The Faith Like a Child: Only Lutheranism

Only Lutheranism, like the faith of a child, takes the Bible at its Word. Other traditions do not.

Consider:

"I take the Bible literally, but that can't mean water Baptism. It must mean Spirit baptism."

"I take the Bible literally, but that can't mean Baptism saves. It's talking about what we do, our faith."

"I take the Bible literally, but 'is' means 'signifies.' It's only a metaphor."

"I take the Bible literally, but 'all' means 'all of the elect.' Or perhaps 'all classes of people.'"

"I take the Bible literally, but 'world' means 'world of the elect.'"

"I take the Bible literally, but 'days' means 'long periods of time.'"

"I take the Bible literally, but surely this cannot mean that infants have faith."

"I take the Bible literally, but 'saved by faith apart from works' cannot mean any kind of work. Surely it must be talking about the specific ceremonial works of the Mosaic law. Surely God must accept our merits that we bring to the table, at least in a gracious sense."

"I take the Bible literally, but surely this passage cannot mean that we are guilty for Adam's sin. That's not fair. But I like the idea that we are held righteous because of Christ's works and not ours."

"I take the Bible literally, but surely this cannot mean we are bound in sin and have no free will. Surely we can only be held accountable if we have the power of free will."

"I take the Bible literally, but this passage cannot mean what it says, because that just wouldn't make sense."
----------
I sure am glad I'm a Lutheran. "Is" means "is." "World" means "world." "Days" means "days." "Baptism saves" means "Baptism saves." "This is My Body" means "This is My Body." "All" means "all." "Saved by faith apart from works" means "Saved by faith apart from works." "No free will and dead in sin" means "no free will and dead in sin." "From my mother's womb You have been my God" means it. "You caused me to trust in You at my mother's breasts" means it. "Adam's sin" means "Adam's sin." "Christ's Righteousness" means "Christ's Righteousness."

Become like one of the babies in Luke, of such our Lord Jesus says the Kingdom belongs to.

Paedobaptism, Calvinism, and Federalism

I came across a Presbyterian (Presbyterian is a Reformed Church. AKA Calvinist. The blog I am critiquing is a conservative Presbyterian blog, not to be confused with the ultra-liberal PC-USA) blog defending the practice of paedobaptism from a Covenant Theology perspective yesterday and with the author's permission, I am going to interact with the blog. The blog I am referencing can be found here: A Case For Infant Baptism

Hopefully, by the end of my blog, you the reader will be able to see why we should heavily privilege the Lutheran case for infant baptism over the Presbyterian case for the same.

From the outset, we ought to be glad that Presbyterians employ the biblical practice of infant baptism. However, for the life of me, I can't make good biblical sense of their reasoning, or square it with what the Scriptures teach.

I also would be remiss not to mention that within Reformed Theology, there are numerous nuances and differing stances on the reasoning behind paedobaptism. I am interacting with Mr. Chris Cole's blog and not every nuance of Reformed paedobaptism. It is certain that someone along the line will read this and say that I am misrepresenting Reformed paedobaptism or that I really don't understand it. This is not that case. I am simply replying to one particular blog.

The title of Mr. Chris Cole's blog post is: Are the Children of Christians Little Pagans? A Case for Infant Baptism. Throughout this posting, I will be quoting from the aforementioned blog post with Lutheran responses underneath.

"Do credobaptists, that is, those who hold to the baptism only of professing believers, really think of their children as pagans, heathens, idolaters, atheists?"

Well, Lutherans are definitely not credobaptists, but we do have a response to this. I understand why Presbyterians formulate this argument. They are children of believers and will be raised in the church, and so on. One such argument put forth in Reformed circles here is called presumptive regeneration. This doctrine basically states that the election and regeneration of the children of believers is assumed. Therefore, it is valid to baptize them. Mr. Cole rejects this line of thinking in a later statement in his post. The other line of thought is what is loosely referred to as federal headship. In the words of Mr. Cole from a later section of his post, "Rather, they are federally holy, or holy collectively with their parents, not necessarily in a personal, redemptive sense."

The presumptive regeneration argument falls apart when we recognize that God has given specific means of grace wherein He has promised to meet us in grace and mercy and regenerate us. We don't need to say anything else here; Mr. Cole himself rejects this.

Back to the rhetorical posed by the author. Do Lutherans too see their children as pagans? Sinners in need of grace? Well, yes, we do. That is precisely why we bring them to Holy Baptism. They need Holy Baptism precisely because they are sinners and baptism is one place where God has promised to meet us in grace, bury and raise us with Christ (Rom 6:3-4), and save us (1 Pet 3:21).

He goes on to make his case by quoting Isaiah 54:13, Ezekiel 16:20, and Acts 2:38-39. He continues on, saying, "These aren't promises that all of the children of believers will eventually become believers." 

This is where the P in the famous TULIP just flat out gets in the way of Reformed Theology and causes numerous other "covenant" interpretations of Scripture. This federal holiness idea essentially wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants some sort of special, non-redemptive blessing from God for their children. It wants God to claim them for His own.

But what is the point of any of that if the blessings are ultimately non-redemptive? It seems like a grasping at straws to retain the practice of paedobaptism. It makes very little sense. What parent would want special blessings for their kids when they ultimately are not saving? And what sort of God would dole these blessings out when they ultimately just end up being a heap of condemnation? In the end, being federally holy but non-elect (this is a Calvinist term) would probably be the worst possible situation a person could be in. Ultimately there is very little grace for someone who has received the sign of the covenant of grace. Their baptism ends up screaming against them and condemning them. Does this federal holiness increase the child's chance that they are elect? No Calvinist would argue that, but the only way they could deny it is to divorce baptism from salvation completely. This stance almost smells like the preparationist nonsense you hear from Reformed Baptists like Paul Washer.

The P is short for the Perseverance of the Saints. This doctrine states that if a person is elect, they will be regenerated and can never fall from grace and be lost - even if they get it back later. Once regenerated, always in grace. Therefore, baptism can't save because there are clearly a lot of baptized non-Christians in the world. The P is a non-negotiable in Reformed Theology. In its wake, it ends up not allowing for biblical interpretations of plain and clear passages - such as those about Holy Baptism. But of course, the P fails to properly distinguish law and Gospel, taking only the promises of Christ's security seriously while inventing novel interpretations for the dire warnings of falling away from grace written all over Scripture; especially in Galatians and Hebrews.

The final paragraph in Mr. Cole's post is telling. He states, "We don't believe that baptism will save them. Nor do we believe that baptism is a promise of their future salvation." In contradistinction to Scripture, the Reformed federal argument actually says the exact opposite of what St. Peter says in 1 Peter 3:21. Not to mention, this baptism, at the font, with water and the Word, is salvation come to that infant in the here and now.

"Rather, we believe that God has placed His special claim on out children as His own, so that they have a right to the mark of the covenant of grace."

This is the final statement Mr. Cole writes. Here is where the rubber meets the road. Does baptism have to do with salvation or not? You can't have it both ways here. He seems to want to argue that God is claiming the children of believers as His own, but not actually saving them in the process. Or at very best, He might save them somewhere along the line.

Baptism simply cannot be divorced from salvation. The New Testament (as well as some Old Testament prophecy) is very clear that baptism buries us and raises us with Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Col 2:12). It gives the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38-39). It washes our sins away (Acts 22:16). It puts on Christ (Gal 3:27-29). And it saves us (1 Pet 3:21).

Now, I am not sure if Mr. Cole would argue for different baptisms in some of these passages. I will have to ask him. I refer to a common American Evangelical argument that Romans 6:3-4 (among many others) is referring to spiritual baptism of the Holy Spirit and not physical water baptism. But then, that would put the Presbyterian squarely in credobaptist dualism land, the exact place he would like to avoid.

At the end of the day, if you cannot argue that infants are sinners that need to be saved and that baptism effects this (i.e. it saves them), paedobaptism is either a) pointless, or b) a hindrance if the infant is non-elect and will never be regenerated. Some excess covenant blessing apart from salvation is, to put it bluntly, pretty useless if justification is not involved. Moreover, it's not biblical unless one forces a covenant theology onto the Scriptures.

Keeping paedobaptism alone does not prove the much desired catholicity the Reformed Churches want, especially when the practice is justified on reasons that sound nothing like how Scripture talks about baptism. Throw in a few other heterodox doctrines and the desired catholicity ends up lacking.

But I digress. The federal holiness stance, as well as the presumptive regeneration stance, both do not hold water when stacked up to Holy Scripture as well as the history of the Church. They simply do not say what Scripture says about baptism without encroaching an entire systematic theology onto the text, and in some cases saying the opposite thing that Scripture does. In the end, paedobaptism is a pointless practice unless baptism buries us and raises us with Christ and saves us. But hey, that is exactly what Scripture says! At the end of the day, we should greatly privilege the Lutheran doctrine of paedobaptism.

+Grace and Peace+

Sin, Repentance, and Theological Liberalism

Sin and repentance are two enormous topics in Holy Scripture. You can hardly turn a page in your awesome leather-bound copy of Holy Writ without encountering these topics in one way, shape, or form.

Theologically, I think when we boil these topics down, they are not really that difficult to figure out. Here are the main points to remember.

1. We are all sinners. Universally. No one excluded. Romans 3:23 is awfully clear about this.

Rom 3:23: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

2. God, in Scripture, defines what sin is. We do not get to define what sin is or is not depending on personal preference or cultural dictates. The Ten Commandments are a good starting point here. But Scripture also gives numerous other specific examples. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 is a good example of this.

1 Cor 6:9-11: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed,you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

3. Jesus says that we must repent of our sin.

St. Luke 13:5: No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.

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

Scripture also has some harsh words for those who are unrepentant of their sin.

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.

This is to say, a person who is unrepentant of their sins is not in Christ.

So what about these modern day liberal theologies that adapt to the culture around us and call all sorts of things good and normal that Scripture plainly calls sin?

Well, in that case, I recommend reading the Holy Scriptures carefully. 1. We are all sinners. 2. God tells us what sin is - not our culture, and certainly not us. 3. Christ Himself tells us that sin is to be repented of. St. John tells us to confess it. The author to the Hebrews tells us that a person who is unrepentant is not in a state of grace.

It's not that difficult. A person who calls sin good and normal and does not repent of it is not a Christian.

Martin Luther understood this. His very first thesis posted on the door of the Wittenberg Church says this:

1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ``Repent'' (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.

Sin is something to be repented of, not celebrated. Agree with Jesus, not culture.

The Old Testament prophet Isaiah has some harsh words for these sorts of ideas.

Isaiah 5:20: Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

It's high time that we call a spade a spade. Liberal theology and its incessant obsession with adapting God's Word to fit the culture around us, even at the expense of calling evil good and normal, must be outed for exactly what it is.

Not Christian.

Anti-Jesus.

Darkness.

Blasphemous.

Evil.

Is that clear enough?

+Pax+

What Communion Actually *Is*

My heart broke as I read the following article from Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-i-cant-take-communion-anymore_us_57632febe4b034ff3eef2fb2

I connect with this author completely. And this is why I cannot take communion anymore either.......***at ANY non-Lutheran church.***

I am so blessed to be able to partake of Communion at Lutheran churches. Why?

Because I come to Communion precisely *because* I am guilty. I need forgiveness of sins.

Zwinglians and Baptists already feel strong enough and forgiven enough so that they don't need Christ's Body and Blood. It's just a token of remembrance for them.

The Reformed, although many times broken, tend to focus on getting it right, on God's glory, and whether or not they have "true faith." For them, Christ is only there if they have "true faith." That is not the "communion" I need.

The Catholics and the Orthodox focus on Communion being a sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead. For them, it is something we offer to God. Forgiveness, although believed, takes a back seat.

No.

Christ instituted the precious Sacrament of the Altar of His precious Body and Blood given to us for the forgiveness of sins.

Truly given for us.

Shed for us.

He comes *down* to us.

We are simply beggars.

That is the only Altar I will go to.

Where I am received as a beggar, offering nothing.

Where my King comes down to me with gracious Words.

Now this true Body and true Blood of Christ has forgiven all of your sins. Go in peace knowing you are clean and forgiven.

Amen.

Ears to Hear - Butcher It Baby!

In the Gospels, Our Lord Jesus Christ uses the phrase "He who has ears to hear, let him hear" (Mat 11:15, Mar 4:9, Luk 8:8, Luk 14:35) and "If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear." (Mar 4:23)

Not surprisingly, this is a very misused phrase in Scripture. Aren't we all kind of like that sometimes though? The old Adam in all of us likes to take and abuse passages and phrases of Scripture to suit our own viewpoint.

Ultimately, the misuse of this phrase ends up being a sort of spiritual pride in most cases. In my Calvinist days, I would routinely hear some well meaning Calvinist folks use this phrase to decry people that rejected limited atonement or the universal saving will of God. They would quip that such a person who affirmed universal atonement (almost always the Arminians) just does not have ears to hear. That is to say, these Calvinistic folks were implying that the Spirit has given them ears so that they can properly affirm the letters and petals of the TULIP but that the other Christian over there (probably a rank Arminian!) is blind and deaf to the things of God. I am using this as an example. Other Christians do this as well - it is not limited to Calvinists, although abusing this phrase fits well with the Calvinistic system when you think about it.

Yet, I don't quite think this is what Jesus intends when He utters this phrase. In fact, in 4 of the 5 times this phrase is recorded for us in the Gospels, Jesus is using it in reference to understanding His parables.St. Mark and St. Luke record this phrase for us in the parable of the sower, for instance (Mar 4:9, Luk 8:8).

The only time Jesus uses the phrase not in reference to a parable is in Matthew 11. Here He is speaking about John the Baptist being the greatest man to be born among women, but He (Jesus) is greater than John.

So when Jesus uses this phrase, He is either using it to refer to His Godhood and status as Messiah, or He is using it to refer to parables with tricky meanings - which He ends up explaining to His disciples later anyways!

He is not intending the phrase to be speaking about denying clear and plain texts of Scripture in favor of some meaning that fits a theological system; especially when the meaning that is implied to be correct is quite foreign to a natural and plain reading of a text.

So when Scripture says that "God so loved the world..." (John 3:16) it probably means that "God so loved the world," not "God so loved the elect." Or when Scripture says that "God...desires all people to be saved" (1 Tim 2:3-4) it probably means that "God...desires all people to be saved" not that "God desires some people of all types of people to be saved." Or when Scripture says that Christ is "...the propitiation for our sins...and the whole world" (1 John 2:2) is probably means the whole world. Or when Scripture says that God "is patient...not wishing that any should perish" (2 Pet 3:9) it probably means that. It doesn't mean that God is wishing that all the elect are saved but not most of the human race. Or when Scripture says "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you" (1 Pet 3:21) it probably means that "Baptism...now saves you."

And on and on we go. But the point is painfully obvious. Saying that someone does not have ears to hear because they deny plain readings of clear Scriptures is foolish at best. One does not need some sort of secret spiritual knowledge to interpret a passage to mean something totally different than what it says. If anything, it takes some sort of special ability (not in a good way) to butcher the mess out of plain and clear passages to fit some sort of pre-conceived system.

+Grace+

BROKEN, Leaven, and False Gospels

These are the times in which we live, last days in which seemingly pious teachers rise up from our own midst in order to tickle our ears with sweet deceptions (2 Peter 2:10. 'Do not worry about such an old-fashioned idea as pure doctrine,' they say. 'Such concerns are misguided. to focus on such things only divides us. We live in an age where we know better now. It is love and freedom that unite us. After all, since we're all sinners, none of us can perfectly understand Scripture anyway. Better if we just trust in the Spirit and leave it to God.'

The next step may be years, even generations, in coming, but once the seed is sown, it will come. 'Yes, Scripture is God's Word,' they will say. 'But it is also man's word. The prophets and apostles were sinners just like you and me. That is why we must admit the Bible does have mistakes and errors in it, things we no longer need to believe. But that's okay! We have God's Spirit to lead us, and He blows wherever He wills, which we are convinced is over there, in this direction...'

Both of these teachings are the same grossly impious lie. Both make the audaciously terrifying assumption that Christ's perfection is not quite enough to handle and overcome out human imperfection. The words can seem loving and soft on the ears. But when drawing a straight line, a small mistake at the start becomes a great misdirection in the end. So also a little leavenous lie will eventually leaven the entire lump of faith.

Pr. Jonathan Fisk

BROKEN

To say 'we all believe in Jesus so the other things do not matter' does not lift Jesus up. It casts Him down because it casts His teaching down. It replaces Him with a man-made tradition of hating tradition, under which no single word of His is safe. Once it has begun, one by one all the truths of Scripture will be rendered void, one by one relegated to the truthiness of the world and placed on the smorgasbord of half-believed religiosities  until we welcome any false gospel with open arms but decry the scandal  of the real Gospel's particularity as the greatest possible offense. By then, Jesus' crucifixion will have been quietly moved further and further from the center, an afterthought brought out on holidays as a nice story to remind us why we ought to be spiritual people and enjoy our freedom, until at last it is entirely gone with no one left who is religious enough to even notice.

Against this folly, St. Paul cries to us from the depths of our history, "I say it again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:9)

Alas, too many of us have already forgotten how to hear. 'Yes,' we say, 'but that is only your interpretation.'

Jonathan Fisk, Broken, p.217, 219

Pastor Fisk hits the nail directly on the head. This era is already here and is running with full force in the name of Christianity; all the while warring and fighting against Christ and the Gospel.

If you haven't read the book, I highly recommend it. It's an easy read. Easy for just about anyone age 16 or over. Yet, it is theologically deep and written in a very accessible style.

I like to blog and I love to read. Pr. Fisk is a much better writer than I. Every Lutheran -nay- every Christian; should read this book, especially those who are caught up in some sort of new era nonsense that masquerades as pure Christianity when it is not.

+Pax+

THE GOSPEL CREATES AND SUSTAINS THE CHURCH

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.

Philosophy tries to climb its way up.

God in Jesus Christ comes down to us.

Continually.

For me.

For you.

Forgiveness.

Even when we don't feel it.

Letter, Spirit, Forget the Bible?

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.

+Grace and Peace+

Backwards is Still Backwards

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.

And. That. Is. Not. Good.

+Pax+

Epitome VII: The Lord's Supper

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.

+Pax+