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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christ's paradoxical words in John 6:63-64

When you think of our Lutheran theology, you think paradox. It’s in the straightforward reading of Scriptures that results in this paradox we find in this theology of the cross. A passage like John 6:63-64 is no different. Themes like the hidden will/revealed will distinction and  paradox of monergism and objective grace being for all/you exist there.

Let us first examine John 6:63. Christ stated that the Spirit gives life while the flesh profits nothing. We see here salvation is fully of God. Not one allowance is given for anything in us to will to believe or to be renewed to new life in Christ. Salvation is entirely the work of God. The Spirit converts us by giving us life. That life that He gives us is not something we can self-generate. Nor can we offer anything, however small, of ourselves to will towards conversion. Nothing means nothing, not a little of something. John 6:63 flat out proved monergism.

Now human reason would assume since salvation is all of God and not all are saved, it must mean God’s saving grace is given only to the elect and not all. But that is not what Christ said in the next passage. He said that His words are spirit and life in them. In other words, there is saving power in His words. Yet, despite that, not all believe. Not all receive God Incarnate who had come for them.

Why? The whore of human reason would be tempted to say it is because man has some measure of  freewill to decide for or against God. But Scriptures refute that. Christ said the Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. We did not choose Him but He chose us (John 15:16). God made us alive when we were dead in sins as the grace of God by which we are saved through faith as a gift of God, not of ourselves (Ephesians 2:1-8). None can confess Jesus without the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3). Rebirth is not from human decision  (John 1:13).

The other temptation would be to say that God only desires to save some and not all. But John 6:64 ruled that out. His divine word, with the power to save, was resisted. Christ desired to save many in Jerusalem yet was spurned, and He wept for it (Matthew 23:37). The Holy Spirit can be resisted (Acts 7:51). God does desire to save all (1 Timothy 2:1-6, 2 Peter 3:9, John 3:16).

So why are not all saved if God’s saving grace is given to all and if God’s grace alone converts us, not of anything in us? Scriptures do not say. Do note what John 6:64 did say. It said that Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.

Jesus was God. He had this power of knowledge of what will happen and in regards to who will be saved and won’t. We don’t have this knowledge. It is hidden to God. It is God’s inscrutable will which we dare not try to peer into. We are not essentially told why some come and some do not, when God wants to save all and comes to all yet grace alone saves us, not of any willpower that we can muster in us.

We see then in the passage that God’s revealed will is for them to be saved. Christ’s word is indeed spirit and indeed life given for even those who resist and reject it. He desired to save them, and they refused to believe.

We are left with a paradox that goes against human reason that desires to force these passages to fit together like a puzzle or some Dutch flowery system. But Scriptures do not let us if we read them as these passages are meant to be read.

So why are we given such a paradox in Scriptures?

The truth is that such paradox is for our assurance. We would not know if Christ died for us and given to us objectively by His word through means of grace for us unless if it is objectively for all He died and objectively offered and worked in all. We can be assured of Christ died for us personally in a real true way only if He indeed died for all. Faith alone looks to this objective fact of what’s given for all means that it is true for us personally. Faith alone receives that objective fact and the benefits that this redemptive work of Christ applied to us. We can be certain of that and look outside ourselves for assurance on this objective truth and fact given to us in Word and Sacrament. No need to look inwards nor at one's own faith. And definitely, no need to look to fruits of faith for assurance. 

The fact God’s grace alone for us, not of ourselves, also give us assurance that as long as in Christ, the same God who converts us, is able to keep us. Again, we do not look to our own selves for assurance nor to keep ourselves. It is in Christ crucified for us that we are saved and in God’s hand. Look outside ourselves to Christ alone given to us in Word and Sacrament, not back at ourselves for assurance. He presented these means of grace to us as indeed His revealed saving will to us. That is where we can be sure that we are elect, when we are in Christ. That is where what is hidden to God becomes revealed to God. It is God Incarnate given to us.

For us and to us we have His forgiveness that He won for us at the cross and which we received (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) in baptism (Acts 2:38, 22:16). And we continue to look to what Christ did to nourish us in the one true faith as His body and blood comes to us in the Eucharist for us to partake of receiving the life that is in Christ’s blood (1 Corinthians 10:16). By grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Here we stand.

Crypto Arminianism?

In ages past, the Confessing Lutherans had problems with Crypto-Calvinism seeping into Lutheran churches. And this problem was dealt with swiftly and decisively. The trend now, at least in the United States within Lutheranism, is that Arminianism is seeping in. Thankfully we have steered clear of outright Pelagianism, although I would venture to guess that this also is out there somewhere in various Lutheran churches. This Crypto-Arminianism also needs to be dealt with swiftly and decisively.

This shouldn't surprise us however. All around us in the United States are mainstream Evangelical churches, Pentecostalism, and even cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Latter Day Saints. Not to mention the enormous Roman Catholic Church and the fringe semi-cultish body known as the Seventh Day Adventists. What do all of the aforementioned faith bodies have in common? Synergism and libertarian free will. Certainly it is not my intent to lump evangelicals in with the cults, and the same goes for Roman Catholicism. But they all do affirm synergism and free will.

So it's not shocking that these ideas have crept into Confessional Lutheran churches. In reality, the only two major church bodies of theology that are not synergistic are Confessional Lutheranism and Reformed Theology. Certainly we have our share of disagreements with the Reformed, but monergism is not one of them.

The fact of the matter is that Confessional Lutheranism does not allow for synergism in any form as it is classically understood. This means that Classical Arminianism is not within the bounds of Lutheranism. It's as acceptable to Confessional Lutheranism as say, Calvinism.

In other words, as we have dealt with Crypto-Calvinism as well as the Philippists on the basis of God's Word, we need to be wary of Cryto-Arminianism as well. It has no place in Confessional Lutheranism. Synergism and free will do not belong here. They do not fit within our Confessions and are decidedly not Lutheran.

This must be dealt with at a local level with our faithful pastors teaching God's Word and the Lutheran Confessions.

+Pax+

LUTHERANISM HAS TO BE *NEEDED*

Lutheranism has to be *needed*, and not just intellectually desired.

What I mean by the above is the following. When I was a Calvinist, I was a Calvinist mainly because I was on a philosophical quest to "find ultimate truth." Calvinism was, and still is, a system that seems to answer questions, and one that is logically coherent.

I was also very successful in convincing many of my friends to embrace Calvinism.

But this same system that is logically rigorous, is also very law-oriented. It has to be. We want something that makes sense, and law makes sense to us. It is a theology of glory, and this is the kind of theology that we love as fallen sinners.

But after a while, the law does its killing work. We come to despair of ourselves. Something may happen in life that does not make sense, and even the system of Calvinism that tries to explain it cannot take away the pain.

Then we learn that neat syllogisms and logical formulae are not what life is really about.

We come to find out that "finding truth" is not what life is really about.

We become convinced that we know we are guilty, and we want to know that we have a gracious God.

It becomes less about finding truth, and more about comfort, and assurance, and pastoral care.

We all have this basic need of forgiveness of sins.

PEOPLE DO NOT BECOME "INTELLECTUALLY CONVINCED" OF LUTHERANISM

When I was a Calvinist, I "intellectually convinced" several friends for the theology of glory which is Calvinism. But since I have been a Lutheran, you know how many I have convinced?

Zero.

My wife has recently become Lutheran, but it was not because of me. It was through being immersed in the Divine Service. Then she saw it was what she *needed*. Only now does she realize that Calvinism could not offer her assurance. She realized that Lutheranism is the only place where Christ comes down to her.

Likewise, Lutheranism is misunderstood. It is foreign to most. By being immersed in the Divine Service, my wife became familiarized with the beauty of God in Christ bringing us beggars His Good Gifts.

I also used to argue from church history and the catholicity of Lutheranism. While this is all true, most people do not think this way. After all, if we only look to catholicity, what's to become of someone who is flirting with Eastern Orthodoxy? Eastern Orthodoxy has catholicity on its side as well. So while catholicity is important, it should not be the deciding factor.

People do not, should not, even cannot, become "intellectually convinced" of Lutheranism.

Lutheranism is not the good ol' time Murican religion.

Lutheranism has to be *needed*.

ONLY LUTHERANISM OFFERS ASSURANCE THAT WE HAVE A GRACIOUS GOD

I realize that the above bold title may seem simplistic to some, and even unfair to others. But I would not be a Lutheran unless I really believed that. I don't get enough of the Gospel in Rome, which focuses on my efforts and merits. I don't get enough of the Gospel in Eastern Orthodoxy, which focuses on our path to theosis. I don't get enough of the Gospel in evangelicalism, which is always asking if we are serving God enough. I don't get enough of the Gospel in Calvinism, which cannot get away from being law-driven and sovereignty-centered.

I need the faith that *just gives me Jesus* in Word and Sacrament *clearly*.

I *need* Lutheranism.

JUSTIFICATION MUST STAY CENTRAL, AND LUTHERANISM GIVES US THIS

At the end of the day, all other branches of the faith either focus on sanctification, or end up getting away from the foundation which is justification. Only Lutheranism keeps justification central, at all times, because Lutheranism sees justification as a *continual* declaration from our gracious God that our sins are forgiven. He stoops to our level, knowing that we do not always *feel* forgiven. So God gives us His gracious promises in Word and Sacrament. God's gracious is objective and universal. It does not depend upon our faith.

LUTHERANISM TRULY IS "THE LONELY WAY"

Lutheranism has been called "the lonely way" by Herman Sasse. Truly this is so. It is the lonely way because it is the theology of the Cross. The theology of glory is everywhere. The theology of glory makes sense to us, and satisfies our intellect.

Lutheranism, on the other hand, makes no sense. It is paradoxical. It goes completely against our feelings.

We don't always "feel" forgiven.

Lutheranism says "you are forgiven, and here is Christ's Body and Blood to prove it."

Lutheranism says "you are forgiven, and here is a minister that declares God's Word to you and lays his hands on you to prove it."

Lutheranism says "you are forgiven, and this water and God's Word wash away your sins to prove it."

Lutheranism says "you are forgiven, and we will process in the middle of the aisle with the Book of the Gospels to prove it."

Lutheranism says, "FOR *YOU*."

Not just general categories.

*You*.

So why Lutheranism?

Because I *need* it.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son+, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

What We Can Learn From the Prosperity Preachers

Dispy Free Gracers Implicitly Deny Grace Alone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restorationists need not apply here.

Pax

Augsburg Confession IV: Of Justification

Justification is the big topic for the Reformers. Here the Confession dissents from some Roman Catholic thought of the period, which culminated in the Council of Trent formally rejecting the Augsburg Confession on this point.

Augsburg Confession IV

Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4. 

So we see in this short Confessional statement the Lutheran commitment to justification through faith alone, received passively by us as a gift of God for Christ's sake and because of Christ's merits. We also see here the clear rejection of justification by works or merit.

Ultimately, while indulgences jump started Luther and drove his hammer into the door at the Wittenberg church, justification was the most important topic in the Reformation. The question as to how a person can be right with God is a pretty big deal. Rome answered that a person contributes to their right standing with God through their actions and good deeds. Luther flatly rejected this, saying that justification is a free gift given by God by His grace alone.

Here is the topic that we must continue to fight for in the church and continues to be the article on which the church stands or falls. Either Christ justifies us freely for His sake and we are receivers of this gift or we are something else entirely.

Let us not, however, downplay the importance of good works in the Christian life. Martin Luther never rejected that. He was no antinomian. Likewise today, we still have the same Confessions and we certainly uphold good works in the Christian life.

For more reading on this topic check out the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, IV. It's a long read, but it's worth going through. This is the Confessional response the Lutherans made to Rome's rejection of Article IV of the Augsburg Confession.

The Lonely Way and the Spectrum of Truth

No, this is not a post about Sasse's essays, although I certainly recommend them.

Truth is everywhere. From a Christian perspective, there is a spectrum of truth that varies from church to church. The point of the matter is, as a Christian, we are bound to the truth. Moreover, we are bound to the Truth (big T) who is Jesus Christ Himself. Therefore, I am going to assert that a Christian has a duty to attend church where truth is proclaimed at the highest level with the least amount of error. Let's be honest, there are many different church bodies out there with many different beliefs regarding the Christian faith.

Where do we start? Well, Rome has an answer in the infallible Church and teaching magisterium. Certainly, this is attractive, because they answer this question very definitively. They have a very rich tradition and the Papacy. Mainstream evangelicalism has an answer too. Allow the Spirit to lead you. Basically this amounts to a person in the corner on an island to themselves with their Bible, listening to the Spirit lead and speak. This approach, however, has lead to a million different views, all claiming that the Spirit led them to it. Can't be correct.

The best and most conservative manner in which to deal with this is to start with sola scriptura. But don't let the Roman Catholics try to tell you that this means everyone has their own private interpretation and it has led to 40,000 denominations. By that standard of measurement, there are multiple hundreds of Roman Catholics churches too. It simply means that Scripture is the sole infallible authority.

Do not discard tradition and the history of the church. These things tell us and show us how Christians have always worshiped and what Christians have always believed. When we do this, and learn from the great theological giants of the past, we should be able to easily rule out numerous branches of Christianity as the ones who contain the fullness of the truth. Many Christian churches out there disagree with what the Christian church has believed for 2000 years and frankly twist a lot of Scriptures to defend their doctrines, while claiming to hold to sola scriptura. They don't. They hold to nuda scriptura (me and my Bible in the corner...) or they have imposed some sort of Systematic Theology onto Scripture.

The three great ecumenical creeds are excellent guidelines. To deny those is dangerous. When those are rejected, new and novel doctrines that the church has never taught -and in many cases rejected as heretical- rush in to fill the void. If your church rejects any of the 3 ecumenical creeds (Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian) or specific parts in them, your church is off the rails on that specific doctrinal issue. For instance, if the Athanasian Creed is rejected in whole or in part, the Trinity gets rejected. If the Nicene Creed gets rejected in whole or in part, once again we may end up denying the Trinity. Or we end up rejecting the sacraments. Same thing with the Apostles Creed. The Nicene Creed alone rules out just about every church out there (I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins), save for three large ones. These are the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Confessional Lutheran.

Only one of those three teaches that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and it's not the ones who teach justification by faith + works (Roman Catholic) or Theosis as a means to salvation (Eastern Orthodox).

In this manner, the Lutheran Church really is the lonely way. We retain and affirm heartily all three ecumenical creeds. Not because these creeds are above Scripture, but because these creeds accurately summarize what Scripture teaches and what the Christian church has always believed. Yet we also stand firm in our opposition to the impossibility of justification by good works. Sorry, but James 2, read in whole and in context, does not teach what Rome would have us believe unless James was using a 20th and 21st century colloquialism in the 1st century (So you see...etc.). Not to mention he pretty much says that our faith is shown by our works and so on.

Moreover, we also retain what the Christian church has always believed about the Sacraments of Holy Baptism, the Eucharist, and Absolution of sins.

So which church body out there teaches and delivers pure objective monergistic grace for the forgiveness of sins via Word and Sacrament, apart from our works? Just one.

It's why I am a Lutheran.

Ordinary and Mundane yet Sacred and Sanctified

How often is it heard in Christian circles how 'God spoke to me,' or 'the Lord led me,' or how you could 'feel the Spirit moving?'

It's quite common, to be sure. People want to have those experiences. They want to feel God. But God has not promised to intervene directly in our lives in a personal way. What I mean by that is that nowhere in Holy Scripture does Christ promise to speak directly to us as a form of revelation. The ironic thing is, despite the non-existence of a sure word from Christ promising this, it is very popular for well-meaning Christian folks to make these claims. God spoke to me and the Spirit led me. Hence the language, verbiage, and dare I say it, leaven, of the barely 100 year-old Pentecostal movement that has invaded Christianity and called itself orthodox, when it is not.

But none of that is the main thrust of this post. The last days are here and Christ is taking the mundane and making it Sacred. Mundane simply means natural and ordinary. And this is precisely what Christ does. The God who owns the universe and created it, shows us His power over it repeatedly. Not by giving us a private revelation or sending the Spirit to "move" (whatever that means) during the chorus of some great contemporary worship tune as the guitar player and the lead vocalist are half in tears pouring their heart out.

But by usual, normal, ordinary, mundane things. Like water, for instance. Christ does not change the water by substance or make it something other than it is. It's still water. But He shows His power over it and through it by saving us through water, by His powerful Word. I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Just as Noah and his family were brought safely through the water, we are saved through it in our Baptism.

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. ~1 Peter 3:18-22

Normal. Ordinary. Mundane. Now Sacred. God speaks and we are saved through the water. Imagine that.

What about bread and wine? Does Christ not do the same thing there? He takes the ordinary and makes them Sacred. Christ gives us bread and wine and tells us to take and eat, this is My body, and take and drink, this is My blood.

What about normal human speech? That's pretty mundane. We may have hundreds of different languages, but God's Word is spoken in them all. He takes normal human speech and proclaims Christ crucified to you, and the Spirit works through this normal human speech.

I always have a chuckle when our Reformed friends, especially the Reformed Baptists, somehow think that the Holy Spirit is not "sovereign" unless He works completely independently of means. This is usually based on ripping John 3:8 out of context. I get that they want to let God be God. And that is good. Yet, separating the Holy Spirit out from the means of grace and concocting extra terminology to support this system, such as "inward call," well, it's silly.

Everyone wants to be orthodox in their beliefs, it is true. But this separating out of the Spirit from the means is not orthodox. In fact, it stinks of Gnosticism. It's dualist to the core.

And dang it, all of this "inward call" speak sounds a lot like "God told me so," at least on a functional level. Either way, it is the Spirit directly intervening to you apart from means of grace. Even if one argues that the means of grace are means of grace for the elect alone, they're still left with the same problem of the inward call apart from means.

But then, that is all you're left with when you separate the means of grace out from the work of the Spirit. You're left with a dualistic theology of separation of natural and spiritual. And you are left with a God who is not sovereign, as the Calvinists would have us believe, but rather is Gnostic according to historical Christian beliefs and heresies. That is what happens when you deny that God takes the ordinary and mundane and makes them Sacred by working through them.

The hijacking by the Reformed of the term monergism is a shame. Certainly, they are monergists, but it's an unbiblical version of it.

Yet, when you deny that God takes the ordinary and mundane and uses them for Sacred purposes, I suppose that is all one is left with. When you deny that God takes the ordinary and the mundane and uses them for saving purposes, you're still stuck in the same spot. No, this is not a misunderstanding of Calvinism (as Calvinists will try to tell you). This is exactly what they teach. The means of grace are only for the elect. Hence, it's not really the means of grace that are means, but the "sovereign" Holy Spirit showing up when He wants to for the elect and them alone. No wonder the Crypto-Calvinist controversy was such a big deal. Well, that and the Calvinists were lying their way into Lutheran churches and universities.

That is not biblical monergism because there is no objectivity. There is no "for you" and "for certain" in the Sacraments.

Put this faulty version of monergism to bed. Yuck.

Grace and Peace

Augsburg Confession III: The Son of God

Good Friday is a good time to post our third installment on the Augsburg Confession. After all, it was God the Son who suffered and died for our sins on the cross. It was not the Father nor the Spirit who suffered and died. And on to the Confession.

Also they teach that the Word, that is, the Son of God, did assume the human nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, so that there are two natures, the divine and the human, inseparably enjoined in one Person, one Christ, true God and true man, who was born of the Virgin Mary, truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, that He might reconcile the Father unto us, and be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.
 
He also descended into hell, and truly rose again the third day; afterward He ascended into heaven that He might sit on the right hand of the Father, and forever reign and have dominion over all creatures, and sanctify them that believe in Him, by sending the Holy Ghost into their hearts, to rule, comfort, and quicken them, and to defend them against the devil and the power of sin.
 
The same Christ shall openly come again to judge the quick and the dead, etc., according to the Apostles' Creed.

Here our Confession of faith takes full aim at orthodox Christology. Of course, the Augsburg does not go into the minutiae of every theological detail here, but suffice it to say, it says a lot in just a couple sentences.

We affirm that there is but one Christ and that Christ is a person. His two natures are inseparably enjoined, as the Confession says. This is to say quite simply that Christ is fully God and fully man. Not only so, but He has also received His human nature from the Blessed Virgin Mary.

We affirm that He truly suffered, He really died, and was really buried in a tomb. With all the Christian Church for 2000 years, we affirm these things.

He descended into hell and proclaimed His victory over sin and death, and then rose again from the dead. He then ascended and sits at the right hand of the Father and has dominion over everyone and everything.

This section of the Augsburg was nothing more than a re-affirmation of orthodox Christology. The Lutherans were simple affirming that they are (and we are) Catholic. There was no dispute with the Papacy and the Roman Church regarding the Christ. Hence, the Roman bishops accepted this article as true in their response to the Augsburg.

Here we stand. We teach nothing new.

Grace and Peace