Martin Luther Was A Calvinist!

It's true! Luther was a full-blooded, limited atonement preachin', 5-point TULIP sniffin' Calvinist. Just read Bondage of the Will, that'll show ya.

Martin Luther, Calvinist

Plus, look at that beard! Calvinists all have beards. John Calvin had a long one. Heck, Doug Wilson has a good beard too. Even Charles Spurgeon had a beard. Luther must have been a Calvinist.

The Small Catechism is a Calvinist document, for sure. Look at these Calvinistic dogmas Luther lays down.

What does Baptism give or profit?--Answer.

 

It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.

 

And then,

 

How can water do such great things?--Answer.

 

It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.

 

And more Calvinist thought here...
 

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

 

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.

 

And...
 

What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?

 

That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.

 

How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?

 

It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.

 

All of this stuff from the Small Catechism is exactly what Calvinism teaches.

 

But it's not. These teachings are considered damnable heresy by many Calvinists.

 

Martin Luther was definitely not a Calvinist.

 

If only he would have lived longer he would have been; they say.

Uh, no.

+Pax+

The Hidden God vs The Revealed God In Reformed and Lutheran Theologies

One of the biggest concerns that moved me from Geneva to Wittenberg theologically and practically was the relationship between what Dr. Luther calls “the hidden god” and “the Revealed God.” Both of these theological categories, or ways of speaking about God, are present in both Reformed theology and Lutheranism, but the various contexts of their respective theologies end up viewing the relationship and outworking of such very differently. In this post, we will examine the relationship, but before we do so, let us define what exactly Luther means when he discusses “the hidden god” and “the Revealed God.”

THE HIDDEN GOD VS THE REVEALED GOD

Dr. Luther’s focus on the Revealed God came not from academic reasons, but from his own struggles with assurance that God was indeed gracious toward him. Roman Catholicism in his day was putting God in all His holiness and sheer terror on the same economic and salvation plane as God in Christ, and even Christ on the cross. In fact, during his day, since this was so, Christ was still looked at as terrifying, so people would look more to the Virgin Mary than to Christ, because the Virgin Mary, as a kind mother, would pacify the “terrors of Christ” and make Him more gentle by persuasion.

Luther rightly recognized that this was wrong-headed. Luther’s mentor, Johann von Staupitz, saw Luther’s terrors and he counseled him to find the gracious God in Christ alone and by looking to the Cross to find that God is gracious. It was then that Luther knew he had a gracious God. Luther even said “if it were not for the counsels of Stauptiz, I would have sunk into hell.”

So in this context, Luther understands “the hidden god” as God in all His holiness, majesty, sovereignty, and therefore sheer terror to sinners. This God is the God Who causes Mt. Sinai to smoke, so much so that if even an animal touches it, it is toast. This God is God apart from Christ, the God Who is terrible, the God Who damns sinners, the God Who has us born tainted with sin, and the God Who indeed has ordained every event that happens, including sin.

But Luther rightly saw this God as the One Who is inscrutable, the One Who cannot be comprehended or understood. In fact, the more we try and understand this God, the more we play with fire. This very same God warns us that no one can see Him and live.

We dare not seek God there. We dare not seek God in His unsearchable judgments.

Luther then contrasts this God with the Revealed God in Christ. In Christ, we find a God of love, One Who is gracious and forgiving and loving toward sinners. We must run to this God, we must seek Him as a Baby in the manger. It is this God alone that Luther cared to run to. It is here that God bid us find Him.

Otherwise, God hides Himself. God bids us look for Him and find Him in Christ alone, and to not concern ourselves with God outside of Christ.

This is why Luther would say “the Cross alone is our theology. This God is Man. This Man is God.”

THE HIDDEN GOD AND THE REVEALED GOD IN REFORMED THEOLOGY

Although Reformed theology does indeed have the categories of the hidden god vs the Revealed God in Christ, it nonetheless still starts with the eternal decrees through the covenant of redemption where the Father elects and the Son dies for and the Spirit applies salvation to the elect alone. Because of this, the Cross becomes the place in history where Christ merely manifests God’s election, and therefore Reformed theology has the doctrine of limited atonement. It has been asserted that there is no central doctrine in Calvinism by many Calvinists, but with its starting point being the covenant of redemption, which therefore starts with the eternal decrees and the glory of God, and thus manifesting election through limited atonement, the focus cannot avoid being stuck on God’s decrees and His sovereignty and therefore His glory.

This is very much the same thing as focusing on the hidden god.

Christ and the Incarnation, though confessed by the Reformed, end up taking a back seat.

God’s sovereignty and His decrees end up driving their thought and their system.

Even in its better forms, Calvinism cannot avoid this. You see this manifest in their own system through its continued iconoclasm, the regulative principle of worship, Sabbath concerns, etc.
And the hidden god is quite akin to law, which is why the hidden god at Sinai is sheer terror.

This hidden god is *not* for us.

The hidden god is against us.

Indeed, He has to be. He is holy, and we are not.

So, in the Revealed God in Christ in Reformed theology, since its focus is the decrees and limited atonement and particular grace, we nonetheless cannot be sure that God is *for us* under such thinking. How can we be sure this God died for us?

In fact, God still remains hidden in Reformed theology because you *cannot* look for Him in the Sacraments, since He is only present for the elect, according to all strands of Reformed theology.
Therefore, we are forced to look inward. And, if we do not look inward, we are forced to wonder if God is present for us in the Sacraments.

The way Reformed theology, therefore, sees the hidden god vs the Revealed God has severe practical consequences.

THE HIDDEN GOD VS THE REVEALED GOD IN LUTHERANISM

Under Lutheranism, since Lutheranism affirms universal grace and does not concern itself with God’s decrees, but simply allows for this Scriptural tension and paradox to nonetheless remain, we can rejoice in the *difference* between the hidden god and the Revealed God.

In Lutheranism, the hidden god remains hidden, and we do not concern ourselves with Him, lest we perish in our sins. We are only concerned about Christ and Christ alone. We do not care about the hidden decrees of God. To concern ourselves with the decrees–in *any* way–is spiritually dangerous. We cannot place law and Gospel on the same economic plane. Gospel–the Revealed God in Christ–is *always* God’s final Word, and always His highest authority.

God bids us look for Him in Christ alone and to not look for Him where He has not promised to be. To look for God in any place where He has not promised to be is to look to the hidden god and is spiritually dangerous. Luther calls this “Enthusiasm”, or “God within-ism.” Luther also rightly says that looking inward is the essence of what *sin* is. The power of sin is the law. The hidden god is law.

God in Christ, who indeed is *universally* gracious in Lutheranism, promises to be found as *for us* in His Word and in His Sacraments. *Never* apart from them. *Always* in the Word and in the Sacraments. The King has spoken. God is for us and comes down to us in ways we think are foolish–in Water, Bread, and Wine. And *really* and *truly*. Not resting upon whether we have faith or not. But really and truly as for us, and objectively. God indeed is really that gracious.

So in Lutheranism, the hidden god is law and terrifying and *not on the same plane* as the Revealed God in Christ and in the Gospel. Although we preach both law and Gospel, the Gospel is *always* God’s highest Word. This means that Christ–Who died for the sins of all who have ever lived and Who comes down to us in Word and Sacrament–is for us. He is the gracious God.

The Gospel of God’s universal saving grace in Word and Sacrament is always God’s highest and final Word.

The King has spoken.

This God is gracious and He is for you.

The Cross alone is our theology.

This God is Man.

This Man is God.

This God is Revealed in Christ for you. You will find Him where He has *promised* to be, objectively, all the time, for you, in Word and Sacrament.

Come and embrace this gracious God as He brings you into union with Himself in the waters of Holy Baptism, as He continually forgives you through His Word spoken through His pastor in Persona Christi in His gracious Word of Absolution, and as He continually makes Himself vulnerable for you by giving you His Body and His Blood in His Holy Supper, for the forgiveness of your sins.
Look for Him where He has promised to be for you, in Word and Sacrament.

This is the Good News. This God is indeed for you!

My Conversion to Lutheranism

Never did I expect to enter the Lutheran faith; I honestly expected to die in the Reformed faith. What follows in this post is simply my “conversion story”, and how I came to embrace the Lutheran faith, and why I believe, by God’s grace, that this is where I will stay.

What follows is not meant to be an exhaustive description of Lutheran theology, which I embraced and to which I converted, nor is it meant to be an exhaustive or scholarly critique of Calvinism, which I abandoned after 20 years spent therein. What follows is simply my “conversion testimony” and the way I now see things.

FROM EVANGELICAL, TO REFORMED, TO EVANGELICAL CATHOLIC (LUTHERAN)

Being raised in the evangelical faith, I desired something of more substance. Although I can appreciate our non-denominational brethren’s desire for more unity, unfortunately this desire is usually at the expense of doctrine. I desired clarity and wanted to know what I believed. At the time, 20 years ago, that is when I discovered Calvinism and its doctrines.

I spent 20 years in Calvinism, and my time can be described as ups and downs, but more spiritual “downs” than “ups”, to be honest. I had a very philosophical mindset, and Calvinism satisfied that mindset. In the theology of Geneva (Calvinism), you have an airtight and rigorously logical system. Everything that happens on earth is an outworking of God’s sovereign decree, including the Fall of Adam, and including the decree of reprobation and who is predestined to be lost. Although orthodox Calvinism will speak of God desiring in some sense to save everyone, what is prominent is His sovereign decree. The Cross is an outworking of election, and God therefore atones only for the sins of the elect, and for no one else–although orthodox Calvinism admits that there is “a sense” in which Christ died for all “in the sense that” He desires their salvation–“in a sense.”

We can see from the above that Calvinism qualifies its language very much, almost to the nth degree. Whether Calvinism speaks of the extent of the atonement, the days of creation, the presence of Christ in the Supper, Baptism being efficacious for salvation, etc.–one has to ask our Calvinist brethren what they mean when they use language. This qualifying is very much connected to a lack of certainty and clarity, in my humble opinion. I desired certainty and objectivity, and I found it in Lutheranism.

CALVINISM: A SYSTEM WHICH CANNOT ESCAPE BEING LAW-ORIENTED

Connected to the above, my time spent in Calvinism was one of constant battles with assurance of salvation. I am now convinced that this is because Calvinism, even in its better forms that seek to keep law and Gospel distinct, nonetheless cannot get away from or escape the fact that it must inevitably keep election and predestination as primary in its theological thought. It starts with the covenant of redemption, where the Father makes a covenant with the Son and Spirit to atone for and apply salvation to the elect alone. It then plays itself out in history in the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, and therefore the Cross becomes the place where election is displayed, since Christ atones only for the elect and no others.

Likewise, many Calvinists will correctly speak of Scripture needing to interpret Scripture, which is a good hermeneutic, but nonetheless they still impose the categories of election upon the Scriptures primarily, and therefore Scripture *still* does not simply speak for itself in Calvinistic thought. Limited atonement, for example, is simply *not* something that can be arrived at through allowing the Scripture to speak for itself, because Scripture clearly teaches in numerous places that Christ atoned for the sins of all who have ever lived–even for false prophets and false teachers. It clearly teaches that God’s disposition is one of *mercy*–“God has bound all men over to disobedience that He may have mercy on all.”

To be sure, many Calvinists will speak of there not being a central dogma in Calvinism, such as Dr. Michael Horton, for whom I have high respect. However, as it is said, saying so doesn’t make it so. We can demonstrate that this is simply not so, and that Calvinism simply cannot avoid making election the primary motif, especially because of doctrines such as limited atonement. And we can prove that Calvinism cannot avoid being law-centered, especially because of its iconoclasm, its doctrine of the regulative principle of worship, and its view of the Sabbath, etc. And, many of our Calvinist friends still may not be convinced and feel like it is not so. But, by analogy, one can tell a Mormon friend *why* and *how* Mormonism is simply not Christian doctrine, but our Mormon friends will continue to insist that Mormonism is Christian. But of course, just because a Mormon says that Mormonism is Christian does not make it so. Especially after one can prove why and how Mormonism is not Christian. In the same way, one can easily prove that Calvinism cannot avoid being law-centered and election and predestination-centered, even though many Calvinists will try and claim that they have no central doctrine. Them saying that there is no central dogma in Calvinism does not make it so.

And, I am convinced that this is why even in its better forms, Calvinism cannot continue keeping law and Gospel distinct. In fact, it has to put them on the same economic plane. Related to this, Dr. Martin Luther speaks of the hidden god vs the Revealed God in Christ. To place the hidden god apart from Christ on the same economic plane as the Revealed God in Christ is to confuse law and Gospel. Gospel must always be God’s final Word, and Gospel always has the highest authority.

BLESSED ASSURANCE, JESUS IS MINE, AND I KNOW THAT BECAUSE OF GOD’S PROMISES IN THE SACRAMENTS

For 20 years, I was told that Christ was mine, but I was also told that Christ died only for the elect. I was also told that the Spirit *might* be present in the Sacraments, and that if I have *faith* that I am receiving the Body and Blood of Christ at the Supper. But I was also being told that it is possible that my faith may be a false faith, given that I may or may not be one of God’s elect. When I was Reformed Baptist, I was told to look to Christ, but then to look to my fruit. As the Anglican preacher J.C. Ryle sadly said, “Sin forsaken is evidence of sin forgiven.” The fact is, we cannot look to our fruit to find assurance, given that we all have besetting sins, and given that even unbelievers “forsake” outward actions of sin. As my pastor rightly says, if we were to follow anyone around 24 hours a day for a week, we would *all* conclude that they were “not saved.”

No wonder the Puritans struggled with assurance of salvation so much!

But then I entered a better form of Calvinism that didn’t tell me to “check my fruit.” With that form, I was told to look to the sacraments, which was correct in practice, but wrong in its sacramentology. After my Reformed pastor began denying the law/gospel distinction in sanctification, that was the catalyst that caused me to begin questioning. Why does Calvinism struggle so much with keeping the law and the Gospel distinct? And I realized, it’s because it separates the Spirit from the sacraments. In Calvinism, the Spirit “might” be present at Baptism, but only for the elect, and that not even at the moment of administration. At the Supper, He is only present to the faith of the believer, but not for the unbeliever. So, although Calvinists will speak of the sacraments being “efficacious” and the “real presence” and “objectivity”, it nonetheless boils down to *subjectivity* and “yes, but.”

I needed “Yes” and “Amen.” I needed objectivity.

How could I know that I had a gracious God? How could I know that Christ died for me? How could I know I was one of the elect?

“Look to the sacraments,” I was being told. But by their own definition, Christ was not always present in the sacraments!

Then I recognized correctly that Kim Riddlebarger correctly said the main difference between Calvinism and Lutheranism is particular grace vs universal grace.

I began to see that Calvinism cannot get away from the hidden god.

How did I know that God was *for us*? *For me*?

I then began to see why Luther went berzerk over Zwingli and Bullinger and all non-sacramental thought. For Luther–and for Scripture–to take the Spirit out of the Sacraments–even in a “sometimes” or “qualified” sense, was to mess with the Gospel and objective assurance.

I then began to see that Scripture *clearly* teaches that Baptism saves, that the Spirit is always present at Baptism, and that Christ’s Body and Blood are truly present in the Supper.
I also began to see that Scripture clearly teaches universal grace. “God has bound all men over to disobedience that He may have mercy on all.”

I appreciated how Lutherans let paradox be paradox.

After that, the icing on the cake was I recognized that the Church, for 1,500 years, *always* taught that Holy Baptism regenerates, and that Christ is physically and objectively present in His Supper.
Calvin and Zwingli started from scratch. Their doctrines were not taught for 1,500 years.
Luther and his followers cared very much for the catholicity of the Church, and did not desire to create any new doctrines.

LOOK TO CHRIST, AND FIND HIM WHERE HE HAS PROMISED TO BE FOUND *FOR YOU*

We do not look to creation to find God for us. Otherwise, we will give up when terrible things happen. We do not look within to find God for us. How do we know it is not our own thoughts? In fact, God hides Himself from being found by our feeble human attempts. God desires us to look for Him in Christ.

But this begs the question, “Where do I find Christ?” Especially since Christ is in heaven, can I climb the ladder to reach Him there? No. Of course not. All man-made theology is what is called “ladder theology.” Man tries to climb the ladder to reach God, to create his own Tower of Babel. The truth is, God must always come down.

Christ comes to us all the time, *for us*, in His Word and in His Sacraments. This is where we will find God *for us*, God as *gracious* for us. We will not find God gracious in creation, because creation dies. We will not find God gracious in His law, because His law shows us our sin.
If we want to find the gracious God, we must find Him in Christ on the Cross, and Him brought to us and for us in His Word and in His Sacraments.

We never get past the forgiveness of sins.

You see, this is down-to-earth. We all need a God Who is down-to-earth. When I was a Calvinist, I was philosophy-minded, bouncing from one theological idea within Calvinism to the next, never able to fully arrive, because it is idealistic and high-minded. It is “head-in-the-clouds.” Luther calls it “heavenly prophets.”

Lutheranism, on the other hand, is real, down-to-earth, physical, and right in front of me. It is where strivings truly cease. It keeps Jesus Christ at the center.

ONE FINAL THOUGHT

To my friends and family reading this, do I desire you to convert to Lutheranism? Of course I do. But don’t convert because of merely intellectual reasons. That would be treating it like another philosophy. Theology is not for the high-minded, or the philosophers. Theology is for pastoral care. Theology is *Christology*. It is about Christ, and about forgiveness of sins. We all need forgiveness. We never get past forgiveness. That is our greatest need. Christ is our Greatest Need.

In fact, Lutheranism is only a nickname. Lutheranism is the Gospel, and nothing else.

It is the Gospel of God’s universal saving grace in Christ, to the world, and for the world.

For me.

For you.

Many of us who converted from Calvinism to Lutheranism have similar stories. I had the honor recently of being interviewed by pastor Jordan Cooper on the Just and Sinner Podcast, describing my journey. Please give it a listen: http://justandsinner.com/podcast/from-calvinism-to-lutheranism/

Christ Died For YOU

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

Observe:

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

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

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

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

What did St. Paul preach to them?

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

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

That's a pretty big issue.

+Pax+

Robbing the Gospel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+Pax+

Uh...That Aint What It Says, Pelagians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By grace. Not by nature.

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

Westminster Confession of...Fail.

Westminster Confession of Faith, XXIX: V

Of the Lord's Supper

The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.

There is Westminster regarding the elements in the Eucharist. Let us examine what they are saying here.

First of all, Westminster wants us to see that the elements in Holy Communion are related to Christ. So far so good. I don't think anyone would want to say other wise; especially in light of Christ Himself instituting the Supper. As stated, "The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified..."

The rest of the blurb is where Westminster goes off the rails. The next statement, "...truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ..."

So Westminster says that the elements are truly and sacramentally related to Christ, so much so that they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent. So, according to this, the bread and wine are related to Christ, so that they can be actually called the Body and Blood, because that is what they represent.

Here is problem number one. Is the Lord's Supper some sort of trick where we call the elements what Christ called them, but they really aren't them? Why would we, or should we, call the elements by the words Christ called them, if the elements only represent something? Was Christ looking to fool the Apostles at the Last Supper?

I get it. Westminster wants to retain some sort of Real Presence and actually have a Sacrament. The problem is, when you deny the Real Presence via rejection of Christ's words and set up a mere symbol instead (received spiritually by faith only WCF XXIX: VII), you have no Sacrament. If the Sacraments do not do the things that Christ said they do and are not the things that Christ said they are, then there is no Sacrament. Neither does our faith make Christ present. Christ IS present precisely where He says He will be present.

Westminster further clarifies this explanation in the final statement, "...albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before."

The key word here is only. Why is this so? Because Westminster is telling us that the bread and wine is only the bread and wine. NOT the Body and Blood of Christ.

What Westminster gives in one hand it quickly snatches away by denying the Real Presence. They want to affirm a Real Presence (all Reformed Theology does) and claim that the elements are Sacramentally related to Christ. But they are not what Christ said they are, according to them. So, the one thing that retains the Sacrament - the true bodily presence of Christ - is patently rejected by Westminster.

Ultimately, Westminster has no business using the word Sacrament in their doctrine of the Lord's Supper. In their own words, by their own statements, all they have is a bare memorial, despite their desire to keep the Lord's Supper Sacramental.

What do they have, according to them? Well, nothing more than bread and wine, and a pious remembrance of faith that looks to Christ in glory.

But not the Body and Blood of Christ truly present in the bread and wine for the forgiveness of their sins, which is exactly what Christ said it is.

Real Presence denied. Sacrament rejected.

High Priestly Hyper Calvinist Twisting Shenanigans

John 17 is commonly referred to as the High Priestly Prayer of Jesus. In it, there are some phrases spoken by Christ that Hyper Calvinism wrenches from the prayer and reads way more into them that what is actually said by Christ, thereby forcing their theology onto the text of Holy Scripture.

The specific verse to which I refer is John 17:9, which states: I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.

To the High or Hyper Calvinist, they then read much more into this verse than what is actually there. They see this verse and say: See! Christ only prays for the elect alone and not for the world. In fact, He never prays for the world and always only prays for the elect!

But that is a major amount of assumption here; the Scripture in question here simply does not say that. This passage simply is recording a prayer of Christ. In this specific prayer, He certainly is praying not for the world. But it does not follow that He never prays for the world - He simply did not do so in this specific prayer.

We can especially see the error in this interpretation when we look at other Scriptures from the same Bible. For instance,

1 Timothy 2:1-4: First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Surely, we would not be commanded to pray for those whom Christ refused to pray for, right?

And what about Luke 23:34?

And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments.

I've seen High Calvinists deal with this text in two ways. The first way is to claim that it is a textual variant and that passage might not really be part of Holy Scripture. The second way I've seen is that they will claim that the ones Christ is praying for on the cross are elect. Yet, the text gives no indication of this one way or another.

Neither of these manners of dealing with the text are convincing enough to explain away the plain reading of Scripture here. The simple text is recording that Christ prayed for His persecutors while on the cross.

Calvinists also employ this exact way of thinking when doing exegesis on atonement passages.

John 10:11, 14-15: I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep...I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.

The argument made here is identical to the twisting job used in John 17. They read that Jesus laid down His life for the sheep, and surmise that this means that He did not lay down His life for the goats. i.e. Jesus died only for the sheep, and none else.

But again in this text, Jesus never says that He did not die for the goats. And this is especially relevant when we see that the Scriptures have numerous other texts that say that He died for the whole world (which ends up being described not in terms of individuals - which means 'whole world' does not mean every single person.) 1 John 2:2 is normative here:

1 John 2:2: He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

So here we have two clear examples where Calvinist logic and reason is disproved by logic and reason; allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves.

Kinda makes these interpretations illogical and unreasonable, don't you think? More so, they are direct denials of God's Word in some places.

+Grace and Peace+

Continual Christian Exhortation To Do Better?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grace and Peace