An Maundy Thursday is upon us, a post on the Lord's Supper is in order.
The Gospel According to St. Luke states,
St. Luke 22:19-20: And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you."
Here is Christ instituting the Lord's Supper. The two statements of Christ are of paramount importance here. In times past, the debates on the Lord's Supper have been legendary. During the time of the Reformation, the Marburg Colloquy between Luther and Zwingli was a monumental event. Luther and Zwingli could not agree upon the Lord's Supper, with Luther affirming the Real Presence and Zwingli denying it. Later on, Swiss Reformer John Calvin tried to concoct a via media between the two camps and bring union, affirming a spiritual presence where the elect believers are lifted in faith to heaven where the Holy Spirit delivers Christ to them. Lutherans rejected Calvin's formula, since it is a rejection of the Real Presence.
Anyhow, all of these discussions proved to show us one simple thing: there is no via media between the est (is) and the significat (signifies). Rightly, our Lutheran churches are not in communion with the Reformed churches, and this is mainly due to their denial of the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper. There are other reasons, but that is a big one.
In the text from St. Luke, we find two statements of Christ. The sacramentarians interpret the passage to say that the bread and wine are symbols of Christ's body and blood; not the true body and blood of Christ. When we look at Christ's statements, we see that these statements are interpreted as follows:
This is My body [symbolic] which is given for you [literal]; do this in remembrance of Me
This cup is the new covenant in My blood [symbolic], which is shed for you [literal]
Herein lies a big problem in sacramentarian interpretation: If this is just a symbol of Christ's body and blood, but it is literally given and shed for you, one has to prove on what basis they can separate the statements of Christ in a half literal and half symbolic manner.
In other words, if this is NOT Christ's body and blood, what confidence can you have that this is given and shed for you? Ironically, in Reformed Theology, Christ's Body and Blood might not have been given and shed for you due to the dogma of limited atonement. Why then can't the entire statements be symbolic only? That would actually make more sense of the sentence in sacramentarian interpretation. If the first clause is symbolic (This is My Body), then the entire statement should be symbolic in nature (This is My Body which is given for you).
To hold to a symbolic interpretation of the Lord's Supper demands that a person also hold to a symbolic interpretation of "given for you" and "shed for you" within the same statements. One would have to prove that is the case.
It makes much more sense to simply cling to the clear words of Scripture here. This is My Body, which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me.
Literally. This is My Body (literally) which is given for you (literally); do this in remembrance of Me (literally).
+Grace and Peace+
4/14/14
Sasse on Luther and Zwingli
I wrote a blog a couple days ago where I insinuated that the Sacramentarian (Real Presence deniers and deniers of Baptismal Regeneration) churches separate the Sacraments from the Gospel and thereby deny the promises given within.
Directly Proportional Sacramentology
So, to clarify what I have written, I am going to call on Hermann Sasse. He explains it better than me. I quote from Sasse's stellar work on the Marburg Colloquy, entitled This is My Body.
"How then, is it to be explained that he [Zwingli] was prepared to recognize Luther as a brother in the faith, in spite of what he regarded as Luther's grave error? The answer is that for him the Sacrament. and the doctrine on the Sacrament, did not belong to those essentials of the Christian faith concerning which there must be unity within the church. In contradistinction to Luther, the understanding of the Gospel on which there must be unanimity is independent of the understanding of the Lord's Supper and of the Sacraments in general. The Sacrament for Zwingli is not part and parcel of the Gospel; it is an ordinance of Christ, to be performed by Christians. This performance may have some effect on the soul of the faithful, insofar as the 'sign' makes the Word of the Gospel clearer. But the Sacraments can never be means of grace in the strict sense. They only signify the grace which has been given without them, as he puts it Art. 7 of his Fidei Ratio:
'I believe, indeed, I know, that all the sacraments are so far from conferring grace that they do not even convey or distribute it.'
Directly Proportional Sacramentology
So, to clarify what I have written, I am going to call on Hermann Sasse. He explains it better than me. I quote from Sasse's stellar work on the Marburg Colloquy, entitled This is My Body.
"How then, is it to be explained that he [Zwingli] was prepared to recognize Luther as a brother in the faith, in spite of what he regarded as Luther's grave error? The answer is that for him the Sacrament. and the doctrine on the Sacrament, did not belong to those essentials of the Christian faith concerning which there must be unity within the church. In contradistinction to Luther, the understanding of the Gospel on which there must be unanimity is independent of the understanding of the Lord's Supper and of the Sacraments in general. The Sacrament for Zwingli is not part and parcel of the Gospel; it is an ordinance of Christ, to be performed by Christians. This performance may have some effect on the soul of the faithful, insofar as the 'sign' makes the Word of the Gospel clearer. But the Sacraments can never be means of grace in the strict sense. They only signify the grace which has been given without them, as he puts it Art. 7 of his Fidei Ratio:
'I believe, indeed, I know, that all the sacraments are so far from conferring grace that they do not even convey or distribute it.'
That the Sacrament is also a sign has never been denied by Luther and the Lutheran church, as it is the conviction also of Roman doctrine. The question is only whether, according to Scripture, it is not more.
Here lies the deepest reason for the differing attitudes of Luther and Zwingli, not only toward the Sacrament as such, but also toward the doctrine, that is, the understanding of the Sacrament. If the Sacrament, though performed by man, is an act of God, and if this act is more than a sign, namely, and instrument by which God gives something, then the denial of this character of the Sacrament is ...nothing less than a destruction of the Sacrament. The Sacrament is either a means by which God gives His grace, or it is no Sacrament at all - at least, not in the sense in which the church for 1500 years, since the days of the apostles, had understood the Sacrament. Nothing can conceal the difference between churches for which the Sacraments are instruments of divine grace and churches which deny this." (Hermann Sasse, This is My Body, Adelaide: Lutheran Publishing House, p. 228-229)
As I posited in the aforementioned blog, one's view of the Sacraments determines their importance. Hence, Zwingli could unite with Luther despite their differing views on the Sacrament of the Altar, but Luther could not. For Zwingli, it was not Gospel and was secondary in a sense. For Luther, the Lord's Supper is pure Gospel and to misunderstand it is to have a misunderstanding somewhere along the line in your understanding of the Gospel. Therefore, Luther and Zwingli left Marburg as opponents on some level and not as united brothers.
+Pax+
+Pax+
4/12/14
Lord, Teach Us To Pray!
St. Luke 11:1-2: Now it came to pass, as He was praying in a certain place, when He ceased, that one of His disciples said to Him, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.”
And Jesus replied: Make sure you are praying whatever is on your heart as the Spirit leads you. God loves a spontaneous prayer, and you definitely don't want to pray something that anyone else has ever prayed, ever. You must be original!
Actually, He didn't say that at all. Here what He did say:
St. Luke 11:3-4: So He said to them, “When you pray, say: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, For we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one.”
A lot of Christians don't like repeating prayers that are not original. They view this as vain repetitions, which Jesus warns against in St. Matthew 6:7. But it's quite ironic that the warning about vain repetitions as the heathens do is in a specific context. Look at it.
St. Matthew 6:7-13: And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.
“Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him. In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.
Hmm. So Jesus says don't use vain repetitions, then gives them the Lord's Prayer to pray. So Jesus contradicted Himself, eh?
Not quite. The Lord's Prayer is not a vain repetition. I mean, if it meant that, praying any Scripture would be a vain repetition. What Jesus is rebuking here as "vain repetitions" is the idea of repeating the same thing over and over and in many ways in order to channel God, gain merit by more prayers, or make sure God really hears it by repeating it a bunch of times.
It has nothing to do with repeating prayers or using prayers that have been used for centuries.
So that is my thought for the day.
+Grace and Peace+
And Jesus replied: Make sure you are praying whatever is on your heart as the Spirit leads you. God loves a spontaneous prayer, and you definitely don't want to pray something that anyone else has ever prayed, ever. You must be original!
Actually, He didn't say that at all. Here what He did say:
St. Luke 11:3-4: So He said to them, “When you pray, say: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, For we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one.”
A lot of Christians don't like repeating prayers that are not original. They view this as vain repetitions, which Jesus warns against in St. Matthew 6:7. But it's quite ironic that the warning about vain repetitions as the heathens do is in a specific context. Look at it.
St. Matthew 6:7-13: And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.
“Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him. In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.
Hmm. So Jesus says don't use vain repetitions, then gives them the Lord's Prayer to pray. So Jesus contradicted Himself, eh?
Not quite. The Lord's Prayer is not a vain repetition. I mean, if it meant that, praying any Scripture would be a vain repetition. What Jesus is rebuking here as "vain repetitions" is the idea of repeating the same thing over and over and in many ways in order to channel God, gain merit by more prayers, or make sure God really hears it by repeating it a bunch of times.
It has nothing to do with repeating prayers or using prayers that have been used for centuries.
So that is my thought for the day.
+Grace and Peace+
4/10/14
Directly Proportional Sacramentology
A church's specific view on something will determine how important they think a certain doctrine is. Hence you have theological liberalism clamoring for unity of everyone in Christendom. Some of the further left theological liberals are even ecumenical with other non-Christian religions.
My point here is that unity and truth go together. It's not as if they need to be "balanced." Being balanced is just a catch phrase people use too often now days. But nevertheless, the two go together. Unity must be in the truth, and the higher emphasis one places on certain doctrines, the more likely they are to be dogmatic about them and not budge on the importance of them.
Calvinists and Lutherans are a prime example of this. If you talk to your usual Calvinist who is knowledgeable regarding Reformed Theology and Lutheranism, they will generally say that Calvinism and Lutheranism are not that far apart. They tend to see Lutherans as a group that began the Reformation, but didn't quite reform enough; carrying over too many things from medieval Roman Catholicism. However, your usual knowledgeable Calvinist is very favorable to Lutheranism.
I assert that there are two reasons for this. First of all, Martin Luther was pretty cool. Pretty much everyone who is not a Roman Catholic or an adherent of Eastern Orthodoxy wants to claim Martin Luther. The majority of Reformed Christians that I run across now days seem to think that Martin Luther was a Calvinist and if he were alive today he would most certainly be Reformed, not Lutheran or anything else. (That's not true, but that is not what I am getting at here) That's the first reason.
The second reason is Calvinism's view of the Sacraments. Classically, Reformed Theology affirms the Sacraments as means of grace, although it is confusing as to how they are. Many of the Reformed claim that the Sacraments are means of grace in our sanctification, but not in our justification, thereby separating grace into two categories. In short, the Sacraments are given a second-place seat behind the Gospel. That is to say, Reformed Theology separates out the Sacraments from the Gospel itself. Ulrich Zwingli took a staunch memorialist stance on the Lord's Supper and rejected the Real Presence. John Calvin took a via media stance that attempted to assuage both the memorialists and affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Supper. (Then there is the Consensus Tigurinus...Lutherans are heretics pretty much.) Calvin tried to deal faithfully with both the Real Presence of Christ as well as the Ascension of Christ to the right hand of the Father. He ended up with what amounts to a spiritual presence only for the elect; and no presence whatsoever for the non-elect, who receive only bread and wine, while the elect receive Christ by faith via the work of the Holy Spirit raising us up in faith to the Throne Room of the Father. This is ultimately a denial of the Real Presence, despite Calvinist protests. Christ is not present in the bread and wine in this theology, or else the unregenerate would receive Christ as well. If He is present, everyone partaking would receive Him. Pretty simple.
In short, Reformed Theology has a "lower" view of the Lord's Supper. Thus, they can be lenient towards other views. After all, it's not the true body and blood of Christ, so they can tolerate other views. Hence, Calvinist seem to like Lutheranism in general; despite their obvious disagreements. Lutherans are monergists and affirm the solas, after all.
On the flip side, there is the Lutheran view of Reformed Theology. The Reformed can keep John Calvin. We posit that Calvin had a lot of errors and a very rationalistic theology. Calvin, along with Zwingli and the Reformed churches are what we refer to as the "Radical Reformation." In short, the Reformed got rid of a bunch of stuff just because Rome held to it, which is a terrible reason, considering Rome has a lot of things correct. That's what we think anyways. Exclusive Psalmody, no instruments in worship, a very strict regulative principle, and so on.
Then there is the Lord's Supper. And Holy Baptism. And the atonement. We see Reformed Theology's doctrine of the Lord's Supper as an explicit rejection of the Real Presence, and as such, a denial of the Gospel promises given therein. In other words, we argue that the Calvinists reject what the Lord's Supper is, and as such, make a huge blunder. We also argue that Reformed Theology's stance on the Lord's Supper is Nestorian. Nestorius was an ancient heretic in the early church who split the natures of Christ, more or less.
Thus, in Lutheranism, we do not tolerate aberrant doctrines of the Lord's Supper. This is precisely because we have a "higher" view of the Supper. (We do not think the Reformed think the Lord's Supper is unimportant, just wrong. And as such, a serious error.) Therefore, we see the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper as out of line with what the church has always held to and thus something that must be guarded against. They reject that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ. Therefore it's not even the Lord's Supper, it's something else. (Look up the Prussian Union sometime. If you go back even further to the Reformation era, check out the Crypto-Calvinist controversy.) We view the Lord's Supper as the objective Gospel given for you and to you in the Sacrament.
So, to summarize, the Calvinists are generally very favorable to the Lutherans. Sure, we carried over that old Roman idea that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ, but that's OK, because it's not that big of a deal.
Lutherans, on the other hand, are generally very unfavorable towards Reformed Theology. The Real Presence in the Lord's Supper is a non-negotiable. The true body and blood of Christ is not something to be trifled with or rejected. We see theories that reject the Real Bodily Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as crass and unbelieving. It's a huge deal.
Not to mention that whole assurance killing limited atonement thing. And double predestination. And rejection of baptismal regeneration. We affirm that the Reformed are Christians, but we cannot be in communion with them, no matter how much some of them protest that we are so close to each other.
We're not.
And on and on we go.
+Pax+
My point here is that unity and truth go together. It's not as if they need to be "balanced." Being balanced is just a catch phrase people use too often now days. But nevertheless, the two go together. Unity must be in the truth, and the higher emphasis one places on certain doctrines, the more likely they are to be dogmatic about them and not budge on the importance of them.
Calvinists and Lutherans are a prime example of this. If you talk to your usual Calvinist who is knowledgeable regarding Reformed Theology and Lutheranism, they will generally say that Calvinism and Lutheranism are not that far apart. They tend to see Lutherans as a group that began the Reformation, but didn't quite reform enough; carrying over too many things from medieval Roman Catholicism. However, your usual knowledgeable Calvinist is very favorable to Lutheranism.
I assert that there are two reasons for this. First of all, Martin Luther was pretty cool. Pretty much everyone who is not a Roman Catholic or an adherent of Eastern Orthodoxy wants to claim Martin Luther. The majority of Reformed Christians that I run across now days seem to think that Martin Luther was a Calvinist and if he were alive today he would most certainly be Reformed, not Lutheran or anything else. (That's not true, but that is not what I am getting at here) That's the first reason.
The second reason is Calvinism's view of the Sacraments. Classically, Reformed Theology affirms the Sacraments as means of grace, although it is confusing as to how they are. Many of the Reformed claim that the Sacraments are means of grace in our sanctification, but not in our justification, thereby separating grace into two categories. In short, the Sacraments are given a second-place seat behind the Gospel. That is to say, Reformed Theology separates out the Sacraments from the Gospel itself. Ulrich Zwingli took a staunch memorialist stance on the Lord's Supper and rejected the Real Presence. John Calvin took a via media stance that attempted to assuage both the memorialists and affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Supper. (Then there is the Consensus Tigurinus...Lutherans are heretics pretty much.) Calvin tried to deal faithfully with both the Real Presence of Christ as well as the Ascension of Christ to the right hand of the Father. He ended up with what amounts to a spiritual presence only for the elect; and no presence whatsoever for the non-elect, who receive only bread and wine, while the elect receive Christ by faith via the work of the Holy Spirit raising us up in faith to the Throne Room of the Father. This is ultimately a denial of the Real Presence, despite Calvinist protests. Christ is not present in the bread and wine in this theology, or else the unregenerate would receive Christ as well. If He is present, everyone partaking would receive Him. Pretty simple.
In short, Reformed Theology has a "lower" view of the Lord's Supper. Thus, they can be lenient towards other views. After all, it's not the true body and blood of Christ, so they can tolerate other views. Hence, Calvinist seem to like Lutheranism in general; despite their obvious disagreements. Lutherans are monergists and affirm the solas, after all.
On the flip side, there is the Lutheran view of Reformed Theology. The Reformed can keep John Calvin. We posit that Calvin had a lot of errors and a very rationalistic theology. Calvin, along with Zwingli and the Reformed churches are what we refer to as the "Radical Reformation." In short, the Reformed got rid of a bunch of stuff just because Rome held to it, which is a terrible reason, considering Rome has a lot of things correct. That's what we think anyways. Exclusive Psalmody, no instruments in worship, a very strict regulative principle, and so on.
Then there is the Lord's Supper. And Holy Baptism. And the atonement. We see Reformed Theology's doctrine of the Lord's Supper as an explicit rejection of the Real Presence, and as such, a denial of the Gospel promises given therein. In other words, we argue that the Calvinists reject what the Lord's Supper is, and as such, make a huge blunder. We also argue that Reformed Theology's stance on the Lord's Supper is Nestorian. Nestorius was an ancient heretic in the early church who split the natures of Christ, more or less.
Thus, in Lutheranism, we do not tolerate aberrant doctrines of the Lord's Supper. This is precisely because we have a "higher" view of the Supper. (We do not think the Reformed think the Lord's Supper is unimportant, just wrong. And as such, a serious error.) Therefore, we see the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper as out of line with what the church has always held to and thus something that must be guarded against. They reject that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ. Therefore it's not even the Lord's Supper, it's something else. (Look up the Prussian Union sometime. If you go back even further to the Reformation era, check out the Crypto-Calvinist controversy.) We view the Lord's Supper as the objective Gospel given for you and to you in the Sacrament.
So, to summarize, the Calvinists are generally very favorable to the Lutherans. Sure, we carried over that old Roman idea that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ, but that's OK, because it's not that big of a deal.
Lutherans, on the other hand, are generally very unfavorable towards Reformed Theology. The Real Presence in the Lord's Supper is a non-negotiable. The true body and blood of Christ is not something to be trifled with or rejected. We see theories that reject the Real Bodily Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as crass and unbelieving. It's a huge deal.
Not to mention that whole assurance killing limited atonement thing. And double predestination. And rejection of baptismal regeneration. We affirm that the Reformed are Christians, but we cannot be in communion with them, no matter how much some of them protest that we are so close to each other.
We're not.
And on and on we go.
+Pax+
The Brotherhood Prayer Book - YES!
Reviews of books and resources are few and far between from me, but I am compelled to write something regarding the Brotherhood Prayer Book, compiled by Benjamin T. G. Mayes and Michael N. Frese, published by Our Savior Lutheran Church in Grand Rapids, MI in 2004. An updated edition was released in 2007. I own the original 2004 edition.
In short, this book is an amazing resource and fills the gap in an area that has a strong tendency to be neglected in Lutheranism, let alone its complete non-existence in other non-traditional forms of Christianity.
The book is a comprehensive resource as well. There is a piece on the daily offices and the roles that are traditionally held in these offices. Within the same section of the book there is also an explanation of Gregorian musical notation used for chanting (singing) the prayers and Psalms. All of this is very helpful to people who are not familiar with the offices and the practice of singing the Psalms and prayers (like me).
The BPB follows the traditional church calendar and takes you through the year ordered around the various festivals of the church. The normal daily prayers, called the ordinaries, form the guts of the book. The ordinaries are Vigils (Matins), Morning Prayer (Lauds), Midday Prayer (Prime, Terce, Sext, None), Evening Prayer (Vespers), and Night Prayer (Compline). For those who pray the offices, the ordinaries are the prayers that are done on a daily basis (unlike me, the sinner, who doesn't do them every day). However, since the book is ordered around the church calendar (as well as the days of the week themselves), there is an entire section on specific antiphons, collects, and readings to be done on specific days of the week, seasons of the church calendar, and feast days. These are called the Propers.
The book also contains the entire Psalter (book of Psalms) and the Psalms are all pointed for singing if you so choose to do so. In addition to the Psalter, there is an entire daily lectionary of readings for each day of the year. The lectionary readings include an Old Testament passage, New Testament passage, and an additional reading from various sources for each day of the year.
The BPB has chosen to use classical, Jacobean English for the book. I quote,
"We have chosen to use classical, Jacobean English for the prayer book. The text of the Psalms and Canticles is from the King James Version. The text of the propers conforms to that of The Lutheran Hymnal (St. Louis: Concordia, 1941) and other works which use classical English. This has been done for several reasons. First, new English translations of the Bible appear constantly. No matter what version we would choose, no one knows whether that version will be widely used in as little as ten years. The King James, on the other hand, has been a classic of the English language for 400 years. It will never go any more out of style than it is now. In addition, the King James, unlike modern English Bibles, is in the public domain. Its classic language often preserves nuances in the biblical languages which are lost in modern English, such as the difference between the 2nd person singular and plural (thou and ye)." (Mayes and Frese, The Brotherhood Prayer Book, Grand Rapids: Our Savior Lutheran Church, 2004)
In addition to the Psalter and the lectionary, the book also contains the Great Litany, the Litany of the Holy Sacrament, and a section with various collects (short prayers) for all occasions.
To be succinct, this is an excellent resource if you desire to pray the daily offices ordered around the church year. I give this book 5 out of 5 stars.
The book can be purchased here: BPB - Emmanuel Press It's $50 price tag is pretty steep, but well worth the investment.
There is also an outstanding online resource, mainly of audio files, where one can listen to the different chanting done in the BPB. That is found here: Lutheran Liturgical Prayer Brotherhood
In short, this book is an amazing resource and fills the gap in an area that has a strong tendency to be neglected in Lutheranism, let alone its complete non-existence in other non-traditional forms of Christianity.
The book is a comprehensive resource as well. There is a piece on the daily offices and the roles that are traditionally held in these offices. Within the same section of the book there is also an explanation of Gregorian musical notation used for chanting (singing) the prayers and Psalms. All of this is very helpful to people who are not familiar with the offices and the practice of singing the Psalms and prayers (like me).
The BPB follows the traditional church calendar and takes you through the year ordered around the various festivals of the church. The normal daily prayers, called the ordinaries, form the guts of the book. The ordinaries are Vigils (Matins), Morning Prayer (Lauds), Midday Prayer (Prime, Terce, Sext, None), Evening Prayer (Vespers), and Night Prayer (Compline). For those who pray the offices, the ordinaries are the prayers that are done on a daily basis (unlike me, the sinner, who doesn't do them every day). However, since the book is ordered around the church calendar (as well as the days of the week themselves), there is an entire section on specific antiphons, collects, and readings to be done on specific days of the week, seasons of the church calendar, and feast days. These are called the Propers.
The book also contains the entire Psalter (book of Psalms) and the Psalms are all pointed for singing if you so choose to do so. In addition to the Psalter, there is an entire daily lectionary of readings for each day of the year. The lectionary readings include an Old Testament passage, New Testament passage, and an additional reading from various sources for each day of the year.
The BPB has chosen to use classical, Jacobean English for the book. I quote,
"We have chosen to use classical, Jacobean English for the prayer book. The text of the Psalms and Canticles is from the King James Version. The text of the propers conforms to that of The Lutheran Hymnal (St. Louis: Concordia, 1941) and other works which use classical English. This has been done for several reasons. First, new English translations of the Bible appear constantly. No matter what version we would choose, no one knows whether that version will be widely used in as little as ten years. The King James, on the other hand, has been a classic of the English language for 400 years. It will never go any more out of style than it is now. In addition, the King James, unlike modern English Bibles, is in the public domain. Its classic language often preserves nuances in the biblical languages which are lost in modern English, such as the difference between the 2nd person singular and plural (thou and ye)." (Mayes and Frese, The Brotherhood Prayer Book, Grand Rapids: Our Savior Lutheran Church, 2004)
In addition to the Psalter and the lectionary, the book also contains the Great Litany, the Litany of the Holy Sacrament, and a section with various collects (short prayers) for all occasions.
To be succinct, this is an excellent resource if you desire to pray the daily offices ordered around the church year. I give this book 5 out of 5 stars.
The book can be purchased here: BPB - Emmanuel Press It's $50 price tag is pretty steep, but well worth the investment.
There is also an outstanding online resource, mainly of audio files, where one can listen to the different chanting done in the BPB. That is found here: Lutheran Liturgical Prayer Brotherhood
4/4/14
Grace, Doctrine, and Shenanigans
Erecting false dilemmas is a staple of theological liberalism in this day and age. The latest well meaning statement I ran across said something along the lines of how Christ came to bring us grace, not doctrine (name withheld to protect the innocent!). In a real sense, there is some truth in this, but ultimately, it falls short of being a solid idea.
First of all, Jesus did come to bring us grace. That's true. The cross of Christ is a life giving fountain of grace. He dies and rises for us. He did that, past tense. It's the Gospel and it's done. He also delivers this work to us in the present via His Word and Sacraments.
Wait a second. This is all doctrine. That is where the statement falls short of making any meaningful sense. The statement pits grace against doctrine. To be plain, this is a false dichotomy. Doctrine is teaching. Doctrine is content. We learn doctrine. We study doctrine. It's not a bad word, it's what we have! Christ came because we needed grace. That's the truth. But to separate grace from doctrine is a serious mistake. To pit them against each other turns grace into some random mystical thing that we have no clue about.
Ultimately, this is nothing more than theological liberalism masquerading in the form of anti-intellectualism. Would the theological liberals not have our pastors preach and teach from the pulpit? Would they have us not teach our children the truth about Christ? Does doctrine really not matter?
Come on. Think with me a bit here. How do we know what grace is without hearing about it? What about Jesus? How do we know who He is and what He has done for us?
That would be doctrine. Need some Scripture? OK.
Romans 10:14-15: How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”
Romans 16:17: I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
1 Timothy 1:3-11: As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. 5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.
8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
1 Timothy 4:6: If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed.
1 Timothy 6:3-5: If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, 4 he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.
Titus 1:9: He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
So you see, the statement that Christ came to bring us needed grace but not doctrine is quite anti-Christian indeed.
+Grace and Peace+
First of all, Jesus did come to bring us grace. That's true. The cross of Christ is a life giving fountain of grace. He dies and rises for us. He did that, past tense. It's the Gospel and it's done. He also delivers this work to us in the present via His Word and Sacraments.
Wait a second. This is all doctrine. That is where the statement falls short of making any meaningful sense. The statement pits grace against doctrine. To be plain, this is a false dichotomy. Doctrine is teaching. Doctrine is content. We learn doctrine. We study doctrine. It's not a bad word, it's what we have! Christ came because we needed grace. That's the truth. But to separate grace from doctrine is a serious mistake. To pit them against each other turns grace into some random mystical thing that we have no clue about.
Ultimately, this is nothing more than theological liberalism masquerading in the form of anti-intellectualism. Would the theological liberals not have our pastors preach and teach from the pulpit? Would they have us not teach our children the truth about Christ? Does doctrine really not matter?
Come on. Think with me a bit here. How do we know what grace is without hearing about it? What about Jesus? How do we know who He is and what He has done for us?
That would be doctrine. Need some Scripture? OK.
Romans 10:14-15: How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”
Romans 16:17: I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
1 Timothy 1:3-11: As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. 5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.
8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
1 Timothy 4:6: If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed.
1 Timothy 6:3-5: If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, 4 he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.
Titus 1:9: He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
So you see, the statement that Christ came to bring us needed grace but not doctrine is quite anti-Christian indeed.
+Grace and Peace+
3/26/14
Sanctification and Lutheranism
I recently posted a status on facebook regarding the spirited debate that is ongoing on the topic of sanctification between Lutherans. I said:
"I'm not getting embroiled in this debate, but here is what I think.
Justification is not sanctification. Scripture uses two terms for a reason. So to say that sanctification is justification is a mistake and ends up eliminating sanctification altogether. If you want to call it the "new obedience," fine. I'm OK with that.
On the other hand, the word sanctification is the same word used for "saint..." and "holiness." Those are not things you can achieve yourself by anything you do. The thought of us making ourselves holy? God forbid!
I also think sanctification is used in two senses in Scripture. There is the 1 Corinthians 6:11 sense (But you *were* washed. You *were* justified. You *were* sanctified...etc). There is also the 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 sense, in which we cooperate. Yet we must explain what is meant by cooperation here. It does not mean libertarian free will. I like the horse and rider illustration used by Luther here. It is God alone who sanctifies, yet we willingly act. The Spirit, therefore, drives our sanctification, both positionally and ongoing, or progressively. (We ARE sanctified, we are also BEING sanctified, etc) We do not perfect the Spirit (much less ourselves!) by our actions, yet we willingly repent and desire to please God out of sheer thankfulness for what He has done for us at the cross, in our baptism, and continuing through Word and Sacrament.
Ap V (IV II) 73-74a
SD II 65-66, 88
That is what I think."
I suppose now I am getting embroiled in this debate in a way. I think there has been much more heat than light shed on the topic and it's probably not worthwhile to stay quiet and keep people guessing as to where I stand much longer.
From the outset, I recognize that one side of the discussion recoils at any mention of cooperation or synergism. I sympathize. I am squeamish with those terms as well. Holy Scripture is clear that we are not saved by cooperation or synergism, and a misuse of these terms will lead to an abuse of the Law and preaching that results in constant moral exhortation apart from the Gospel; or something in addition to the Gospel that perfects us. That misuse and abuse is clearly a big mistake.
Yet, to coin a cliché, throwing the baby out with the bathwater (I hate this phrase. Why am I using it?) is not something we want to do. The simple fact is, from where I stand, I can see two types of sanctification spoken of in the Scriptures. BOTH of them are completely driven by the Gospel, not by the Law. We're not sanctified by the Law, nor is our new obedience by the Law. This is a mistake. St. Paul states in Galatians:
Galatians 3:1-3: O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
Lex Semper Accusat. The Law always accuses. But is that all the Law does? I don't think so. We have numerous Confessional statements regarding the third use of the law. We also have numerous Confessional statements that plainly say we cooperate in this "new obedience." After all, it is us doing the actions, albeit they are driven by God. We act out of our own will precisely because we want to; out of sheer thanks for what Christ has done for us. Not as robots, for it is us acting and not God acting for us, but as new creations, driven by God to act in love.
Holy Scripture is clear that we are sanctified; as a state we already have. Christ has made us holy. That is the meaning of this sanctification. This sanctification is positional and is something belonging to everyone in Christ. The Scriptures speak of this a lot. One prime example is found in 1 Corinthians.
1 Corinthians 6:11: And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
God is the active agent in positional sanctification. He alone does this completely apart from us.
Yet, I also will not shy away from holding to what could be called an ongoing or progressive sanctification in which we cooperate. However, allow me to clarify what I mean by that.
I DO NOT mean that we are continually getting better and better and becoming more and more conformed to the moral law. It is true that our conformation to the moral law can increase, but only in great weakness, because it is God who works in us (Phil 2:13). But it does not always increase. We are still simul iustus et peccator, after all. We may do more good works on certain days than others.
This all means that if a person is looking to themselves and the quantity and quality of their works as assurance for salvation, they will eventually come to the conclusion that they are not saved. Only Christ crucified given to us extra nos (outside of ourselves) can assure us. What other conclusion could a sinful human come to? I suppose one could come to the conclusion that they are doing really well, but in that case, all they are doing is putting on their spiritual pride. And ironically in the process they're sinning.
I DO mean that God continually works in us and He is pleased to use us as His instruments on Earth to act on His behalf, mainly through confessing the truth about Christ crucified, but also acting in love towards our neighbor. So, I affirm that God continually sanctifies us and we cooperate with this sanctification.
I DO NOT mean that we are making ourselves holier by our cooperation. This would be a vast undermining of the Gospel and sola fide. I DO mean that God continually works, and despite the fact that He is pleased to include us in His action, He is still the sole sanctifier. Our cooperation does not mean we are sanctifying ourselves. We are simply acting upon the grace that God has given to us, as a horse responds to its rider, as Luther said.
I DO mean that we are aware of sin and live a life of repentance for our sins, as Luther's first thesis famously states.
I prefer to use language that says that we are willing participants of our own will precisely because we ARE holy, and as we ARE holy and saved, in that light we cooperate in an ongoing sanctification in our Christian life, of which God is the author.
A good biblical example of this is found in 1 Thessalonians.
1 Thessalonians 4:1-8: Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.
This is a clear example of us cooperating or participating in, not only a state of sanctification that we already have, but also in a process where God continues to work in us. Only the Gospel can drive these things, not our cooperation or the Law.
Therefore, I affirm an ongoing or cooperative aspect of sanctification. However, in the same breath, I also think that preachers of the Word need to be very cautious with this topic. Using exhortation wrongly can and does lead to a neglect of the Gospel, a downplaying of sola gratia and sola fide, and in extreme cases, outright moralism where the Gospel itself is turned into just another command to follow.
In other words, assurance cannot be had by looking inwardly at our works or fruits. Even this ongoing sanctification is completely driven by the Gospel. Only Christ and His work given objectively to us can assure us. It's driven by what is given to us in our Baptism, the Word, and the Sacrament. Our cooperation drives none of this nor does it merit us anything. Yet, God is pleased to have us as children justified by faith who desire to follow Him and cooperate in our lives. And it is us doing the acting, not God, although God is the sole driver of the actions.
Thus, I argue that it is completely valid to speak of sanctification in similar terms as salvation. Just as we can say that we are saved, are being saved, and will be saved, I think we can say the same regarding sanctification: We are sanctified, we are being sanctified, and we will be sanctified.
+Grace and Peace+
"I'm not getting embroiled in this debate, but here is what I think.
Justification is not sanctification. Scripture uses two terms for a reason. So to say that sanctification is justification is a mistake and ends up eliminating sanctification altogether. If you want to call it the "new obedience," fine. I'm OK with that.
On the other hand, the word sanctification is the same word used for "saint..." and "holiness." Those are not things you can achieve yourself by anything you do. The thought of us making ourselves holy? God forbid!
I also think sanctification is used in two senses in Scripture. There is the 1 Corinthians 6:11 sense (But you *were* washed. You *were* justified. You *were* sanctified...etc). There is also the 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 sense, in which we cooperate. Yet we must explain what is meant by cooperation here. It does not mean libertarian free will. I like the horse and rider illustration used by Luther here. It is God alone who sanctifies, yet we willingly act. The Spirit, therefore, drives our sanctification, both positionally and ongoing, or progressively. (We ARE sanctified, we are also BEING sanctified, etc) We do not perfect the Spirit (much less ourselves!) by our actions, yet we willingly repent and desire to please God out of sheer thankfulness for what He has done for us at the cross, in our baptism, and continuing through Word and Sacrament.
Ap V (IV II) 73-74a
SD II 65-66, 88
That is what I think."
I suppose now I am getting embroiled in this debate in a way. I think there has been much more heat than light shed on the topic and it's probably not worthwhile to stay quiet and keep people guessing as to where I stand much longer.
From the outset, I recognize that one side of the discussion recoils at any mention of cooperation or synergism. I sympathize. I am squeamish with those terms as well. Holy Scripture is clear that we are not saved by cooperation or synergism, and a misuse of these terms will lead to an abuse of the Law and preaching that results in constant moral exhortation apart from the Gospel; or something in addition to the Gospel that perfects us. That misuse and abuse is clearly a big mistake.
Yet, to coin a cliché, throwing the baby out with the bathwater (I hate this phrase. Why am I using it?) is not something we want to do. The simple fact is, from where I stand, I can see two types of sanctification spoken of in the Scriptures. BOTH of them are completely driven by the Gospel, not by the Law. We're not sanctified by the Law, nor is our new obedience by the Law. This is a mistake. St. Paul states in Galatians:
Galatians 3:1-3: O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
Lex Semper Accusat. The Law always accuses. But is that all the Law does? I don't think so. We have numerous Confessional statements regarding the third use of the law. We also have numerous Confessional statements that plainly say we cooperate in this "new obedience." After all, it is us doing the actions, albeit they are driven by God. We act out of our own will precisely because we want to; out of sheer thanks for what Christ has done for us. Not as robots, for it is us acting and not God acting for us, but as new creations, driven by God to act in love.
Holy Scripture is clear that we are sanctified; as a state we already have. Christ has made us holy. That is the meaning of this sanctification. This sanctification is positional and is something belonging to everyone in Christ. The Scriptures speak of this a lot. One prime example is found in 1 Corinthians.
1 Corinthians 6:11: And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.God is the active agent in positional sanctification. He alone does this completely apart from us.
Yet, I also will not shy away from holding to what could be called an ongoing or progressive sanctification in which we cooperate. However, allow me to clarify what I mean by that.
I DO NOT mean that we are continually getting better and better and becoming more and more conformed to the moral law. It is true that our conformation to the moral law can increase, but only in great weakness, because it is God who works in us (Phil 2:13). But it does not always increase. We are still simul iustus et peccator, after all. We may do more good works on certain days than others.
This all means that if a person is looking to themselves and the quantity and quality of their works as assurance for salvation, they will eventually come to the conclusion that they are not saved. Only Christ crucified given to us extra nos (outside of ourselves) can assure us. What other conclusion could a sinful human come to? I suppose one could come to the conclusion that they are doing really well, but in that case, all they are doing is putting on their spiritual pride. And ironically in the process they're sinning.
I DO mean that God continually works in us and He is pleased to use us as His instruments on Earth to act on His behalf, mainly through confessing the truth about Christ crucified, but also acting in love towards our neighbor. So, I affirm that God continually sanctifies us and we cooperate with this sanctification.
I DO NOT mean that we are making ourselves holier by our cooperation. This would be a vast undermining of the Gospel and sola fide. I DO mean that God continually works, and despite the fact that He is pleased to include us in His action, He is still the sole sanctifier. Our cooperation does not mean we are sanctifying ourselves. We are simply acting upon the grace that God has given to us, as a horse responds to its rider, as Luther said.
I DO mean that we are aware of sin and live a life of repentance for our sins, as Luther's first thesis famously states.
I prefer to use language that says that we are willing participants of our own will precisely because we ARE holy, and as we ARE holy and saved, in that light we cooperate in an ongoing sanctification in our Christian life, of which God is the author.
A good biblical example of this is found in 1 Thessalonians.
1 Thessalonians 4:1-8: Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.
This is a clear example of us cooperating or participating in, not only a state of sanctification that we already have, but also in a process where God continues to work in us. Only the Gospel can drive these things, not our cooperation or the Law.
Therefore, I affirm an ongoing or cooperative aspect of sanctification. However, in the same breath, I also think that preachers of the Word need to be very cautious with this topic. Using exhortation wrongly can and does lead to a neglect of the Gospel, a downplaying of sola gratia and sola fide, and in extreme cases, outright moralism where the Gospel itself is turned into just another command to follow.
In other words, assurance cannot be had by looking inwardly at our works or fruits. Even this ongoing sanctification is completely driven by the Gospel. Only Christ and His work given objectively to us can assure us. It's driven by what is given to us in our Baptism, the Word, and the Sacrament. Our cooperation drives none of this nor does it merit us anything. Yet, God is pleased to have us as children justified by faith who desire to follow Him and cooperate in our lives. And it is us doing the acting, not God, although God is the sole driver of the actions.
Thus, I argue that it is completely valid to speak of sanctification in similar terms as salvation. Just as we can say that we are saved, are being saved, and will be saved, I think we can say the same regarding sanctification: We are sanctified, we are being sanctified, and we will be sanctified.
+Grace and Peace+
3/25/14
The Law Kills, But the Gospel Gives Life
2 Corinthians 3:6b: For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Here is a short passage of Scripture that is set up -out of context- to combat people who rely on Scripture alone and hold that the Word is Sacramental. That is to say, the Scriptures are gracious and create faith.
The normal interpretation of the enthusiasts here is to set up a dichotomy between the letter (Scriptures) and the Spirit, which is separated from the Scriptures and therefore gives life independently from the Word. That is to say, the Spirit speaks to us directly apart from means. Even Reformer Ulrich Zwingli took this position.
The problem with this interpretation however, is that is not at all what St. Paul is saying. He is not demeaning the Holy Scriptures at all, nor is he setting up a false dichotomy between the spiritual and the natural. In some ways this interpretation reeks of Gnostic dualism.
So what is St. Paul saying? If we continue reading, he explains.
2 Corinthians 3:7-8: Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory?
He explains that the letter that kills is not the Holy Scriptures but is the Law. The Law kills us, precisely because it brings knowledge of sin (Ro 3:20) and we are incapable of keeping it (Ro 3:23) and are therefore guilty of breaking all of it (Js 2:10). St. Paul even goes as far as to say that the Law is the "ministry of death." The Law does not save us. It can't. The function of the Law is to command, not to give life. Only the Spirit can do that. Yes, the Law is holy, righteous, and good (Ro 7:12). After all, it is from God and reveals His standards. Jesus even ramped up the Law in the New Testament (Mat 22:36-40), saying that we must love the Lord with everything in our being and love our neighbors as ourselves.
So what then is the ministry of the Spirit? It's none other than the ministry of the New Covenant. In other words, it's the ministry of Word and Sacrament. Christ for you. The Spirit works through means. This is the clear teaching of the New Testament. He does not work in a vacuum separated from the means of grace. Not in the manner which the enthusiasts claim by speaking to us personally apart from Word and Sacrament, and not in the manner of the Neo-Calvinists and other non-traditional Calvinists, apart from Word and Sacrament based on a mysterious inward call.
We could phrase this passage in another way if we wanted: The Law kills, but the Gospel gives life. That is the point St. Paul is making. Only Christ's work at Calvary, given to us by the ministry of Word and Sacrament -the realm in which the Spirit works- gives us life.
+Grace and Peace+
Here is a short passage of Scripture that is set up -out of context- to combat people who rely on Scripture alone and hold that the Word is Sacramental. That is to say, the Scriptures are gracious and create faith.
The normal interpretation of the enthusiasts here is to set up a dichotomy between the letter (Scriptures) and the Spirit, which is separated from the Scriptures and therefore gives life independently from the Word. That is to say, the Spirit speaks to us directly apart from means. Even Reformer Ulrich Zwingli took this position.
The problem with this interpretation however, is that is not at all what St. Paul is saying. He is not demeaning the Holy Scriptures at all, nor is he setting up a false dichotomy between the spiritual and the natural. In some ways this interpretation reeks of Gnostic dualism.
So what is St. Paul saying? If we continue reading, he explains.
2 Corinthians 3:7-8: Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory?
He explains that the letter that kills is not the Holy Scriptures but is the Law. The Law kills us, precisely because it brings knowledge of sin (Ro 3:20) and we are incapable of keeping it (Ro 3:23) and are therefore guilty of breaking all of it (Js 2:10). St. Paul even goes as far as to say that the Law is the "ministry of death." The Law does not save us. It can't. The function of the Law is to command, not to give life. Only the Spirit can do that. Yes, the Law is holy, righteous, and good (Ro 7:12). After all, it is from God and reveals His standards. Jesus even ramped up the Law in the New Testament (Mat 22:36-40), saying that we must love the Lord with everything in our being and love our neighbors as ourselves.
So what then is the ministry of the Spirit? It's none other than the ministry of the New Covenant. In other words, it's the ministry of Word and Sacrament. Christ for you. The Spirit works through means. This is the clear teaching of the New Testament. He does not work in a vacuum separated from the means of grace. Not in the manner which the enthusiasts claim by speaking to us personally apart from Word and Sacrament, and not in the manner of the Neo-Calvinists and other non-traditional Calvinists, apart from Word and Sacrament based on a mysterious inward call.
We could phrase this passage in another way if we wanted: The Law kills, but the Gospel gives life. That is the point St. Paul is making. Only Christ's work at Calvary, given to us by the ministry of Word and Sacrament -the realm in which the Spirit works- gives us life.
+Grace and Peace+
3/24/14
Unity and the Sacrament of the Altar
Christian unity is quite a large topic now days, and rightfully so. After all, it was our Lord Jesus Christ who prayed for it in St. John 17 in what is known as His High Priestly Prayer.
St. John 17:20-23: “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me."
So we see, Jesus prays for unity. And, we should add, He will get it. But why doesn't He have it yet? Hint hint, we're sinful and stuff...
Anyhow, one of the major dividing doctrines in Christianity are the Sacraments. Baptism divides churches, but so does the Sacrament of the Altar, aka Holy Communion or the Eucharist.
Is the Eucharist worth dividing over? Absolutely yes, and here are some reasons as to why.
The three common interpretations of this (and this is simplified) are:
The Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ given for the forgiveness of sins. This interpretation is the traditional Christian one that went virtually unchallenged for the first 1500 years of the Christian Church. Whereas the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church dispute on how that happens (we Lutherans refuse to go beyond the Word here, Rome has transubstantiation), the Real Presence is affirmed. The Eucharist is the real bodily presence of Christ.
Enter Ulrich Zwingli. Zwingli was a pure memorialist. In simple terms, the bread and wine are nothing but a bare sign, done by us as a thanksgiving unto God. To put this bluntly, Zwingli denied the Real Presence. Communion is just bread and wine. This was THE issue that disallowed unity between Luther and Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy.
And then there is John Calvin, who strove to concoct a via media between the two systems. Calvin tried relentlessly to be faithful to both the ascension of Christ as well as the Words of Institution. What he came up with however was quite novel: The Holy Spirit carries us by faith into the throne room where Christ is in heaven to feast on His body and blood. Some theologians have accused this view of being Nestorian.
So different views of the Eucharist create division between churches, that is true. And I think, rightfully so. This is why:
First of all, the memorialists accuse the Real Presence advocates of worshiping an idol and holding to a superstition. The charge of cannibalism has even come up. The memorialists also accuse the non-Roman Catholic defenders of the Real Presence as being Romanists or hanging on to a holdover doctrine from Rome.
Another accusation made by the memorialists is that the Real Presence as a Sacrament for the forgiveness of sins (like baptismal regeneration) is a denial of sola fide. The Roman Church outright rejects sola fide anyways, but the accusation is a huge one to Confessional Lutherans who hold to the true bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, as well as sola fide.
So, how can us Real Presence folks be in communion with the memorialists. Obviously, the theological differences are too great to overlook. From their end, we are idolaters who add works to grace and reject sola fide.
On the flipside, the Real Presence adherents have serious problems with the memorialists. At the Marburg Colloquy, Luther even implied that Zwingli and his ilk were not brothers in Christ, despite reaching agreement on many things!
But why? Is the Real Presence that important? We think so for many reasons.
First and foremost, we believe the Real Presence is the clearest meaning of the text, not to mention the Church has always held to it. Therefore, we argue that the memorialists don't even have the Lord's Supper. They tinker with the elements a lot. Many churches use oyster crackers and Welch's grape juice. By doing this, they're essentially allowing Pietism, Legalism, and the women's temperance movement of the early 20th century to determine what elements are used in communion.
Second, from our perspective, they are guilty of rejecting what the Lord's Supper is. In short, when St. Matthew records the following:
St. Matthew 26:27-28: And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
We argue that the memorialists are guilty of rejecting this. This too is no small charge. If we, the Real Presence advocates are correct, and the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ given for the forgiveness of sins, then the memorialists are guilty of rejecting a means of grace and therefore a Gospel promise. That's a big deal.
Those issues are but a few, but they are big ones.
We must have unity, but we cannot have unity in the midst of grievous error. The Eucharist is one of those huge dividing points in the church. And so it shall be until Christ returns.
St. John 17:20-23: “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me."
So we see, Jesus prays for unity. And, we should add, He will get it. But why doesn't He have it yet? Hint hint, we're sinful and stuff...
Anyhow, one of the major dividing doctrines in Christianity are the Sacraments. Baptism divides churches, but so does the Sacrament of the Altar, aka Holy Communion or the Eucharist.
Is the Eucharist worth dividing over? Absolutely yes, and here are some reasons as to why.
What is the Eucharist?
The three common interpretations of this (and this is simplified) are:
The Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ given for the forgiveness of sins. This interpretation is the traditional Christian one that went virtually unchallenged for the first 1500 years of the Christian Church. Whereas the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church dispute on how that happens (we Lutherans refuse to go beyond the Word here, Rome has transubstantiation), the Real Presence is affirmed. The Eucharist is the real bodily presence of Christ.
Enter Ulrich Zwingli. Zwingli was a pure memorialist. In simple terms, the bread and wine are nothing but a bare sign, done by us as a thanksgiving unto God. To put this bluntly, Zwingli denied the Real Presence. Communion is just bread and wine. This was THE issue that disallowed unity between Luther and Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy.
And then there is John Calvin, who strove to concoct a via media between the two systems. Calvin tried relentlessly to be faithful to both the ascension of Christ as well as the Words of Institution. What he came up with however was quite novel: The Holy Spirit carries us by faith into the throne room where Christ is in heaven to feast on His body and blood. Some theologians have accused this view of being Nestorian.
So different views of the Eucharist create division between churches, that is true. And I think, rightfully so. This is why:
First of all, the memorialists accuse the Real Presence advocates of worshiping an idol and holding to a superstition. The charge of cannibalism has even come up. The memorialists also accuse the non-Roman Catholic defenders of the Real Presence as being Romanists or hanging on to a holdover doctrine from Rome.
Another accusation made by the memorialists is that the Real Presence as a Sacrament for the forgiveness of sins (like baptismal regeneration) is a denial of sola fide. The Roman Church outright rejects sola fide anyways, but the accusation is a huge one to Confessional Lutherans who hold to the true bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, as well as sola fide.
So, how can us Real Presence folks be in communion with the memorialists. Obviously, the theological differences are too great to overlook. From their end, we are idolaters who add works to grace and reject sola fide.
On the flipside, the Real Presence adherents have serious problems with the memorialists. At the Marburg Colloquy, Luther even implied that Zwingli and his ilk were not brothers in Christ, despite reaching agreement on many things!
But why? Is the Real Presence that important? We think so for many reasons.
First and foremost, we believe the Real Presence is the clearest meaning of the text, not to mention the Church has always held to it. Therefore, we argue that the memorialists don't even have the Lord's Supper. They tinker with the elements a lot. Many churches use oyster crackers and Welch's grape juice. By doing this, they're essentially allowing Pietism, Legalism, and the women's temperance movement of the early 20th century to determine what elements are used in communion.
Second, from our perspective, they are guilty of rejecting what the Lord's Supper is. In short, when St. Matthew records the following:
St. Matthew 26:27-28: And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
We argue that the memorialists are guilty of rejecting this. This too is no small charge. If we, the Real Presence advocates are correct, and the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ given for the forgiveness of sins, then the memorialists are guilty of rejecting a means of grace and therefore a Gospel promise. That's a big deal.
Those issues are but a few, but they are big ones.
We must have unity, but we cannot have unity in the midst of grievous error. The Eucharist is one of those huge dividing points in the church. And so it shall be until Christ returns.
3/21/14
Smalcald Articles - Luther on Sin
Smalcald Articles, Part III, Article I: Sin
1 Here we must confess, as Paul says in Romans 5:12, that sin originated from one man, Adam. By his disobedience, all people were made sinners and became subject to death and the devil. This is called original or the chief sin.
2 The fruit of this sin are the evil deeds that are forbidden in the Ten Commandments [Galatians 5:19-21]. These include unbelief, false faith, idolatry, being without the fear of God, pride, despair, utter blindness, and, in short, not knowing or regarding God. Also lying, abusing God's name, not praying, not calling on God, not regarding God's Word, being disobedient to parents, murdering, being unchaste, stealing, deceiving, and such.
3 This hereditary sin is such a deep corruption of nature that no reason can understand it. Rather, it must be believed from the revelation of Scripture. (See Psalm 51:5; Romans 6:12-13; Exodus 33:3; Genesis 3:7-19.) Therefore, it is nothing but error and blindness that the scholastic doctors have taught in regard to this article:
4 Since Adam's fall the natural powers of human beings have remained whole and uncorrupted, and by nature people have a right reason and a good will, as the philosophers teach.
5 A person has a free will to do good and not to do evil, and, on the other hand, to not do good and do evil.
6 By natural human powers a person can observe and keep all God's commands.
7 By natural human powers, a person can love God above all things and love his neighbor as himself.
8 If a person does as much as is in him, God certainly grants him His grace.
9 If a person wishes to go to the Sacrament, there is no need of a good intention to do good. It is enough if a person does not have a wicked purpose to commit sin, so entirely good is human nature and so effective is the Sacrament.
10 Scripture does not teach that the Holy Spirit with His grace is necessary for a good work.
11 These and many similar ideas have arisen from lack of understanding and ignorance, both about sin and about Christ, our Savior. They are truly heathen teachings that we cannot endure. For if such teaching were true, then Christ has died in vain. A human being would have no defect or sin for which He would have died. Or He would have died only for the body, not for the soul, since the soul is sound, and only the body is subject to death.
Luther has here pointed out the numerous errors of the medieval church regarding original sin. More importantly, he has also pointed out the extremely problematic conclusions of such a sloppy theology. Ultimately, it glorifies man and devalues Christ.
How much do we see this sort of theology today? I would assert that we probably see it more today than even in Luther's time. It's the standard theology in America. The only theologies that stand against such man-glorifying theology are those of the Reformation.
In short, nearly all theological errors are a result of making way too much out of humanity. We are told we have unlimited potential and that we can do whatever we put our minds to. When we carry this over into theology, we end up with Christ as an afterthought and us as the real Saviors. The more we prop ourselves us, the further we get from Scriptural theology.
This short article written by Luther is just as true today as it was then. And it's just as important too.
As we continue in Lent towards Holy Week, let us remember that it is Christ alone -not us, not us plus Christ- that saves us.
+ Grace and Peace in Christ +
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)