning, defined by our Lord Jesus Christ, something else always rushes in to fill the void. So whereas a Lutheran can say "I was saved in my baptism," a Baptist would never say such a thing, because of the Baptist's theology of Baptism. In fact, to say such a thing would be paramount to heresy in a Baptist church. God forbid you were saved by your obedience! (Because baptism is nothing more than a work of obedience in baptist theology)
So what rushes in to replace the completely objective washing for the forgiveness of sins that is baptism? Why, it's my personal decision to choose Christ, of course! This is usually done by praying a certain prayer (the Sinner's Prayer or something like it), or walking forward at the end of the service to answer an "altar call" by submitting their life to Christ.
Far from being an isolated incident, I was asked, literally, numerous times: "If you don't know the moment you made a choice for Jesus, how do you know you're saved?"
Yes, this is really a common question in Baptist circles; especially those of a more fundamental baptist ilk. The problems with this sort of statement and theology are numerous. First and foremost, the Bible doesn't teach it anywhere. Nowhere does the Scripture ever exhort us to make a decision for Jesus, or ask Him into our heart, make Him our personal Savior, have a relationship with Him (everyone already has a relationship with Christ. They're either under grace and saved, or they're lost. Either one is a relationship), or other such ideas. Second, it actually rails against what Scripture actually says about the topic. Whereas Scripture repeatedly tells us that we are dead in sins (Eph 2), unable to obey God (Rom 8, 1Co 2), and that God alone saves us unilaterally apart from ourselves (Eph 2, Rom 8, etc), and not because of ourselves and our choice(s); this theology says the opposite; namely, that we are able to decide for ourselves with our free will.
In opposition to this wrong headed theology, which is utterly subjective and based upon something we must do and decide, the Scriptures give us pure objectivity. This objectivity is rooted in an unchanging God, who cannot lie (Tit 1). This objectivity is based on the Christ who created the world (Gen 1, Col 1). But where is this objectivity found? In our choice? Or elsewhere?
Since our choices and decisions are based on us, they are therefore subjective and fleeting. Christ, however, is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13). God, in His infinite wisdom, has given us objective means based solely on Himself, that are for the forgiveness of sins and the salvation of the world. As Luther reminds us in his Small Catechism: "For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation." (SC VI)
Thankfully, God has seen fit to actually tell us where this objectivity is found. He has bound Himself to His Word, and His Word tells us that Baptism, the Word itself, Absolution, and the Holy Supper are the places in which He forgives sins. Far be it from overriding the cross and resurrection of Christ, these are the actual places that Christ has said deliver these benefits of the cross to us. In baptism, we are buried and raised with Christ (Rom 6, Col 2). In the Holy Supper of Christ in which we receive the body and blood of our Lord, we receive the forgiveness of sins (Mat 26, Mar 14, Luk 22, 1Co 10, 11). In the creative power of the Word of God, we are saved (Rom 10). This is the same creative Word that spoke the universe into existence (Gen 1). Christ has given us these means, based upon Himself, so that we would not be stuck floundering in subjectivity, and our salvation would be based on something certain and sure - Christ Himself. The predestination of God and His election to salvation is carried out, in time, through these means, which are always for you.
I'll take the Scriptures and the objectivity of our unchangeable God over myself and my choices all day, every day, and right on into eternity.
Praise be to God for His infinite wisdom.
+Pax+
Ultimately, when one's theology of the sacraments is completely emptied of their biblical import and meaning, defined by our Lord Jesus Christ, something else always rushes in to fill the void. So whereas a Lutheran can say "I was saved in my baptism," a Baptist would never say such a thing, because of the Baptist's theology of Baptism. In fact, to say such a thing would be paramount to heresy in a Baptist church. God forbid you were saved by your obedience! (Because baptism is nothing more than a work of obedience in baptist theology)
So what rushes in to replace the completely objective washing for the forgiveness of sins that is baptism? Why, it's my personal decision to choose Christ, of course! This is usually done by praying a certain prayer (the Sinner's Prayer or something like it), or walking forward at the end of the service to answer an "altar call" by submitting their life to Christ.
Far from being an isolated incident, I was asked, literally, numerous times: "If you don't know the moment you made a choice for Jesus, how do you know you're saved?"
Yes, this is really a common question in Baptist circles; especially those of a more fundamental baptist ilk. The problems with this sort of statement and theology are numerous. First and foremost, the Bible doesn't teach it anywhere. Nowhere does the Scripture ever exhort us to make a decision for Jesus, or ask Him into our heart, make Him our personal Savior, have a relationship with Him (everyone already has a relationship with Christ. They're either under grace and saved, or they're lost. Either one is a relationship), or other such ideas. Second, it actually rails against what Scripture actually says about the topic. Whereas Scripture repeatedly tells us that we are dead in sins (Eph 2), unable to obey God (Rom 8, 1Co 2), and that God alone saves us unilaterally apart from ourselves (Eph 2, Rom 8, etc), and not because of ourselves and our choice(s); this theology says the opposite; namely, that we are able to decide for ourselves with our free will.
In opposition to this wrong headed theology, which is utterly subjective and based upon something we must do and decide, the Scriptures give us pure objectivity. This objectivity is rooted in an unchanging God, who cannot lie (Tit 1). This objectivity is based on the Christ who created the world (Gen 1, Col 1). But where is this objectivity found? In our choice? Or elsewhere?
Since our choices and decisions are based on us, they are therefore subjective and fleeting. Christ, however, is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13). God, in His infinite wisdom, has given us objective means based solely on Himself, that are for the forgiveness of sins and the salvation of the world. As Luther reminds us in his Small Catechism: "For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation." (SC VI)
Thankfully, God has seen fit to actually tell us where this objectivity is found. He has bound Himself to His Word, and His Word tells us that Baptism, the Word itself, Absolution, and the Holy Supper are the places in which He forgives sins. Far be it from overriding the cross and resurrection of Christ, these are the actual places that Christ has said deliver these benefits of the cross to us. In baptism, we are buried and raised with Christ (Rom 6, Col 2). In the Holy Supper of Christ in which we receive the body and blood of our Lord, we receive the forgiveness of sins (Mat 26, Mar 14, Luk 22, 1Co 10, 11). In the creative power of the Word of God, we are saved (Rom 10). This is the same creative Word that spoke the universe into existence (Gen 1). Christ has given us these means, based upon Himself, so that we would not be stuck floundering in subjectivity, and our salvation would be based on something certain and sure - Christ Himself. The predestination of God and His election to salvation is carried out, in time, through these means, which are always for you.
I'll take the Scriptures and the objectivity of our unchangeable God over myself and my choices all day, every day, and right on into eternity.
Praise be to God for His infinite wisdom.
+Pax+
Christ. Not the Christian.
I've been on quite a long break from blogging, but have recently wanted to get back in the swing of things. A big thanks to my fellow bloggers who have kept From Geneva to Wittenberg alive during my hiatus.
I've been doing a lot of reading lately and that has spiked my interest in blogging again. A little Chemnitz here, a splash of Hermann Sasse there, and even some Jordan Cooper; as well as the book I will be touching on briefly here, Has American Christianity Failed, by Bryan Wolfmueller.
I gobbled Pr. Wolfmueller's book up in about three sittings when I first received it in the mail. It's very well written, and provides an accurate summary of the sad state of American Christianity. Moreover, it provides the sweet antidote of the Gospel as the solution to the false doctrines being peddled as authentic Christianity in America.
One of the major issues that pops up in American churches is an over-emphasis on the preaching of the Christian and not the Christ. This false teaching rears its ugly head in a few different manners. The most obvious one is the predominance of decisional theology taught in a plethora of churches. Leave it to us Americans to twist our theology to suit our cultural virtues.
The beginnings of these false teachings can be traced back to the Second Great Awakening in the 19th century. At the very least, this is when they became popular; mainly because they agreed with American ideals. The ideal of the self made man and the free self-determination of the independent will of man certainly contributed to these false doctrines.
Enter Charles Grandison Finney. If you don't know who Finney is, you should. Finney has had more influence on the shape and doctrine of American theology than nearly any other person in the last 500 years. If you've ever seen a church conduct an altar call at the end of the service, you have Finney to thank. If the Gospel is reduced to a decision a person must make in order to be saved, thank old Finney. If you've ever wondered why the "praise band" plays emotional songs to set the mood to get people to make a decision, thank Finney. If you're familiar with the Sinner's Prayer, thank Finney. All of this can be traced back to Finney's persuasive ideas and a practice he called the "anxious bench," which was essentially a place where people who were close to choosing Jesus were brought to be persuaded to actually do so.
The problems with this sort of theology should be pretty obvious to anyone who has read the Scriptures or been instructed in a more traditional or confessional church. That is to say, decisional theology is not found in the Bible, nor is it found in church history. But for some reason, old habits die hard. Many churches still practice these false doctrines today. Pr. Wolfmueller explains: "The decision for Christ is both the end and the beginning of everything. Jesus made salvation possible, but really, it all starts with me. Revivalism fails to see the big picture of the Scriptures: our gracious God and Savior comes after us, grabs us up, gives us the gift of repentance and faith, and calls us to be His own dear friends. Our salvation is His work from the very beginning, and we are the beneficiaries of His mercy." (Wolfmueller, p. 14)
Oh but the American church doesn't end there. Now that we made our decision, what's next? Well, it's more me, of course! Now that we've got the decision out of the way, we're done with the Gospel, because only unbelievers need to hear that! Hence, in the usual American church, once we've made it beyond the Gospel, it's time for us to move on to better things, like doing our best and trying to please God by our obedience. This idea plays itself out in both Calvinist as well as Arminian churches; churches that teach once saved always saved, and churches that do not. Either way, this idea is still prevalent.
Calvinist author Mark Jones, in his book Antinomianism, argues, "God cannot help but love us more and more if we become more and more like him." (Jones, Kindle Location 1617) Hence, here we have a Calvinist, a proponent on the P in the Calvinist TULIP, arguing for a conditional love of God based on our obedience to the law. In the Arminian camp, there are sinless perfectionist churches known as holiness churches that teach that a person can be perfected in love and live without sin. John Wesley was a proponent of this doctrine. Wolfmueller comments on his experience in American Christianity, saying, "Resolve to keep God's Law is, of course, a godly sentiment, but on the pages of my journal (and in my own heart), this resolve overshadowed everything else. Most especially, it overshadowed Jesus. The purpose of my life and my daily goal was to keep God's Law, and a bit more: to make God happy by my obedience. Each day would begin with a rally to assault sin and overcome it. Each day would end with defeat, sometimes despair. I was a loser in the battle to be holy. Like a worker with an overbearing boss, I assumed that the Lord was giving out daily evaluations, and most days were bad. Most days, I was sure God was frowning at me." (Wolfmueller p. 15)
The problem with all of these theologies, from Calvinist to Arminian to various strains of Baptist and big box Evangelicalism, is their failure to keep the Gospel as the central teaching for all people everywhere - including (and especially!) Christians. Instead, the Gospel is seen as a stepping stone to get oneself saved, whether it be by making a decision for Christ or by the sovereign Holy Spirit working apart from the means of grace. Once one is beyond the Gospel, in comes the Law, as a measuring stick for good living and pleasing God.
Of course, all of this is really, really, bad theology. There is, for all intents and purposes, no possible way to have any assurance that one is saved in any of these theologies, since every single one of them, at some point, puts all the assurance on the subjective decision making and doing/obedience of the Christian. None can base assurance on the completely objective work of Christ, outside of us. God demands perfection. The Law is God's Law. Hence, the Law requires perfect obedience. This is what Jesus has in mind when He says "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)
Those who admit that they cannot be perfect are honest, and hence can never be assured they are doing well enough, and those who think they can be perfect (in thought, word, and deed) are liars.
The Holy Scriptures, and Christ, give us a better way. Baptism, the Word, the Holy Supper. All of these are objectively outside of us and give us the faith we need.
This is why, in a Confessional Lutheran Church, you will hear both the Law and the Gospel in a sermon. The Law drives us to repentance. The Gospel, the good news of Christ's one-sided work for you, given to you in the means of grace, lifts us up as redeemed children of God.
Preaching the Christian and not the Christ puts one on sinking sand indeed.
By the way, 5 stars for Pr. Bryan Wolfmueller's fantastic work, "Has American Christianity Failed?"
+Pax+
I've been doing a lot of reading lately and that has spiked my interest in blogging again. A little Chemnitz here, a splash of Hermann Sasse there, and even some Jordan Cooper; as well as the book I will be touching on briefly here, Has American Christianity Failed, by Bryan Wolfmueller.
I gobbled Pr. Wolfmueller's book up in about three sittings when I first received it in the mail. It's very well written, and provides an accurate summary of the sad state of American Christianity. Moreover, it provides the sweet antidote of the Gospel as the solution to the false doctrines being peddled as authentic Christianity in America.
One of the major issues that pops up in American churches is an over-emphasis on the preaching of the Christian and not the Christ. This false teaching rears its ugly head in a few different manners. The most obvious one is the predominance of decisional theology taught in a plethora of churches. Leave it to us Americans to twist our theology to suit our cultural virtues.
The beginnings of these false teachings can be traced back to the Second Great Awakening in the 19th century. At the very least, this is when they became popular; mainly because they agreed with American ideals. The ideal of the self made man and the free self-determination of the independent will of man certainly contributed to these false doctrines.
Enter Charles Grandison Finney. If you don't know who Finney is, you should. Finney has had more influence on the shape and doctrine of American theology than nearly any other person in the last 500 years. If you've ever seen a church conduct an altar call at the end of the service, you have Finney to thank. If the Gospel is reduced to a decision a person must make in order to be saved, thank old Finney. If you've ever wondered why the "praise band" plays emotional songs to set the mood to get people to make a decision, thank Finney. If you're familiar with the Sinner's Prayer, thank Finney. All of this can be traced back to Finney's persuasive ideas and a practice he called the "anxious bench," which was essentially a place where people who were close to choosing Jesus were brought to be persuaded to actually do so.
The problems with this sort of theology should be pretty obvious to anyone who has read the Scriptures or been instructed in a more traditional or confessional church. That is to say, decisional theology is not found in the Bible, nor is it found in church history. But for some reason, old habits die hard. Many churches still practice these false doctrines today. Pr. Wolfmueller explains: "The decision for Christ is both the end and the beginning of everything. Jesus made salvation possible, but really, it all starts with me. Revivalism fails to see the big picture of the Scriptures: our gracious God and Savior comes after us, grabs us up, gives us the gift of repentance and faith, and calls us to be His own dear friends. Our salvation is His work from the very beginning, and we are the beneficiaries of His mercy." (Wolfmueller, p. 14)
Oh but the American church doesn't end there. Now that we made our decision, what's next? Well, it's more me, of course! Now that we've got the decision out of the way, we're done with the Gospel, because only unbelievers need to hear that! Hence, in the usual American church, once we've made it beyond the Gospel, it's time for us to move on to better things, like doing our best and trying to please God by our obedience. This idea plays itself out in both Calvinist as well as Arminian churches; churches that teach once saved always saved, and churches that do not. Either way, this idea is still prevalent.
Calvinist author Mark Jones, in his book Antinomianism, argues, "God cannot help but love us more and more if we become more and more like him." (Jones, Kindle Location 1617) Hence, here we have a Calvinist, a proponent on the P in the Calvinist TULIP, arguing for a conditional love of God based on our obedience to the law. In the Arminian camp, there are sinless perfectionist churches known as holiness churches that teach that a person can be perfected in love and live without sin. John Wesley was a proponent of this doctrine. Wolfmueller comments on his experience in American Christianity, saying, "Resolve to keep God's Law is, of course, a godly sentiment, but on the pages of my journal (and in my own heart), this resolve overshadowed everything else. Most especially, it overshadowed Jesus. The purpose of my life and my daily goal was to keep God's Law, and a bit more: to make God happy by my obedience. Each day would begin with a rally to assault sin and overcome it. Each day would end with defeat, sometimes despair. I was a loser in the battle to be holy. Like a worker with an overbearing boss, I assumed that the Lord was giving out daily evaluations, and most days were bad. Most days, I was sure God was frowning at me." (Wolfmueller p. 15)
The problem with all of these theologies, from Calvinist to Arminian to various strains of Baptist and big box Evangelicalism, is their failure to keep the Gospel as the central teaching for all people everywhere - including (and especially!) Christians. Instead, the Gospel is seen as a stepping stone to get oneself saved, whether it be by making a decision for Christ or by the sovereign Holy Spirit working apart from the means of grace. Once one is beyond the Gospel, in comes the Law, as a measuring stick for good living and pleasing God.
Of course, all of this is really, really, bad theology. There is, for all intents and purposes, no possible way to have any assurance that one is saved in any of these theologies, since every single one of them, at some point, puts all the assurance on the subjective decision making and doing/obedience of the Christian. None can base assurance on the completely objective work of Christ, outside of us. God demands perfection. The Law is God's Law. Hence, the Law requires perfect obedience. This is what Jesus has in mind when He says "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)
Those who admit that they cannot be perfect are honest, and hence can never be assured they are doing well enough, and those who think they can be perfect (in thought, word, and deed) are liars.
The Holy Scriptures, and Christ, give us a better way. Baptism, the Word, the Holy Supper. All of these are objectively outside of us and give us the faith we need.
This is why, in a Confessional Lutheran Church, you will hear both the Law and the Gospel in a sermon. The Law drives us to repentance. The Gospel, the good news of Christ's one-sided work for you, given to you in the means of grace, lifts us up as redeemed children of God.
Preaching the Christian and not the Christ puts one on sinking sand indeed.
By the way, 5 stars for Pr. Bryan Wolfmueller's fantastic work, "Has American Christianity Failed?"
+Pax+
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)