Keep That Gospel Pure

There is only one Gospel. Scripture makes this explicitly clear.

Galatians 1:6-9: I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

St. Paul writes in his epistle to the Galatians that there is indeed only one Gospel. He goes even further and says that those who pervert it are accursed. In this brief post, we will examine how our friends in two different theological systems - Calvinism and Arminianism - flirt with this line.

Let us use another passage from St. Paul to guide us in our definition of the Gospel. Here it is:

1 Corinthians 15:1-5: Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.

Notice what St. Paul preached to these people. Notice that this is the Gospel by which they are saved. He preached to them that Christ died for them and rose again for them. He tells them that this is what is saving. Notice also that St. Paul says that the Gospel is all about Christ. In other words, St. Paul refuses to mingle law in with Gospel.

Calvinism messes with the Gospel with its doctrine of limited atonement. Calvinism cannot preach consistently to the sinner that Christ died and rose for them until after they are certain that the person is truly saved. But in Calvinism, how does one know who is truly saved? The only way one can make a judgment on this is by looking for a totally changed life. But then, who is to say that the person is not deceived if they fall away and reject Christ later in life? Calvinism desires to uphold monergism, but due to the doctrine of limited atonement, they rip the heart out of the Gospel. There is no surety of Christ for you no matter what in Calvinism. How do they know that Christ died for them? How can they objectively know this, with 100% certainty, if Christ only died for the elect? Pretty much they have to be certain they are elect. And in Calvinism, without a 100% certainty in Word and Sacrament and the atonement, they must look to their own faith to an extent.

Arminianism messes with the Gospel by inserting law into the Gospel, thereby diluting it and making it something other than pure grace. They do this by making a person's choice via their own free will the dominant factor in salvation. Christ's work is never enough in Arminianism and the will of the person must be exercised in order to make it effective. Hence, Arminianism adds something we must do to the Gospel. This is a grave error indeed! Arminianism, no matter what cute theological terminology is used, is a form of works salvation due to turning faith into a meritorious work. Not to mention all the off shoots of Arminianism such as Wesleyanism, Open Theism, and free will Baptist theology.

Ironically, these two bitter theological opponents ultimately put the sinner right back in the same place. Neither one can objectively put the sinner at the cross and in the pure grace of the Word and the Sacraments. Calvinism cannot objectively say that Christ is for you. Not at Calvary, and not in word and Sacrament. Reformed Sacramentology does not allow for this. Arminianism says that you must do something in addition to Christ's work and grace freely given.

Ultimately, both theologies put the sinner right back at themselves. Both have the sinner asking themselves if they are really truly saved.

In the end, both theologies have a problem with Christ's objective promises, despite one being monergist and the other synergist.

In Calvinism, Christ is for the elect. Period.

In Arminianism, Christ is for you, but only if you ____.

In Scripture, Christ is for you. Period. End of story. In His death and rising. In the Word. In the Sacraments.

Christ for you. That is pure Gospel.

+Pax+

What faith alone in Christ alone truly means

Faith alone isn't a commitment to live for Jesus. Nor to do better. Nor dedicate our lives to serve and obey Jesus. Nor let Jesus into our hearts. Nor us giving ourselves for Him.

Faith alone is a passive reception of all that Jesus did for us: Him crucified for our sins, Him resurrected to give us hope.

Faith alone doesn't look to what we will do or commit to do for Jesus. It looks to Jesus giving of Himself for us. It looks to Him living and dying and living again for us. It looks to Him committing and dedicating to be our Savior who as spotless Lamb of God who takes away our sins.

Faith alone looks outside ourselves. Not inwards at ourselves.

Assurance in the truest sense of the word is objectively centered on God Incarnate who did it all for us 2000 years and meet us in objective means God calls us to receive Him in real time, by grace through faith in objective fact that Christ had accomplished redemption and forgiveness of our sins on our behalf.

Here we stand.

Reformed is a Misnomer

It's no secret that the Reformed Church in all of its stripes claims catholicity and claims to be a Reformation of the church catholic. I do not, however, think these claims are valid, for numerous doctrinal reasons.

First, let us say that there are three major ideas in play here. First is the idea of apostolic succession. The Church of Rome banks their entire existence on the succession of the Papacy from St. Peter all the way down to Pope Francis. Other churches base this concept on the laying on of hands traced from the Apostles. Second is the history of the church and the ecumenical councils. All churches that claim catholicity (mainly RCC, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican) must by default have interest in the councils. Likewise, we have the similar topic of historical church practice and doctrine. Finally, we have the idea of apostolic doctrinal succession via the Scriptures.

I posit that the Reformed Church has none of these. They don't care for apostolic succession. Many churches don't, and nowhere does the Scripture say that the true church is the one who has the Pope or carries on via the laying on of hands, no matter how many other doctrinal errors they have. So, we won't hold that one against them.

The Reformed Church also is not catholic in the sense of church history and the ecumenical councils. Sure, St. Augustine held to a form of double predestination, but the council that the Reformed like the most (Council of Orange, 529) actually sharply rebukes and declares heretical the doctrine of double predestination. And it upholds in very strong wording the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, which is something the Reformed reject, mainly due to their stances on election, atonement, and perseverance. To put it bluntly, the church catholic throughout the years did not hold to limited atonement or perseverance of the saints. Likewise, that same church catholic throughout history has strongly affirmed baptismal regeneration as well as the real bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which are two things the Reformed Church rejects. The church councils and history of doctrine and practice are definitely not in favor of the Reformed Church. In short, when pushed, the Reformed Church must in effect say that the church throughout the years simply did not have it right concerning these things.

Finally, we have the idea of doctrinal succession. This idea ties in directly with the second idea. Does the Reformed Church have correct doctrinal succession all the way back to the Apostles? The answer to this also is no. Historically, the church catholic did not teach the strong distinctives of Reformed Theology. In fact, the church catholic actually taught against some of these things. Nobody taught limited atonement, because it's not in the Scriptures. Everyone taught baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence, because they are in the Scriptures. Nobody taught irresistible grace only for the elect by a secret inward call, because that is not in the Scriptures.

The Reformed like to call us back to Scripture, and this is indeed an excellent thing. Yet, they are calling us back to a Calvinistic Systematic reading of the Scriptures, which end up being interpretations of numerous passages that nobody in church history posited for 1500 years. This is not an excellent thing.

Hence, the term "Reformed" Church is a misnomer. The Reformed did not Reform the church, they started something completely new and have interpretations on core theological issues that were new to the 16th century. Not to mention the offspring of the classical Reformed Church which includes the Arminians, Wesleyans, and all stripes of Baptists, all three of which are far from historical catholic Christianity. The catholicity is simply not there, save for one aberrant doctrine taught by St. Augustine. As much as the Reformed claim that they are the true Reformation of the church catholic, they simply are not. It's unfathomable to think that the church catholic was simply wrong on so many core doctrines for 1500+ years.

The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, errs on the other side of things. By declaring Herself infallible in matters of dogma in 1870, Rome has rendered Herself unreformable altogether and simply cannot call Herself back to the history, catholicity, and Scriptures of the church where She has erred grievously. To do so would be to render Her self-proclaimed infallibility an error in itself. This is not good either. The church catholic must always be brought back to the Word of God as Her infallible truth, being guided by the great Creeds, Confessions, and history of the church. There is hope the Reformed can still do this on core doctrinal topics, but for Rome, that ship has sailed.

There is much more to say about this topic, but from where I stand, these are some of the core issues. More reasons to be Lutheran.

+Pax+

Running Away from Church

It's quite common for people to abandon the church. We've all seen it; a seemingly well-meaning Christian who simply up and walks away. Sometimes it takes a long period of time for this to happen and sometimes it happens strikingly quickly. It's common for Christians to face doubts. We all have. Sometimes those doubts cross over into a full-blown crisis of faith. It's not abnormal and it doesn't mean that your faith sucks or that you're somehow less of a person. Far from it. It makes you a human.

This post is not going to delve into defenses for the Christian faith, although there are some excellent ones out there. Rather, it's going to focus on something that the Christian church at-large has done a really poor job at, and I think that it contributes to driving people away from the church.

This is going to sound so simple it's almost foolish. The Christian Church at-large has abandoned Christ and the things He did to save us as the central teaching of the church. In other words, the Gospel is not the center of Christian teaching in most churches. Or at the very least, the Gospel is treated as something we already know, but now we're going to move on to bigger and better things.

This guy happens to think that this directly contributes to people leaving the church. It just makes sense that if you relegate the central teaching of Christianity to a sort of secondary status, something else rushes in to replace it and take the place of that central teaching.

Surprisingly, from what I can see, this thing that comes rushing in is almost always the same thing. When the Church abandons Christ the Savior as the central teaching of their Church and does not preach Christ crucified every time they gather, the thing that almost always rushes in to fill the void is me, myself, and I. It always comes back to that. Sure, the pastor or priest probably is using the Scriptures to deliver their message, but if they are not grounding it in the Gospel and not culminating their message in Christ crucified for the forgiveness of sins, the message will ultimately drive people from the church or put them on the road to works righteousness.

Messages centered on victorious Christian living or helping others miss the point. Don't get me wrong, the Scriptures talk about helping others a lot. Yet, it is never the central focus of Christianity. Christ crucified for you is the focus. Messages like this ultimately give the listeners the wrong idea. The idea is that Jesus has died and risen, but that is old news. Now it is up to you to do, do, do. The doctrine of justification extra nos is swallowed up by the doctrine of sanctification, growing in grace, or living victoriously. In short, these sorts of messages put people on a treadmill that never ends.

These sorts of messages drive Christians to continual introspection, navel-gazing, and fruit checking. They do not point to the crucified and risen Lord. And in that regard, they severely miss the point.

How does this drive people away form the Church? Well, all it takes is for something to put their thinking cap on for a minute. When someone thinks about this, questions begin to arise. Am I doing enough to love my neighbor? Am I living victoriously? Am I doing what God wants me to? Am I getting the blessings God has for me? Am I meeting God's requirements and honoring Him in my life?

If the thinking person answers these questions honestly, they must answer them as follows: No, No, No, No, and finally, No.

And herein lies the problem. We have not loved our neighbor as ourselves. And for that we must repent. We do not live a life of constant victory. Christ did that for us. We can never do exactly what God wants of us, because we are sinful. If we're looking for special blessings outside of Christ and the forgiveness of sins, we're out in left field anyways. And we can never meet God's standards and requirements because He is God and He is perfect and we can never be.

In other words, when churches put people on this spiritual treadmill and the people think about this a little bit, they end up in one of two directions. The first and honest direction is to realize that you cannot do enough. The second direction ends up denying the sinfulness still inherent in all of us, even Christians, and ends up denying things like original sin and is ultimately a direct assault on Christ and the Gospel itself.

We end up judging each other by our outward holiness and actions. We refer to people as good Christians, nominal Christians, or bad Christians. All of this is bullcrap. The only thing you're good at is sinning. This is why we confess, as Lutherans, at the beginning of the service;

Most merciful God, we confess that we are by nature sinful and unclean. We have sinned against you in thought, word, and deed, by what we have done and by what we have left undone. We have not loved you with our whole heart; we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves. We justly deserve your present and eternal punishment. For the sake of your Son, Jesus Christ, have mercy on us. Forgive us, renew us, and lead us, so that we may delight in your will and walk in your ways to the glory of your Holy Name. Amen. (LSB - Divine Service Setting 1)

And the pastor responds: 

Almighty God has given His Son to die for you and for His sake forgives you all your sins. As a called and ordained servant of Christ, and by His authority, I therefore forgive you all your sins in the Name of the Father and of the Son (+) and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. (LSB - Divine Service Setting 1)

In other words, continual repentance and forgiveness is the Christian life. Not victorious living and perfect obedience to Christ. Obedience is good and obedience is important. But even our best obedience falls short. We need forgiveness, and for that, we need the work of Christ on our behalf, given to us objectively via Word and Sacrament.

We must anchor everything in our worship and practice in Christ crucified for the forgiveness of all of our sins. Once we get off of that sure footing, we end up on the never-ending treadmill. People realize this and end up running away from church. They're not dumb. There are a lot of ex-Christians out there who have left the church for this very reason. They get put on the treadmill and they realize they can't do it. Others have left for other reasons, but that is not what this post is about. People think and reason, and that is a good thing used within its proper context and setting. But if we're honest, we just can't stay on that treadmill that well.

Once you get away from Jesus, who He is, what He has done for us, and how we are made right with God completely apart from our insufficient works, you get away from Christianity altogether into a counterfeit of the real thing.

+Pax+

Christ is Sufficient

Christ is sufficient. This is most certainly true. If there is anything humanity needs to do in order to be saved, two things are also true. First, Christ would be insufficient, in Himself, as a Savior. Second, nobody would be saved.

Christ did it all. There is nothing more that needs to be done in order to be saved. Works will not get you there, for there is one who died and rose on your behalf and made satisfaction for all of your sins. Not just some, and certainly not just your sins before you became a Christian. No. All of them. Not only so, but Christ Himself established a Church and He delivers this free grace to us through Word and Sacrament. He washes us clean in our Holy Baptism. He pronounces us forgiven in absolution. He delivers us His Word in the preaching of the Gospel. He feeds us His body and blood for the forgiveness of our sins. It's all a one-sided deliverance of gifts. This is Gospel. This is THE Gospel. To turn around and say that we have to add to that is to effectively deny the Gospel. To say that there is something more to add is to claim that Christ did not do enough. May it never be so!

If Christ is not sufficient by Himself, nobody would be saved. Not one. If you think that Christ saved you, but now it's up to you to make good of grace to finish your salvation, then it's safe to say that you probably don't understand grace or your sinfulness. Different churches sometimes teach exactly this idea in different ways. Some churches flatly say that we are justified by faith plus works. Hey, 10 points for honesty and clarity. Others give you Christ and then take Him right back once you've made a decision - putting you on the treadmill of living out the life in a victorious way.

The truth is, even for the Christian, you can never move beyond the Gospel. You can never move beyond Christ. He is the center of everything for us. And Christ has done it all.

But Christ had to do it all, didn't He? I mean, just look at what the Holy Scriptures say about who we are and what we have done.

Jeremiah 17:9: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Romans 3:10-12: as it is written, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

Then go ahead and read verses 13-18. Not to mention, keep in mind that it's impossible to totally stop sinning, and God still has a standard of absolute perfection. Of course, that is why Christ does it all. The epistles of St. Paul point this out quite nicely. He writes numerous letters to first century churches addressing sin problems. 1 Corinthians is a great example. And he never hesitates to call these people brothers. They're simultaneously sinner and saint. Thus says St. Paul.

And to further the good news, Christ directly delivers His grace and good gifts to us directly and objectively through means. He does not grace us secretly in a Gnostic manner so then we can turn around and show Him how obedient we are by getting baptized and eating crackers and Welch's grape juice. That's not what the Scriptures say. The Bible does not talk about these sacraments in an ornamental fashion. It talks about them in a Sacramental fashion. They are God's objective means to save us.

That completely sufficient Christ gives us Himself in completely sufficient means of grace. Pretty nice, huh?

Hence, it's quite important that your theology and worship majors on the majors, so to speak. Who is Christ? What do we believe? How is man made right before God? To put it simply, if worship and theology is not Christocentric, it's missing the point and ends up majoring on the minors, so to speak.

The completely and perfectly sufficient Jesus at the center. All the time. For you.

+Pax+

WHY LUTHERANISM? BECAUSE CHRIST IS *FOR YOU*

I did not come to Lutheranism because I "figured things out" by reading articles, although studying can be a good thing.

I did not come to Lutheranism for the beauty of the liturgy of the Divine Service, although the liturgy is indeed beautiful.

I did not come to Lutheranism because of a desire to be connected to the past and to the historic catholicity of the Church, although it is a valid desire to wish to be connected to the catholicity of the Church.

No indeed.

I came to Lutheranism for the pure and clear and unadulterated Gospel given to sinners like me in Word and Sacrament. God coming down to me. The gracious God Who loves everyone and died for everyone on the Cross. The God Who desires everyone to be saved. The God Who gave His only Son for the world, and continues to send His Son down to us in His Word and in His Sacraments.

I came to Lutheranism because of the "for *you*."

I came to Lutheranism because of "*Josh*, this is the True Body of Christ, given for *you* for the forgiveness of sins. *Josh*, this is the True Blood of Christ shed for *you* for the forgiveness of all of your sins."

I came to Lutheranism because of "*Josh*, upon this your confession, as Christ's minister and in the stead of Christ I forgive you of all of your sins in the Name of the Father, and of the Son†, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

I came to Lutheranism because a "striving" mindset and a "sanctification" mindset always fails.

I came to Lutheranism because free justification for the sake of Christ is always central, as my soul needs.

I came to Lutheranism because I was burnt out on my "efforts."

I came to Lutheranism because of "just give me Jesus in Word and Sacrament."

I came to Lutheranism because I needed a gracious God.

"Let it be enough for you that you have a gracious God," Luther rightly says.

We are all beggars. This is most certainly true.

We never get past the need of forgiveness.

God loves you.

Jesus died for you.

Rest.

Your sins are forgiven.

Crucifixes? Yes.

Popular Reformed Baptist pastor and blogger Tim Challies fired off an article that articulated the traditional Reformed interpretation regarding images in worship. More so, his article reflects the standard Reformed stance on the 2nd commandment (part of the first commandment in the Lutheran and Roman numbering) of the Decalogue. His blog post, titled Why You Should Not Wear a Crucifix, has been making the rounds in the online community quite a bit the last couple days.

I think that much of Challies' reasoning is this post, mainly drawn from Anglican J.I. Packer and less so from Reformer John Calvin, is all wrong. Here is why.

Packer says, "But the very wording of the [second] commandment rules out such a limiting exposition. God says quite categorically, “you shall not make an idol in the form of anything” for use in worship."

This statement is misconstrued. Exodus 20:4-5a says the following: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them..."

The prohibition here is not against images in general, nor is it against images of Christ or other saints from the Scriptures. Or images of anything else for that matter. Nor is the prohibition against images in worship. Here is where Packer makes the passage say something that it doesn't say. The passage states that we should not *worship* images, not that we cannot have them *in worship.* That is quite a big difference.

He then proceeds to give two reasons as to why images are disallowed, building on his (faulty) interpretation of Exodus 20.

1. Images dishonour God, for they obscure His glory.

He quotes Calvin in support, "A true image of God is not to be found in all the world; and hence...His glory is defiled, and His truth corrupted by the lie, whenever He is set before our eyes in a visible form...Therefore, to devise any image of God is itself impious; because by this corruption His majesty is adulterated, and He is figured to be other than He is."

Ultimately, this objection is weak at best, nor is it supported by the Scriptures. As far as I can see, the Reformed theologians would have us believe that it would have been idolatry for anyone to draw a picture of Jesus, paint one, or snap a photograph of Him while He was alive on Earth during His thirty something years leading up to Calvary. Or perhaps that might be OK, because it might actually look like Jesus. I don't know, but either way, the prohibition on images of Christ on the cross is certainly nonsensical.

Packer continues, "The pathos of the crucifix obscures the glory of Christ, for it hides the fact of his deity, his victory on the cross, and his present kingdom. It displays his human weakness, but it conceals his divine strength; it depicts the reality of his pain, but keeps out of our sight the reality of his joy and his power. In both these cases, the symbol is unworthy most of all because of what it fails to display. And so are all other visible representations of deity."

This statement is confusing to me. Was it idolatry to look at Christ when He was on the cross because His deity was obscured? I'm not sure what Packer and Challies would have us believe here. Not to mention, the objections rooted within this statement don't fly.

First, it was precisely Christ on the cross that died for the sins of the world. And that same Christ on the cross was fully man as well as fully God. St. Luke records for us in Acts 20:28, Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

Notice what he says: God obtained the church of God with His own blood. What? God died on the cross? Yep, that is precisely what is being said here. In fact, I will go even further. Christ on the cross and His subsequent rising from the tomb is in fact God's greatest place of glory. And we should seek God nowhere else but on that cross and up from that grace.

To put it simply, the standard objection that boils down to "but Jesus got off that cross" is sloppy. It was that Christ on that cross that died for your sins. An empty cross is nothing more than a Roman instrument of death. Jesus on the cross is the event that saved the world.

Secondly, I have a hard time seeing how Packer is not guilty of separating the natures of Christ here to a level that is unbiblical. In other words, it's Nestorian. How in the world is it an obscuring of the glory of God to depict the human Christ? I mean, Christ is fully God, right? He says that an image of Christ is unworthy because of what it fails to display - the deity of God.

But Christ, even on the cross dying, is God. Period.

2. Images mislead us. They convey false ideas about God.

Granted. They can. I get this objection. On the other hand, how in the world does a crucifix do this? It reminds us of the single most important event (along with the resurrection) in human history. In fact, all history hinges on this event. Not to mention, a crucifix reminds us of the lengths God went to in order to save us, because we are sinners.

Secondly, a crucifix is to remind us of the event that took place that saved us, not to look precisely down to the last detail like Jesus when He was Incarnate. Nobody thinks that.

My conclusion is that the standard Reformed reading of this text is either legalistic or simply a drastic misinterpretation of the Scriptures on this topic.

Not to mention, after the commandment was given in Exodus 20, just a few chapters later, God tells the Israelites to put images on the Ark of the Covenant, in which the Law would be held.

Exodus 25:18-20: And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be.

It just doesn't make sense that God would completely forbid images, then tell the Israelites to make them and put them on the Ark, the holiest of objects for the Israelites.

Scripture does not forbid images. Nor does Scripture forbid us to have images in worship. It forbids us to actually worship them as the real thing.

+Pax+

Sacramentarians and the Eucharist

Who actually has the Lord's Supper? That is a question that doesn't get asked too often. Of course, every church body that administers the Lord's Supper thinks it has it. In fact, it would seem that churches who have a lower view of the Lord's Supper pretty much assume that every Christian church has it because after all, it is only bread and wine (or crackers and grape juice), and a bare remembrance of Christ's work on our behalf.

As Lutherans, we take a different stance on this question. In short, we see the plain reading and meaning of the Words of Institution as paramount. In other words, if a church reads the Words of Institution and their doctrine is that the Words of Institution actually mean what they say, they have the Lord's Supper. It is valid. Thus, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, and some Anglicans (mainly Tractarian churches) have a valid Eucharist. Examples of churches that do not have a valid Eucharist would be mainstream Evangelical churches, any Baptist church, the Methodists, Wesleyans, and yes, even the Reformed churches, who confess a completely different sort of presence where the believer is lifted up to heaven by faith.

On the other hand, if a church reads the Words of Institution as "This is a symbol of My body" or something along those lines, they do not even have the Lord's Supper. It's something else. Or as they say themselves, it's just bread and grape juice. The same goes for any aberrant doctrine that rejects the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Consider St. Paul's warnings in his first epistle to the Corinthians.

When we say these things, we are simply agreeing with the churches themselves that they do not believe that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ. Thus, they do not partake of the Lord's Supper.

Consider a parallel to Holy Baptism. When we baptize, we invoke the Triune Name of God. People are baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. In other words, baptism is into the Name of the Trinity.

The same parallel applies here. If a church baptizes persons into the Name of the Trinity and actually holds to the doctrine of the true biblical Trinity, it is a valid Baptism. Hence, the majority of churches that call themselves Christian have a valid baptism because they actually believe the words spoken in Baptism. They confess the doctrine of the Trinity.

Here is an example of a church that does not: Latter Day Saints, or Mormons. The LDS church baptizes into the Name of the Triune God but they do not confess the Trinity. In fact, they believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different gods. Hence, a Mormon baptism is invalid.

To have a valid baptism, church must utilize the Triune formula as well as confess the doctrine of the Trinity. Or else, what they are doing is not baptism. Likewise, in the Lord's Supper, a church must utilize the Words of Institution as well as confess what the Words of Institution actually mean; that this bread is the body of Christ and that this wine is the blood of Christ. If not, what the church is doing is not the Lord's Supper. It's pretty simple really.

Far from being sectarian and asinine, we are simply agreeing with what those churches actually confess regarding the Lord's Supper (or Baptism, in the case of the LDS). They themselves will tell us that the bread is NOT the body of Christ and the wine (or juice) is NOT the blood of Christ. Therefore, it is not the Lord's Supper and no member of a Lutheran church should be communing at these churches.

I'm pretty sure many believers in these churches that reject the Real Presence will be up in arms about this idea, but again, we are simply agreeing with what they themselves believe and confess.

Pretty straightforward.

+Pax+

THE SANCTIFICATION DEBATES

A Lutheran brother recently inquired about the sanctification debates among Lutherans. I responded as follows:

"So the progressive sanctification debate is really a lot about what sanctification looks like, and how we as Lutherans understand the third use of the law. All agree that the law always accuses. But from my perspective, it seems to me that those that are "sanctification-focused" tend to downplay what the central focus should be. I have heard some of them say "yes justification is central BUT...." 

.......anyhoo I don't dig that kind of language. The Gospel should never have a "BUT" in it. It needs to be clear.

"My thing is that third use is one of thankfulness. The law is a guide for us in the sense of living out of thankful response to the Gospel. In freedom.

"Another helpful distinction is the Two Kinds of Righteousness. Before God--"coram Deo"--we are completely passive and holy and perfect and clean b/c of Christ. Our standing with Him is passive and holy. Before the world--"coram mundo"--we grow in our sanctification progressively. It is most helpful to understand that we do *not* grow **before God**. How could we anyways? God requires perfection. We grow before the world. Mankind looks at our works. Our neighbor needs our works. God does not need our works.

"Understanding it this way has been tremendously freeing for me. It is wonderfully Good News. I do not need to strive *before God*. I am already passive and clean before Him. I cannot get any holier before God b/c I have Christ's Righteousness. I strive out of freedom to serve my fellow man."

John Owen, Calvinism, and False Dilemmas

One of the main Reformed arguments for the assurance killing doctrine of limited atonement is the trilemma proposed by John Owen. Owen posits three potential situations.

1. Christ died for all the sins of all men.
2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.
3. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.

OK, so far so good. A Lutheran can concur that one of those three options is the correct answer. I also think that we can safely dismiss the third option, since nobody within Christianity really believes that Christ only died for some sins of all men. Owen then continues with a simple argument: Is unbelief a sin? Essentially Owen ends up arguing that #1 leads to universalism and therefore #2 is the only viable option. Philosophically this is the argument he is making.

The problem here is that Owen's trilemma is not mutally exclusive. In other words, there are other options. Sure, if you're stuck in philosophy-land the trilemma is fairly tight.

Owen's issue is that it fails to separate atonement from reception of the same. He argues that all of those for whom Christ died will receive the atonement, of course. But once again, this slops both the atonement and the reception into one thing. Not only that, but it also slops them together in option #1 as well as the already dismissed option #3. Although perhaps option #3 is what many Calvinists would claim Arminianism holds to, it's not true.

The point is, we can have option #1 be true and still not end up with universalism. The Calvinist will then respond that it makes Jesus a weak Savior who didn't really save anyone. But that's nonsense too. It's a grasping at philosophical straws in this case.

In Lutheranism we can answer this charge with the delivery in real-time of that perfect atonement via Word and Sacrament, which is for everyone universally, but will not be received in faith by everyone universally. Of course, the Calvinist responds that the atonement purchased faith for the elect. But where does Scripture speak in this manner? Ultimately, Owen's trilemma is nothing more than a philosophical argument, not one based on the Holy Scriptures. It provides us with a few problems, so to speak.

First, it inherently rejects the efficacy of the Sacraments. Why can't Calvinists affirm baptismal regeneration? Because they see all sorts of baptized people walking around who are atheists and unbelievers now. They're right about that. Not only that, but they simply cannot affirm the very plain baptism texts in the New Testament at face value because the plain and clear reading of them violates not only the L in the TULIP but also the P. In other words, if someone was baptized as an infant and truly saved but later falls away and rejects Christ and dies in unbelief, the Calvinist is forced to say that Christ did not die for them and that they were never saved in the first place. Since the baptism passages make a mess out of the sacred TULIP, the plain and clear readings of these are rejected. The same goes for the universality of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Back to the atonement. Based on Owen's argumentation, the atonement itself must be the actual creator of faith in person's, since Christ bought that faith at Calvary, as opposed to the means of grace being the worker of faith, as Scripture states. Without getting into universal objective justification we'll just leave it here.

In short, Owen ties up the actual atonement with the reception of the atonement in real-time via grace alone. In Scripture we have Christ dying for the entire world universally. He died and rose for every sin ever committed. For believers and unbelievers alike. But not all are saved. Why?

It's not because Christ did not die for them. 1 Corinthians 15 even says that the Gospel that St. Paul preached to people (not only people already saved) was that Christ died and rose for their sins. Yet, that atonement must actually be received via the Gospel; even Calvinists teach that. In fact, only the most extreme Hyper Calvinists do not teach that.

So what condemns a person? Rejection of Christ. The Scriptures teach this. A person who rejects Christ is still in their sins. They remain children of wrath, just as we also were (Eph 2:1-3, ff). This raises another question for the Calvinists. If the atonement and the reception are conflated into one as Owen does, why are the elect under the wrath of God at any point in time? They can't have it both ways and simultaneously hold to Owen's trilemma.

At the end of the day, Owen's trilemma just doesn't hold up to Scripture. The Holy Scriptures simply do not speak in the manner that Owen does and that of all things should raise a red flag for any Christian.

+Pax+