The Church is identified by the pure preaching of the Gospel and the
pure administration of the Sacraments according to the Gospel. All
doctrines in the Church are taught as Gospel-centered and
Christ-centered, and the Sacraments are Gospel-centered and
Christ-centered.
Where a church departs from these, it is
heterodox. However, God is patient with us, as we all have bad theology
somewhere. But the Church should never tolerate false doctrine in any
form, not for the sake of "being right," but for the sake of the care of the souls She is entrusted with.
When I was a Calvinist, I cared about "correct doctrine" simply for the
sake of "being right" so I could "please God" and "avoid idolatry." The
mindset was one of philosophy, and the hidden G-d.
Glory to
Christ that for historic and confessional Lutheranism, it is all about
Jesus. Doctrine is always for the sake of the Gospel. The Sacraments are
always for the sake of the Gospel. Jesus Christ got His theology
perfect for us. Jesus Christ pleased God perfectly. Jesus Christ avoided
idolatry.
2 Corinthians 3:6b: For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Here is a favorite part of Scripture for folks who like to discredit or downplay the Holy Scriptures. They see this text and surmise that the "letter" is a reference to the Scriptures and the Spirit is the Holy Spirit. Thus, it's the Spirit and their personal relationship and feelings that give life to them, apart from the Scripture. Hence, personal experience wins the day and all different waves of false beliefs are validated.
The funny thing is, the people who hold this stance are actually using the Bible as an authority to denigrate the Bible so it's not an authority. Imagine that.
But not so fast, grasshopper. All we need to do is to keep on reading.
2 Corinthians 3:7-8: Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory?
These are the next lines given by St. Paul in 2 Corinthians. He explains clearly what he is referring to in v. 6.
You have words like kills and death. He is linking verse 7 to what he just said in verse 6. The letter that kills is not the Holy Scriptures, it's the LAW. He states that the ministry of death was carved in letters on stone. Well, what was carved in letters on stone? He even says that the letter kills and that letters were carved on stone.
Clearly, he is speaking of the law and the Mosaic covenant. He explains that very plainly for us in verses 7 and 8.
It does not matter what the text "means to me" or "means to you." What is important is what St. Paul is actually telling us.
Now what is the ministry of the Spirit? Well, let's let Jesus tell us that one.
St. John 15:26: But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.
Shockingly enough, it's not some Pentecostal mumbo-jumbo nonsense. It does not matter what the text "means to me" or "means to you." What is important is what St. Paul is actually telling us. St. Paul is not giving us a free pass to "follow the Spirit" apart from the dead letter of Holy Scripture. That is not at all what is being said here. The Spirit is to bear witness to Christ. The Spirit does not point to Himself, but to Christ. He does not give you fuzzy feelings of whatever you want to believe and allow you to say "the Spirit told me so." He points to Jesus and His work on our behalf.
In other words, the ministry of the Spirit is nothing other than the preaching and proclaiming of the Gospel, given to us in Word and Sacrament. Simply put, it's the New Covenant in Christ.
The misinterpretation of this passage is nothing less than a denial of everything else the Scriptures say about the Spirit, Christ, the Law, the Gospel, and the Scriptures themselves. It is a dangerous false belief that leads to self-sufficient Christianity and people making up and believing what they want and saying it came from the Spirit.
Since this particular belief aims it fiery darts directly at the function of the law and the Spirit directing us to the Gospel; and rejects what St. Paul is actually telling us here, it is not a Christian belief at all. It also runs a very high risk of leading to a form of Gnosticism - a denial of any means of grace at all.
I'll go even further. If the Spirit is not pointing to Jesus, it's probably not the Spirit. Do the math.
The Holy Scriptures, throughout history, have been the most interpreted and read book by humanity. Of course, this also means that the Holy Scriptures have also been the most misinterpreted book in human history as well. In fact, the Scriptures themselves have a couple things to say about this. 2 Peter 2:1 (ESV): But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
2 Peter 1:20-21 (ESV): knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
So, with this being said, there have been some different ideas that have been proposed over the years. Rome answers plainly that they, and only they, have the right to interpret the Holy Scriptures. Official interpretations laid down by the Magisterium are binding. On the other hand, many modern day evangelicals have proposed that everyone has the right to interpret Scripture for themselves. But this is clearly contrary to 2 Peter 1:20-21.
There is a better way. It's called sola scriptura. Far from being the modern day evangelical approach, sola scriptura simply confesses that Scripture alone is the only source for infallible doctrine. Sola scriptura takes into account church history and the writings and interpretations of church fathers and scholars.
All of this being said, this is not the main point of this post, but it does back up what the post is really about: The completely backwards manner in which much of evangelical Christianity interprets the Holy Scriptures. It is known as dispensationalism.
Dispensationalists hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible as the best hermeneutic. The literal interpretation gives each word the meaning it would commonly have in everyday usage. Allowances are made for symbols, figures of speech, and types, of course. It is understood that even symbols and figurative sayings have literal meanings behind them. So, for example, when the Bible speaks of “a thousand years” in Revelation 20, dispensationalists interpret it as a literal period of 1,000 years (the dispensation of the Kingdom), since there is no compelling reason to interpret it otherwise. (Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html)
Many dispensationalists like to turn up their noses in a sort of spiritual pride that they are the only ones who interpret Scripture literally and everyone else "spiritualizes away" stuff. As you can see, dispensationalism prides itself on being a literal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.
But. It's. Not.
What dispensationalism fails to mention is that the entire system interprets many didactic teachings -which are literal- in a figurative or symbolic manner, all the while going directly against the historic teachings and doctrines of the Christian Church. Need some examples? Happy to oblige.
In dispensationalism, the Sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion are completely jettisoned. Whereas the Holy Scriptures plainly say that baptism buries us with Christ and raises us in faith (cf. Rom 6:34, Col 2:12) and that baptism now saves us (1 Pet 3:21), dispensationalism asserts that baptism is the "...means by which a person makes a public profession of faith and discipleship. In the waters of baptism, a person says, wordlessly, “I confess faith in Christ; Jesus has cleansed my soul from sin, and I now have a new life of sanctification." (Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-baptism.html)
In other words, baptism is done only after a person is already saved and thus is an act of our obedience to God and not an act of God given to us. It is therefore man's work and not God's work in this theology.
The Lord's Supper is another glaring example. The Church has always taught, based on Scripture, that Christ is truly bodily present in bread and wine at the Lord's Supper. Dispensationalism says otherwise.
John MacArthur, himself a dispensationalist, says, "In saying the bread is His body, Jesus obviously was not speaking literally. A similarly foolish misunderstanding already caused the Pharisees to ridicule Him and many superficial disciples to desert Him (John 6:48-66). It is the same misunderstanding reflected in the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. That literalistic notion is an absurd misinterpretation of Scripture." (Source: http://www.gty.org/blog/B130328/instituting-the-lords-supper)
What MacArthur fails to realize here is that his little barb aimed at Rome is also aimed directly at what the entire Church has believed for 2000 years. The true bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist is one of the most easily proved doctrines that the early church held. Don't believe me? Read some of the early church fathers.
As an aside, these ideas are at the forefront of what is known as Restorationism. Restorationism is the belief that the Christian Church committed gross apostasy very early in church history and the church was all but gone for nearly 1800 years. It was then restored to its original teachings and glory in the 1800s, which resulted in separatist sects such as the Plymouth Brethren - who are dispensational to the core. Who woulda thunk it?
Lutheran Satire pretty much nails it here:
The flip side of the problem with dispensationalism is that not only does the system reject literal interpretation of numerous didactic teachings, but they also affirm literal interpretation of symbolic books of Scripture - namely, Daniel and Revelation. Scripture uses numbers quite often as symbolic language. Dispensationalism says otherwise, insisting on a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on Earth, presiding over a mixture of glorified saints and people still in the flesh. Weird.
Dispensationalism is also the source of the zany and wacky pre-tribulation rapture nonsense that most evangelical Christians are taught now days, especially in the United States. If you want to know more about pre-trib, read the Left Behind series or anything by Hal Lindsey.
Likewise, dispensationalism has no support from any church fathers or scholars for well over 1000 years (enter Restorationism, of course) or from the Holy Scriptures themselves. But at the end of the day, backwards will be backwards no matter how you slice it.
If you read didactic teachings symbolically, and symbolic books literally, you might be a dispensationalist. And to be clear, you do not believe Christian Orthodoxy in these areas. What you believe is a very new system of thought that flatly rejects what Christianity has always taught and believed in many areas.
Whether in the Holy Supper the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are truly and essentially present, are distributed with the bread and wine, and received with the mouth by all those who use this Sacrament, whether they be worthy or unworthy, godly or ungodly, believing or unbelieving; by the believing for consolation and life, by the unbelieving for judgment? The Sacramentarians say, No; we say, Yes.
For the explanation of this controversy it is to be noted in the beginning that there are two kinds of Sacramentarians. Some are gross Sacramentarians, who declare in plain (deutschen), clear words as they believe in their hearts, that in the Holy Supper nothing but bread and wine is present, and distributed and received with the mouth. Others, however, are subtle Sacramentarians, and the most injurious of all, who partly speak very speciously in our own words, and pretend that they also believe a true presence of the true, essential, living body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, however, that this occurs spiritually through faith. Nevertheless they retain under these specious words precisely the former gross opinion, namely, that in the Holy Supper nothing is present and received with the mouth except bread and wine. For with them the word spiritually means nothing else than the Spirit of Christ or the power of the absent body of Christ and His merit, which is present; but the body of Christ is in no mode or way present, except only above in the highest heaven, to which we should elevate ourselves into heaven by the thoughts of our faith, and there, not at all, however, in the bread and wine of the Holy Supper, should seek this body and blood [of Christ].
Epitome VII: 2-5
Here we have direct statements from the Epitome of the Formula of Concord. These statements deal with our rejection of the Sacramentarian stances on the Holy Supper, precisely because the Sacramentarian stances disagree with the words of Christ in Scripture.
Who then, in modern terms, are we talking about? The gross Sacramentarians that the Epitome speaks of would be Baptists, Pentecostals, and so on. These are the churches that flatly accept Zwingli's purely symbolic reading of the last will and testament of Christ.
The subtle Sacramentarians the Epitome speaks about are the Reformed Calvinists, who claim to hold to the Real Presence but in essence reject it. The Reformed hold that the body of Christ is in heaven and will remain there until the second coming. There is some truth to that, but they miss the point that Christ is God and can make His body present wherever He wills it. They also are in rejection of the biblical stance on the communication of the natures of Christ. Likewise, another Calvinist canard to be aware of is the statement that "the finite cannot contain the infinite." This statement is foolish, as when taken to its conclusion, denies the Incarnation of Christ.
"Most injurious of all" indeed, as the Epitome states. Sneaky and subtle in an attempt to retain catholicity, but still just as Sacramentarian as Zwingli and the modern day Baptists and Pentecostals when push comes to shove.
While the divine nature doesn't have any need of "improvement" the divine nature does communicate attributes to His humanity. Hence He healed with human touch yet the power to heal was divine. He walked on water with human feet, but the power to do so on water was divine. His human blood paid for our sins but as that was the blood of God, it was His divine nature that gave it divine saving power. He walked through closed door with His human body but it is His divine power that allowed Him to go through that door. He died on the Cross for our sins as death was a human characteristic yet it is proper to say God died according to the flesh. For while the divine nature cannot die, the person of Jesus did died because His human nature did possessed death as an attribute. But it was divine power that raised Him from death and defeated death. His submission to do God's will reflected His human will which submitted to the divine will which He possessed (hence one person of God and man, with two natures and two wills, neither mixed, as when some say the humanity of Christ ceased to exist, nor seperated, as when some say omit the man Jesus was born, but not the divine Jesus). Such are many examples in the Gospels of His two natures in communion together, working together, and involving communication of attributes.
More to the point, He showed He isn't limited to one spot to the human eye then when He promised to heal a human from miles away and He healed that person right there and then despite to the human eye, the distance between Him and the person healed. He said He would be with us to the end of the ages. He spoke from context of having all authority given Him. Now that wouldn't be in accordance with His divine nature, since as God, He had authority all along. It would be in accordance with His human nature that is glorified by His resurrection and Ascension. So likewise, His promise to be with us would mean the whole Jesus, including His humanity, not just the divine nature. And He could do so despite human nature by itself limited to one location because of it joined in communion with the divine nature in one person where the divine nature can communicate attribute to it without obliteration the human nature and without taking away from the human nature retaining its own characteristics. Hence, it wasn't impossible with Him as God Incarnate to be present in body and blood in the Eucharist even when He was there to the human eyes and ears to institute it. Nor impossible now to be present in both Baptism and Eucharist though both are all over the world.
To have a Jesus with us with only the divine nature in Word and Sacrament would mean a pre-incarnate God the Son, not Christ as Incarnate God as He is now. He is both God and man. It is proper to say the Man Jesus, as Paul called in 1 Timothy 2, was God as Paul called him in Philippians 2. And it is proper to call the God Christ man as well. God is man, and man is God are proper phrases in reference to Christ and no one else. He is with us to the end of the ages as both God and man as He promised He would. If He was just man only, He would not have been able to do so. But He was also God so what He wills divinely, He could accomplish. The whole person of God with us (as in Immanuel) is thus not destitute of His humanity.
Think of fire and iron joined together. Fire (like divine nature) heats up the iron (as in human nature). Fire remains fire with own characteristic while iron has communication of attributes (heat) given it. And iron still retains own characteristics even as it takes on new characteristics. Yet together iron and fire though two become joined, with each retaining own characteristics yet fire giving iron its heat.
This the God and Savior of all men that we confessed to.
Mankind's greatest need is and continues to be forgiveness from God
and forgiveness from others. It is not even moral transformation, as
moral transformation in this life will always be incomplete. We cannot
be told to look to the quality of our faith, as that is always going
inward and will always, always, always lead to despair. We will never,
ever, measure up.
For those who are strong enough to simply say "Oh I know I'm forgiven", I truly am glad for them that their faith is that strong. But I don't know about you, but even though I know I'm forgiven, I do not always *feel* forgiven.
This is serious pastorally. For those who do not have the Sacraments,
my heart breaks for them because they are many times simply being told
to look back again to their faith, which is already weak, if they don't
feel forgiven. This is detrimental to their comfort, because they will
never have enough faith.
But God Who is rich in mercy has given
us the Sacraments and the Word of the Gospel to comfort us who have weak
faith.
He has washed our sins away in the Waters of Holy Baptism.
Every
time in Divine Service He comes down to us in the mouth of the minister
and declares us forgiven in the Sacrament of Holy Absolution.
Then the
Gospel is proclaimed and Christ Himself gives us His Body to eat and His
Blood to drink for the forgiveness of our sins in the Sacrament of the
Altar.
Even as the Sacraments are physical, God loves the physical. Christ clothed Himself with physical flesh to redeem the world.
When did the Eucharist become a secondary doctrine pertaining to Christian fundamentals? More importantly, why did it become secondary? For Lutherans, it has never been so. And I do believe we are in the right on this issue. In fact, up until the days of the Radical Reformation that resulted in Zwinglianism and Calvinism, the Eucharist was never a secondary issue. Of course, this is a direct result of heterodox and heretical stances on the Eucharist that deny that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ. The lower ones view of the Eucharist, the easier it is to relegate it to a secondary status that does not pertain to the fundamentals of the faith.
The Lutheran Father Martin Chemnitz, writing in the 16th century (1590) in his book The Lord's Supper, identified many of the problems even then.
"This irreverent desire to invent various interpretations for the last will and testament of the Son of God is confirmed by the proposal that there be a kind of immunity to criticism in this area, so long as one retains the fundamentals of the other articles of faith, since there is no danger to faith or loss of salvation no matter how a person wishes to treat, interpret, or understand the words of the Supper - so long as one accepts an interpretation which is in keeping with some passages of Scripture. Long ago Pelagius argued the same way - that it had nothing to do with the essence of religion how a person understood and interpreted the words of Scripture dealing with original sin in Rom. 5:12 ff., Eph 2:1 ff., or Ps. 51:5. thus it was said that the essence of the question was not a matter of faith. Therefore, first and foremost in this whole argument, we must set forth and impress on hearts and minds by constant consideration the true, clear, and compelling reasons, affecting not only the ears and minds but also including dangers to conscience, in regard to the words of the Supper. They are the words of the last will and testament of the very Son of God and not a game or place for exercising the mind by dreaming up unending interpretations that depart from the simplicity and proper meaning of the words. The mind should treat and consider these words with neither temerity nor frivolity but with reverence and piety and in great fear of the Lord. In the first place, it is certain and cannot be denied that the words of the Supper are not to be classified in the category of points in Scripture which can either be ignored or variously explained or even incorrectly understood and still have no bearing on faith or salvation. For these are the words of the last will and testament not of a mere man but of the very Son of God. He instituted it on the night in which He was betrayed, and it concerned the most important matter of all. He did so with the most serious emotions, words, and actions. Even in glory He repeated these words to Paul, thereby showing it was His will that this be the giving of a new and special dogma that should remain in the church to the end of time. In the second place, when the last will and testament of a man has been executed, we are required under the law to observe the words with special care so that nothing be done which is either beside or contrary to the final will of the testator. Even the civil laws regard such a will as so sacred that they have determined that those who have made any profit at all from the will for themselves shall be deprived of it, and their inheritance through the provision of the laws themselves shall be taken away from them as being unworthy, on the grounds that they have departed from the will of the testator as it is stipulated in the words of the testament. Now, because the Son of God in His last will and testament has not permitted His heirs liberty of believing or doing whatever seems good to them, but has willed that we believe what He has spoken in His words of institution and do what He has commanded, therefore we should give very careful thought that we do not thrust anything upon these words of the last will and testament of the Son of God, lest we deprive ourselves of the benefit of eternal happiness conveyed to us by His will or our inheritance itself be taken from us as being unworthy because we have departed from the will of the Testator as it has been given to us in the words of His last testament.There is no doubt that all too many will come under judgment, sad to say, because of their shameful contentiousness. In the third place, after citing the words of the testament of the Son of God, Paul adds an extremely severe threat of judgment and guilt if anyone judges or treats these mysteries in any other way than Christ the Testator has willed and determined in the words of His last will and testament. For he says: 'He who does not discern the body of the Lord eats judgment to himself and is guilty of the body of the Lord' (1 Cor. 11:29). Moreover, he is not speaking of the discerning of the human nature in Christ per se or in an absolute sense, but of the fact that what we eat in the Supper the Son of God calls His body. This Paul wants us to discern, not in accord with anyone's private conjectures but according to and on the basis of the words of Christ's testament, which Paul asserts he received by the revelation of the Son of God (1 Cor. 11:23). Therefore, if anyone departs from the true and genuine sense of those words, it is certain that he is not able to discern what he is eating in the Supper. But would this not simply be an innocent lapse? By no means, for he is eating to his own judgment and becomes guilty of the body of Christ, says Paul. When we have given serious consideration to those points, we will see that they furnish the best antidote against the willfulness and impudence of human reason and create true reverence and piety in our handling of the words of the testament of the Son of God. at the same time they show how tragic and abhorrent is the mutilation to which the Sacramentarians have subjected these holy words of the last will and testament of the Son of God, tearing them limb from limb and picking them into small pieces by there various radical interpretations, so that there is scarcely anything left from the proper and true meaning of these words which is sound, inviolate, or untouched. No one would endure this patiently if it occurred in the secular realm in the case of the will and testament of a good man."
Martin Chemnitz, The Lord's Supper (pp. 25-28)
We do well to listen to Chemnitz here and relegate the Holy Supper of the Lord to secondary status. This is a result of various interpreters who deny that the bread and wine are the true body and blood of Christ. Let us never depart from our Confession here. For as the author of Hebrews writes, It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
On the other hand, we also must defend the practice of closed communion. St. Paul's warning in 1 Cor. 11 is enough in this area. Those who deny the body of Christ cannot be given the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper, lest they eat and drink judgment to themselves. Open communion based on personal decision of the communicant is not the biblical model in any way, shape, or form. It must be flatly rejected, lest we fail in the area of pastoral care.
Samuel Bolton (1606-1654) was an English Churchman of the Puritan variety and also was delegated as a member of the Westminster Assembly. In other words, Bolton was a Calvinist.
Bolton once said, "The law sends us to the Gospel so that we may be justified; the Gospel sends us to the Law again to inquire what is our duty as those who are justified."
As Lutherans, we should have some major problems with statements such as this one. In Lutheranism, we often talk about God's proper work and His alien work. His proper work is the Gospel; what God has done in Christ to save us. His alien work is the Law.
You see clearly from statements such as Bolton's, Reformed Theology reverses this altogether. God's proper work in Calvinist world is the law. The Gospel is never God's proper work. Statements such as this one betray Reformed Theology's ideas about Christ and the Gospel. The Gospel is never God's final yes. It's never God's final word. It's never His proper work. The Gospel is only a means to drive us right back to the same thing that condemns us in the first place. Now why would God do that? Sounds a little silly when you see the statement for what it is. But the truth of the matter is, in Reformed Theology the end goal is always the law, not the Gospel.
Strikingly, this statement by a conservative Puritan is theologically reflective of much of mainstream Christianity now days. The Gospel is just a means, but then we must move beyond the Gospel to bigger and better things. In the case of Bolton and the Puritans (and modern denominations such as the OPC), we have to move right back to the thing that killed us in the first place: God's Law. In the case of much of modern day Christianity, it's a bunch of other cultural norms (or perhaps even counter-cultural norms).
It's hard to label this statement as legalism, since Bolton and the Puritans would never assent to a stance that spiritual life is gained through obedience to the Law, but to use a Lutheran term, it certainly bends heavily to the Pietistic side of things.
On the other hand, statements like this have a way of stripping the believer of all assurance of salvation. Instead of looking objectively to Christ, outside of you, the believer has to look to self, to see how well they are obeying the law that the Gospel drove them to. When you chuck the heterodox doctrine of limited atonement into the mix, this problem is magnified.
Puritans such as this simply will not look objectively to Christ crucified for their sins and the means of grace where Christ has promised to meet us - Word and Sacrament. They can't. Their theology will not allow it. Their rejection of the objectivity of the means of grace forces them to look to self for assurance. In this light, Bolton's statement is just consistent with his theology.
Statements like this get it all wrong. Bolton fails to realize that the entire life of a Christian is one of continual repentance, as Luther pointed out in the first of his famous 95 theses. The Christian life is never a life of continual victory and obedience to the law. It is one of continual repentance and forgiveness of sins. The third use of the law is there for Christians to see what is good and pleasing to God - not for us to be driven back to that law by the Gospel. The Gospel is always God's final word. It's His ultimate yes.
And if this is the case, the Gospel is not a means to an end, it is an end in itself. The Christian needs the law too, but mainly for repentance. We see the law and must admit we have not kept it, even while in Christ. Hence, we can never move beyond the Gospel. We must hear those sweet words of Absolution, of what Christ has done for us in the Word, and receive that body and blood in our mouths for the forgiveness of our sins. We continually need the Gospel. It is truly the last word, not a means to drive us back to the very thing that condemned us in the first place as fanatics like Bolton and the Puritans would have us believe.
Lutheranism disagrees with both Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinism
and Arminianism are man-made systems formed to try and "reconcile" or
"qualify" or "re-interpret" the Word of God. People are uneasy with
paradox and mystery. Lutheranism takes God's Word as it stands without
trying to "reconcile" or "qualify" or "re-interpret" it.
God's Word teaches that we have no free will before conversion, yet we are still held accountable. We leave this in tension.
God's Word teaches that
predestination is true, and is not based on foreseen faith, but purely
on the will of God. Yet it also teaches that God desires the salvation
of all. We leave this in tension.
God's Word teaches that although God has elected some, yet He loves all
and sent His Son to forgive the sins of the entire world. We leave this
in tension.
God's Word teaches that although God desires the
salvation of all, yet has elected some, that God's grace can be
resisted. We leave this in tension.
God's Word teaches that, if
one leaves the faith and falls away, it was entirely their own fault.
Yet God's Word teaches that if someone stays in the faith, it was purely
because of God's monergistic grace. We leave this in tension.
God's Word teaches that many will fall away, yet it also teaches that we are 100% secure in Christ. We leave this in tension.
God's Word teaches that we will always find Christ as for us in His
Word and in His Sacraments. We are to go there first, and we are not to
speculate about God's hidden will or hidden decrees. We must look to
Christ, and not to the hidden G-d.
You see, God's Word is
practical and pastoral. It is not systematic. It is not supposed to
academic or reconciled or figured out.
In the real world, things are not consistent. Things are messy.
You cannot make an ideal case for the real world.
You cannot make an ideal case for paradox.
You cannot make an ideal case for distinguishing the law and the Gospel.
Christ assumed our human nature.
This Man is God. This God is Man.
The Gospel is outside of you. It cannot be figured out.
One of the most misunderstood doctrines ever is the Lutheran viewpoint of baptismal regeneration. In the world of most evangelicals, to hold to baptism saves in any form means one holds to one does work of baptism to contribute to salvation, and so to them, that is denial of both grace alone and faith alone. So we get accused of denying Christ alone saves us at the cross on top of that.
But that only highlights how badly they don't understand where we are coming from. We do not deny that Christ alone saves us at the cross. Nor do we deny it is by grace alone through faith alone we are saved by what Christ did for us 2000 years ago.
To us, baptism is not a human work we do to save ourselves. It is outward means of God's word delivered to us. In our understanding, Christ as God Incarnate comes to us through that outward means. We are passive receivers, by grace alone through faith alone of what Christ did for us 2000 years ago. He comes to us and offers us His forgiveness He won for us at the Cross through such outward means. Faith alone clings outwardly to what Christ did for us and given unto us in that objective outward means.
In our understanding, faith alone does not look inwards to what we do. Nor to our own faith even. We look outside ourselves to the objective promises of Christ's forgiveness offered unto us through outward means.
So we deny baptism is a work we do to earn Christ's forgiveness. It is God's work by which He brings us to Christ who washes us with His forgiveness, by His word. It is His word indeed, not just plain water, that makes baptism. We can look at baptism as the objective work the Holy Spirit did to bring us to Christ and to clothe us with Him and His forgiveness. We can also look at that as the work of the Holy Spirit to seal us. It is indeed sign and seal in that sense.
Folks may say it is commanded for preachers to carry out good works such as preaching and baptizing, so baptism then must be a human work. But they are ignoring the fact that their own argument then must apply also to preaching of the word. By such logic, they are saying they are saved by the word preached to them as if it is somehow their work. They will deny that, of course But they can't argue then baptism is our work when we convert on grounds of it being done to us by another (pastor) without also saying the word preached by the pastor to them for them to believe is somehow their work.
Here's the thing. Zero passages say baptism is our human work. We are told many times it is God's grace to us. 1 Peter 3:21 says baptism that saves you now. Mark 16:16 says those who believe and are baptized will be saved. Galatians 3:27 says those who have been baptized into Christ are also clothed with Him. Acts 22:16 says get up and be baptized, washing your sins and calling on His name. Acts 2:38 says repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 5:25-27 says Christ washed us with water through the Word.
These are explicit Scriptures. Who does the saving? God. Who forgives us of our sins? God.
So baptism is God's work of grace to us, not our own human work. We are receivers of God's grace which He chose to use the means of baptism to come to us with His word.
Folks will continually say look at Ephesians 2:1-9 saying God's grace alone through faith alone is what saves us. But that presents no problem for us. That passage speaks of God's grace as His work to make us alive with Christ when we were dead in our sins and trespasses to give us saving faith as a gift. Guess what Colossians 2:11-13 say is the means by which God makes us alive with Christ when we were dead in sins and trespasses? Yes, the passage says that we were buried with Christ in baptism and raised with Him to newness of life (see also Romans 6:1-4).
Or folks will argue that the thief on the Cross was saved without the benefits of baptism so that must negate any view of baptism saving.
But that is an argument that does not follow. First off, we do not hold to all unbaptized are lost (nor hold to all baptized are saved). We reject baptism is our work, but God's grace. We do not limit God's grace to only baptism. He is God. He can go outside of baptism to grant saving faith to even folks who never had a chance to be baptized before they were saved. Baptism is God's objective means of grace for the assurance of those who are in Christ and have been baptized, but not for us to assume those who are unbaptized are all lost (while the first half of Mark 16:16 says baptism is means of salvation for those who believe, the second half says only unbelief, not lack of baptism, condemns).
Secondly, such an argument does not take into account our understanding of the Incarnation (nor realizes that using that example actually undercuts their own denial of the real presence of Christ in regards to our conversion and continual reception of Him through means of grace). We hold to baptism (as well as the Eucharist) gives us what the thief on the Cross got- the real presence of Christ. the objective word of Christ's forgiveness, being one with Him in death and resurrection).
Thirdly, such an argument assumes (without any Scriptural proof) that the thief was unbaptized. We don't know either way. But to use that as an argument, without knowing, makes it an invalid argument.
Such an argument highlights how often folks caricatured our views. When they aren't arguing we hold to works based salvation, they are arguing we hold to all unbaptized are lost.
We reject both views.
Scriptures do not pit grace alone/faith alone passages against baptismal regeneration. Nor pit Christ saves alone passages against baptismal regeneration.
Indeed, we believe Scriptures teach baptismal regeneration when properly taught as means of the Gospel delivered to us, rather than treated as our work or as some form of law, actually go hand in hand with affirming grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to save us.
In actuality, the nasty side effect of denying any outward means of grace and seeing baptism as a human work or some form of law is that one ends up seeing baptism as something one accomplishes before God, which if anything undercuts the very grace alone and faith alone view one purports to defend in denying baptismal regeneration. And it gets worse, when one looks to one's own fruits or experience of faith for assurance. That is no different then from faith in own faith. Faith then becomes its own form of a human work when that occurs.
We affirm baptismal regeneration because Scriptures teaches it (and the witness of the entirety of church history attests to the fact that this is the historic Christian view of what Scriptures teach on the subject).
We make zero apologies for affirming that while also affirming grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
