One of the favorite arguments Calvinists use to argue their view Christ died only for the elect is that nowhere in the Bible are we told to preach to the lost Christ died for them personally.
But is that true? Besides problematic passages like 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 1 Timothy 4:10, etc., let me deal with their position according to what they agree are message to the lost.
They agree Scriptures teach all are invited to repent and believe in Christ.
Here's the thing though: believing in Christ is the same as believing He atoned for our sins. John 3:16 and Romans 3:25 make that clear.
Now, if Christ didn't die for the sins of some, and they are among those invited to come, their unbelief in the end would end up being really belief in the truth Christ didn't die for them. Some will say they are invited to believe in Christ, not Christ died for their sins.
But that is untenable. Salvation is in Christ crucified for our sins. Can't seperate belief in Him from belief in what He did for us. Indeed belief in Him is in what He came to do for us.
So it is equally untenable to say to the lost that He died for sinners but not necessarily them. The moment lost sinners are invited to faith in Him, they are invited to faith in what He did for them.
Nor is it tenable to say if Christ died for all, all must be saved on flimsy ground those atoned for cannot be again judged for their sins. The problem with such an argument is those who use it hold to the elect (whom they say Christ died for alone) are lost for their sins that He atoned for before they convert. The moment they affirm any of the elect are ever lost before conversion, they defeat their own double jeopardy Owenist arguments there and then.
When one is called to faith in Christ, it is faith in objective fact Christ is offered to them. And if He is offered to them, then so is what He did at the Cross.
If one can't seperate belief in Christ from belief in Christ died for us, then the command to believe in Christ to be saved is the same as command to believe Christ died for them. And if God commands us to believe Christ died for us when we were lost, then He died for us when we were lost no matter if we end up believing or not. Otherwise, God would be commanding something that isn't true for many folks who end up not believing.
The very passages Calvinists themselves agree teach we are commanded to believe in Christ actually are the very ones that say when understood properly believe in He who was crucified for the lost invited to receive salvation in Him. There's no way around that.
Here we stand.
7/13/16
Lutheran Sacraments Are Uniquely Lutheran
I was talking with my priest today about what Sacraments we Lutherans have in common with Roman Catholics.
The answer?
None.
The answer?
None.
We count their Baptism as valid, but they don't think it washes away future sins.
Our Baptism washes away all sins, past, present, future, and original.
Their Eucharist is their own doing, their own "sacrifice" offered for the living and the dead.
Our Eucharist is pure Gospel, with Christ coming down to us, giving Himself to us for the forgiveness of sins.
Their Absolution is dependent upon works of contrition, and upon supposedly reciting every sin one has committed.
Our Absolution is pure Gospel. It is impossible to remember every sin we have committed, and sinful desires (concupiscence) are indeed sin. Absolution for us is God's kind and gracious disposition toward us in Christ, forgiving us.
Their Holy Orders is based on supposed "apostolic succession," and leaves an "indelible mark" whether one has pure doctrine or not.
Our Holy Orders is purely based on the Gospel. Our priests are connected to the Gospel, and our apostolic succession is purely in the Gospel.
We do not consider Confirmation to be a Sacrament at all, but simply a rite. Rome considers it a sacrament because they see the sacraments as fuel for holy living.
We see the Sacraments as pure forgiveness. Not law, but pure Gospel.
Everything in Lutheranism is about the Gospel.
Our Baptism washes away all sins, past, present, future, and original.
Their Eucharist is their own doing, their own "sacrifice" offered for the living and the dead.
Our Eucharist is pure Gospel, with Christ coming down to us, giving Himself to us for the forgiveness of sins.
Their Absolution is dependent upon works of contrition, and upon supposedly reciting every sin one has committed.
Our Absolution is pure Gospel. It is impossible to remember every sin we have committed, and sinful desires (concupiscence) are indeed sin. Absolution for us is God's kind and gracious disposition toward us in Christ, forgiving us.
Their Holy Orders is based on supposed "apostolic succession," and leaves an "indelible mark" whether one has pure doctrine or not.
Our Holy Orders is purely based on the Gospel. Our priests are connected to the Gospel, and our apostolic succession is purely in the Gospel.
We do not consider Confirmation to be a Sacrament at all, but simply a rite. Rome considers it a sacrament because they see the sacraments as fuel for holy living.
We see the Sacraments as pure forgiveness. Not law, but pure Gospel.
Everything in Lutheranism is about the Gospel.
7/10/16
Let Me Do Something!
I simply must be able to do something to get myself saved. I have to. I mean, I am a self-willing autonomous human being!
So what can I do? Can I make a positive choice to be saved? Can I just walk the aisle and answer the altar call? Can I do good works to be saved? Isn't loving God and loving neighbor the Gospel?
I just have to be able to do something to get myself saved.
All of these ideas spring not from faith but rather from the Old Adam living within us all. To put it another way, it is our sinful self that concocts these ideas that we must be able to do something to save ourselves - not out new self that is in Christ.
The Scriptures answer this very clearly. I'll give one example:
1 Corinthians 2:14: The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
Here is says that "the natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God..." so much for "accepting Jesus into your heart."
The Augsburg Confession answers as well:
AC XVIII: 1-3: Of Free Will they teach that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2:14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received through the Word.
The Confession also tells us how salvation occurs. As the AC states, "this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received through the Word."
So how can I be saved? Perhaps a quick look at St. Matthew and the words of Christ will be helpful here.
St. Matthew 19:23-26: And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
You get it? Nobody can be saved by anything they do. It is impossible. Jesus says so. But with God, all things are possible. God saves us. He Himself comes down from heaven, takes on human flesh, and makes all things new. He is born of a virgin, lives a perfect life, fulfills the law, and dies on the cross to save us. But He doesn't stay dead. On the third day, He rises again, is seen by over 500 people, and later ascends into heaven.
So what can I do? Can I make a positive choice to be saved? Can I just walk the aisle and answer the altar call? Can I do good works to be saved? Isn't loving God and loving neighbor the Gospel?
I just have to be able to do something to get myself saved.
All of these ideas spring not from faith but rather from the Old Adam living within us all. To put it another way, it is our sinful self that concocts these ideas that we must be able to do something to save ourselves - not out new self that is in Christ.
The Scriptures answer this very clearly. I'll give one example:
1 Corinthians 2:14: The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
Here is says that "the natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God..." so much for "accepting Jesus into your heart."
The Augsburg Confession answers as well:
AC XVIII: 1-3: Of Free Will they teach that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2:14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received through the Word.
The Confession also tells us how salvation occurs. As the AC states, "this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received through the Word."
But I must be able to do something! I have to be able!
NO. Scripture says no, the Confessions say no. Grumpy Cat says no as well, because well, that's all Grumpy Cat says, evidently.
So, if I really can't do something, does that make me unsavable? In myself, yes, I am unsavable. The Old Adam in me is anti-God. He hates God. He would rather indulge in golf on Sunday morning than church. There is nothing wrong with golf, of course. But the point is, the Old Adam wants nothing to do with God. He won't go to church, he thinks he is good enough to save himself by something he does, and he is curved inward on himself. He is a selfish old bastard. He makes excuses. I need to rest this morning. It is my only day off of work all week, I am going fishing. I don't need to go to church to be a Christian. Perhaps I will just do church at home.
Where there is an element of truth in some of these ideas, they still are ideas that spring not from faith in Christ, but from the Old Adam.
St. Matthew 19:23-26: And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
You get it? Nobody can be saved by anything they do. It is impossible. Jesus says so. But with God, all things are possible. God saves us. He Himself comes down from heaven, takes on human flesh, and makes all things new. He is born of a virgin, lives a perfect life, fulfills the law, and dies on the cross to save us. But He doesn't stay dead. On the third day, He rises again, is seen by over 500 people, and later ascends into heaven.
He still comes to us today, saving us through His means of grace that give us continual forgiveness of sins. He kills that Old Adam. He uses natural means to do this too. The foolishness of the preaching of the Gospel, plain old water in Holy Baptism, and simple bread and wine where He gives us His true body and blood in Holy Communion. These are all God's acts; ways in which He delivers that once for all sacrifice on Calvary to us.
So back we go. What things can we do to be saved? Nothing. God saves us. Isn't loving God and loving neighbor the Gospel? No, not even close. That is the Law. The Gospel is all about Christ and what He has done on our behalf. Loving God and loving neighbor is the Law. We are unable to keep that Law. Christ did it for us. That is Gospel.
Thankfully, God desires the salvation of each and every individual (1 Tim 2:1-7, 2 Pet 3:9). Yet He alone does the saving, apart from us. We can do nothing to be saved. But God (cf. Eph 2:4) does it all. By grace are we saved, through faith (Eph 2:8-9).
+Grace+
7/8/16
The hidden God becomes the revealed God to Job (and to us also)
The book of Job really shows the distinction between the hidden will of God and the revealed will of God. Granted, we are told what happened behind the scenes that Job was not privy to while he was suffering. And even when God revealed Himself to Job and his friends, chastising Job for inquiring why God "punished him" and his friends for presuming to know what is only hidden to God as to blame Job's suffering on some secret sins (falsely) he may be guilty of, He didn't reveal to Job or his friends to what purpose he suffered for. Job, once God revealed Himself to him without letting him to know what was His purpose, was satisfied to know the revealed God and not the hidden God. And he was blessed for by faith trusting God as He revealed Himself to Job.
And that is how God wants to deal with us in the midst of our own trials and tribulations. We are not to look at the hidden God as if we can know His mind and purpose not revealed to us but we are to look to His Word where He is revealed. Nor presume like Job's friends who foolishly automatically assumed a person suffered through life because he is somehow has some secret sin others don't have.
And what we have is the hidden God becoming the revealed God when His eternally begotten Son assumed flesh to do what none of us can do (which is fully obey God's law) and to pay a sin debt we can never repay God, by taking our place at the Cross and dying for our sins there.
It is at the Cross that our God Incarnate tasted the innocent and bitter suffering and death on our behalf (and being the only one ever sinless, He was truly the only innocent to ever suffered, and He volunteered to do so for us out of His great love for us). And by what Christ did, God is reconciled to us that we may be reconciled to Him by grace through faith when Christ offers Himself to us in Word and Sacrament.
Seek the revealed God where He may be found- in Word and Sacrament. That is where He comes to us to tell us of His love for us that He had our sins atoned for and His desire we turn and receive what He did for us. And He tells in all these things He works for the good of those who are in Christ. And He will see us through our circumstances. His grace is made perfect in our weaknesses.
So, let's like Job, regardless of our circumstances trust in the revealed God, who loves us and desires to save us, and avoid probing what is hidden to us, such as is the case of Job's friends.
Here are Luther's words to the wise in his commentary on Genesis (29:9):
"You must kill the other thoughts and the ways of reason or of the flesh, for God detests them. The only thing you have to do is to receive the Son, so that Christ is welcome in your heart in His birth, miracles, and cross. For here is the book of life in which you have been written. And this is the only and the most efficacious remedy for that horrible disease because of which human beings in their investigation of God want to proceed in a speculative manner and eventually rush into despair or contempt. If you want to escape despair, hatred, and blasphemy of God, give up your speculation about the hidden God, and cease to strive in vain to see the face of God. "
Here we stand.
And that is how God wants to deal with us in the midst of our own trials and tribulations. We are not to look at the hidden God as if we can know His mind and purpose not revealed to us but we are to look to His Word where He is revealed. Nor presume like Job's friends who foolishly automatically assumed a person suffered through life because he is somehow has some secret sin others don't have.
And what we have is the hidden God becoming the revealed God when His eternally begotten Son assumed flesh to do what none of us can do (which is fully obey God's law) and to pay a sin debt we can never repay God, by taking our place at the Cross and dying for our sins there.
It is at the Cross that our God Incarnate tasted the innocent and bitter suffering and death on our behalf (and being the only one ever sinless, He was truly the only innocent to ever suffered, and He volunteered to do so for us out of His great love for us). And by what Christ did, God is reconciled to us that we may be reconciled to Him by grace through faith when Christ offers Himself to us in Word and Sacrament.
Seek the revealed God where He may be found- in Word and Sacrament. That is where He comes to us to tell us of His love for us that He had our sins atoned for and His desire we turn and receive what He did for us. And He tells in all these things He works for the good of those who are in Christ. And He will see us through our circumstances. His grace is made perfect in our weaknesses.
So, let's like Job, regardless of our circumstances trust in the revealed God, who loves us and desires to save us, and avoid probing what is hidden to us, such as is the case of Job's friends.
Here are Luther's words to the wise in his commentary on Genesis (29:9):
"You must kill the other thoughts and the ways of reason or of the flesh, for God detests them. The only thing you have to do is to receive the Son, so that Christ is welcome in your heart in His birth, miracles, and cross. For here is the book of life in which you have been written. And this is the only and the most efficacious remedy for that horrible disease because of which human beings in their investigation of God want to proceed in a speculative manner and eventually rush into despair or contempt. If you want to escape despair, hatred, and blasphemy of God, give up your speculation about the hidden God, and cease to strive in vain to see the face of God. "
Here we stand.
7/4/16
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."
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.
"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.
7/3/16
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."
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.
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+
7/1/16
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:
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+
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:
- When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ``Repent'' (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
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+
6/28/16
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.
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+
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+
6/23/16
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.
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 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 |
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+
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)