The Freedom of Lutheranism

Honestly I don't know why I didn't become Lutheran much earlier, because when i was reformed and evangelical i always knew something didn't match with my experience. I always knew i wasn't living the "victorious Christian life" or "making progress" in my sanctification. I reverberated from self-righteousness, to self-loathing, to self-righteousness, to self-loathing, time and time again. I knew something wasn't right. I wondered why it was that God's commandments seemed burdensome, even though they were not supposed to be.

Now, as a Lutheran, I can truly say "O how love I Thy Law!" Now I can truly say God's commandments are not burdensome, because I am completely free and passive in my status before God in Christ my Savior. He continually is gracious to me and continually forgives me, and meets my weak faith with His gracious Sacraments to comfort me. He gives me His minister to declare gracious Words to me, that I am forgiven. And when I don't feel it, my pastor and priest declares it to me again.

No more looking inside. The Gospel is delivered outside of me, where Jesus promises to be. In His Word and in His Sacraments.

Not in striving.

Not in emotions or feelings.

Not in creation.

Not in experiences.

This is true freedom.

My sins are forgiven.

Constantly.

Practical Implications of Universal Objective Justification

Paul says in 2 Corinthians that, since God has reconciled the whole world to Himself, we therefore do not, should not, regard anyone according to the flesh any longer. This passage has tremendous implications for all of our life, in the civil sphere, and in the way we view all mankind. I know this is not easy.

This means that God loves and died for President Obama.

This means that God loves and died for Donald Trump.

This means that God loves and died for Hillary Clinton.

This means that God loves and died for Bernie Sanders.

This means that God loves and died for every member of ISIS.

For every member of Child Protective Services.

For every member of the federal government.

For every member of ever race, no matter the race.

And this is not something that comes easy to us.

God has forgiven us all for the greatest crime of murdering His Son on the Cross.

We all murdered His Son.

He forgave us.

Therefore, since we have been forgiven of a debt we could never repay, the minor offenses from others are always minor in comparison, no matter what. The greatest crime was murdering God's Son.

We all did that.

However, because we are all still sinners, it is difficult to forgive. It is difficult to not regard others after the flesh.

O Lord Jesus Christ, Who redeemed the world and took away the sins of the world, give us eyes to see the world through Your Holy Cross. On the Holy Cross You took away the sins of the whole world. Grant that we would be like You and love even our very enemies. Turn away all anger, evil, and hatred in our hearts. For everyone is in need of Your great redemption which You so graciously and generously provided for us all on the Cross, forgiving us and the entire world. Lead us to this peaceful place in which we view our neighbor in love, as You view them.

In Your precious Name, Lord Jesus Christ.† Amen.

LUTHERANISM or bust

I am to the point where I have little patience, if any, for other branches of Christianity besides Lutheranism. And this not in a "cage stage" sort of way. (I converted to Lutheranism almost two years ago.)

Instead, I am to this point because the more I grow in my Lutheranism, and in being so thankful for the pure Gospel found within Lutheranism, the more I see how *every single other branch* in some way, form, or fashion, turns a person within themselves, toward their own efforts. I absolutely abhor this. It is absolutely dangerous pastorally and practically speaking.

Even those branches that have the full Sacraments--such as Rome, the East, and some Anglicans--even they end up turning the Sacraments into law, and turn them into our efforts toward God. To me, this is no different than the other branches which focus on "what am I doing for God?"

Anyhoo, that's the point I am at. Honestly, I think it is a *good* point to be at. Why? Because it makes me impatient toward anything that obscures the Gospel.

This sinner needs the pure, unadulterated, 200-proof Gospel of God's declaration external and outside of me, delivered in Words spoken and Sacraments given as Gifts.

This sinner needs Lutheranism, and Lutheranism alone.

God coming down to me.

God speaking objective, gracious Words to me.

God giving objective, gracious Sacraments to me.

God continually forgiving my sins.

Thank You Jesus!

"IF IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE......"

Lutheranism is distinguished from most of Christianity in how it approaches God's Word. We take a literal approach to God's Word, and we do not seek to "reconcile" things when they don't make sense to us.

But most of Christianity, sadly, tries to qualify or explain away God's Word.

Some examples:

*"I know the text in Genesis 1 says 'days', but they can't be literal days. This must be poetry or metaphor."

Lutheran Response: "Days" means "days." God spoke and His Word powerfully created. God's Word does what it says.

*"I know these texts talk about Baptism saving, giving the Spirit, regenerating, washing away sins, etc., but they cannot mean that, because only by faith are we saved."

Lutheran Response: Holy Baptism gives faith. God promises to attach His Word to the element of water and the Trinitarian Name. What God's Word promises, God's Word actually does. God's Word does what it says.

*"I know Jesus said 'this is My Body,' but it must mean 'represents' My Body because, after all, His Body was right there, and a human body can only be present at one place at a time."

Lutheran Response: Jesus says it is for the forgiveness of sins. Paul says it is a communing with the Body and Blood of Christ. Paul says if done in an unworthy manner then the communicant is guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ. How can one violate just a metaphor? Jesus said His Body and Blood forgives sins. He pointed to the Bread and called it His Body. He said it forgives sins. God's Word does what it says.

*"No one can forgive sins but God. So your pastor cannot declare Absolution."

Lutheran Response: Jesus breathed on the disciples and said "If you forgive men their sins, they are forgiven. If you do not forgive them, they are retained." God appoints His ministers to declare His Word of forgiveness. God's Word does what it says.

*"I know these texts say Christ died for all, the ungodly, false teachers, the world, etc., but they cannot mean that, because if He died for everyone, no one would be in hell. That just doesn't make sense."

Lutheran Response: God's Word of forgiveness still stands even when others reject it. When a slave rejected the Thirteenth Amendment, the objective fact is that that slave had still been freed from his slavery. The slave chose to reject the Thirteenth Amendment and stay in his slavery. God's Word of reconciliation and forgiveness is for all. It does not depend upon our faith. God has reconciled the world to Himself. We tell the world that Good News. God's Word does what it says.

********
And of course I could give several other examples. But what we notice here--take careful notice--is that the Lutheran approach to God's Word is a very *objective* approach. It does not turn a person inward, or toward their own faith, or toward their own efforts. Instead, it takes God at His Word.

Do I not feel saved today?

God's Word says I am forgiven. God attached His Word to the Waters of Holy Baptism. I am baptized in His Triune Name. I am saved. Why?

Because He said so.

God's Word does what it says.

Have I had a rotten week, committing terrible sins that I could have never imagined?

God longs to meet with us in the Divine Service, coming to us and graciously forgiving our sins in Word and Sacrament.

"This is My Body, given for you for the forgiveness of sins."

God's Word does what it says.

The minister declares upon my confession, in Christ's stead, my sins are forgiven.

God's Word does what it says.

Now I simply rest, receive, and take Him at His Word, like a little child.

Rest.

Your sins are forgiven.

God's Word always does what it says.

CLOSED COMMUNION: VITAL TO UPHOLD THE GOSPEL

Closed Communion is not only the LCMS' position, but indeed it is the position of the Lutheran Confessions:

". . . we have abandoned the papistical errors and idolatries, and can have no fellowship [communion] with them, and also why we know, and can think of, no way for coming to any agreement with the Pope concerning them." --Solid Declaration Rule & Norm 7

"For none are admitted [to the Supper] except they be first examined." --Augsburg XXIV:7

"it is not usual to give the body of the Lord, except to them that have been previously examined and absolved." --Augsburg XXV:1

I have noticed that those who usually opt for giving Communion to all those who believe in the Real Presence usually take a more "living document" approach to our Confessions on this issue. Not everyone, but many.

There can be no doubt what our Confessions meant historically. The Lutherans would not commune with Rome, either at their altars or theirs.

"Examined" meant catechized into the Lutheran faith and understanding of the Sacrament.

"Absolved" was the catechumen's First Holy private Confession and Absolution.

To be sure, there is pastoral discretion. But pastoral discretion is for exceptional cases such as emergencies or danger of death.

It is harmful to aid and abet our non-Lutheran brethren in their false views of the Supper. It is harmful to aid and abet our non-Lutheran brethren in staying in heterodox churches.

I have come to realize that closed Communion is a more vital position than ever.

Closed Communion upholds the Gospel and the necessity of uniting with those churches that uphold the Gospel in Word and Sacrament.

I know it is not popular, but pastors need to uphold closed Communion. We do not want to condone even implicitly someone staying in the Roman church or any other heterodox church.

I say the above not out of arrogance, but out of concern for the current state of the LCMS on this issue. Although the LCMS has spoken on this many times at the Synod level, it is not enforced.

May our prayers ascend for unity in the LCMS on this issue! May the Lord be gracious and merciful to us sinners.

"LET'S PLAY PRETEND, MOMMY!"

Recently, a group of "Lutherans" were communed at the Vatican during a Roman Catholic Mass.

The priests that communed them figured that, since they believed in the Real Presence, they may as well commune them.

But is this the meaning of Holy Communion?

YES IT IS THE LORD'S SUPPER, BUT IT IS ALSO THE LORD'S GOSPEL

A survey was taken recently of LCMS pastors with regards to who they commune. Half of our parish pastors follow LCMS policy, that is, closed Communion and only communing those from the LCMS or sister churches we are in altar and pulpit fellowship with. Most of the other half stated in the survey that they commune "all those who affirm the Real Presence," even though knowingly this is against LCMS policy and the adopted policy of the Synod from the CTCR (Commission On Theology and Church Relations).

Those who decide to deviate from the LCMS' policy generally will use the argument from pastoral discretion, stating that they are allowed to make exceptions and that this discretion is inscrutable. Although this is true, the doctrine of pastoral discretion was made for exceptional cases, such as emergencies, imminent death or danger, or no Lutheran church in the area.

Likewise, many of these pastors will commune non-Lutherans who believe in the Real Presence, although almost all of those who commune are going against their own church's Eucharistic discipline.

For example, I know of no case where Rome would allow its faithful to commune at a Lutheran altar, since Rome does not believe we Lutherans have the Real Presence, given we differ with them over their understanding of apostolic succession.

Likewise, the Orthodox faithful are not permitted to commune anywhere but at an Orthodox parish.

So why is it that the LCMS and its CTCR have consistently put forth and adopted the policy of closed Communion, and the Galesburg Rule of "Lutheran altars for Lutherans only"?

COMMUNION MEANS SOMETHING

Holy Communion is not only Communion with Christ's Body and Blood, but it is also sharing unity of faith with those with whom one communes. Granted that one cannot read everyone's heart, but nonetheless it is a statement of profession of belief. If one partakes at a Lutheran altar, they are saying that they affirm the Lutheran understanding of the Gospel.

The Gospel matters entirely! For a Lutheran to commune at a non-Lutheran altar would be either publicly stating that they confess the faith of that church's altar, or it would be stating that the differences do not matter.

Consider, the "Lutherans" that recently communed at the Vatican:

*Are these "Lutherans" now rejecting the Confessional view that the Papacy is the seat of Antichrist? If so, do they now reject the Smalcald and the Treatise? If not, why would they commune with the church of the Antichrist?

*Are these "Lutherans" now stating that justification by faith alone is not that big of a deal? That they agree with Rome on justification? That Rome has changed its mind?

*Are these "Lutherans" now stating that they believe justification is by faith and works?

*Are these "Lutherans" now stating that they see the Pope as the vicar of Christ on earth?

The word "Communion" in the Greek is "koinonia", the same word for "fellowship." It literally means "having all things in common."

It is a statement of vertical union with Christ, feeding on His Body and Blood, but it is also a horizontal statement of the union we have in the Gospel.

To partake of the Eucharist with those with whom we do not have agreement in the Gospel is akin to playing "pretend." We loved to play pretend as kids. Even with our parents. "Let's play pretend, mommy!" we would say. 

But now we are adults. 

Do Lutherans have unity in the Gospel with Rome?

No.

Do Lutherans have unity in the Gospel with the Eastern Orthodox?

No.

Do Lutherans have unity in the Gospel with the Reformed?

No.

Do Lutherans have unity in the Gospel with non-denominationalists and evangelicals?

No.

***The real question is, then, why would any Lutheran *want* to partake with those whom they do not have unity in the Gospel?***

Perhaps these Lutherans have lost sight of what their own Book of Concord teaches?

Perhaps these Lutherans have stepped away from the doctrines of the Gospel?

NOT POPULAR, BUT VITAL TO THE FAITH

Closed Communion is the historic understanding of the Church in all her branches up until the 1800s. Everyone understood that one would commune only with the *community* one has fellowship with. It was not considered "divisive" or "offensive", but simply a statement of that faith.

Today, closed Communion is not popular, but it is vital to the faith.

The Lutheran Church Missouri-Synod, as well as the Wisconsin Synod, have spoken on this issue.

The Missouri Synod clearly states:

1. Is it proper for a Lutheran to attend the Lord's Supper at the altars of churches not in doctrinal agreement with the church body of which he/she is a member?

In accordance with the confessional nature of participation in the Lord's Supper (cf. pp. 19-23), and in agreement with Lutheranism's historic position, it is inappropriate to attend the Lord's Supper at non-Lutheran altars. Since participation in Holy Communion, Scripturally and confessionally understood, entails agreement in the Gospel and all its articles, it would not be appropriate to attend the Lord's Supper in a church with which such agreement is not shared.

2. Is it proper to celebrate Communion as a device for furthering or attaining pulpit or altar fellowship?

No. The Confessions rightly teach that Eucharistic fellowship is a thankful celebration of that unity which God has bestowed in the Gospel rather than a device to advance Christian fraternity (Ap XXIV, 68-69; cf. discussion above on pages 10-11 and 19-23).

***So, for the sake of the Gospel, let us not play pretend anymore, but let us pray for the day where the Church will share one common Eucharist. Until then, let us witness to the Gospel and stand for the beauty of this Gospel by giving our witness to this Gospel in the world, and at the Communion Altar.***

This is vital to the faith.

May the Lord have mercy.

The Idolatry of Choice

The church at large, especially in the United States, has become very much like the culture in which it finds itself. Our greatest virtue, so it seems, is our right and ability to choose. Self autonomy is the golden calf of the 21st century American church.

We hear it everywhere. Make good choices. Every person has a right to choose for themselves. People are the result of their choices. And so on. We see this everywhere in the culture around us, and without fail, it has trickled right into the theology of many churches; especially mainline evangelical ones.

Not only do we like to morally exhort our children to make good choices (which I am not saying is a bad thing), but many churches have also allowed this choice mentality to creep into everything in their theology. Make a decision for Christ is the rallying cry of numerous revivalist evangelical preachers. These techniques, needless to say, are anything but biblical. Regardless of the official theology held on paper or the involvement of the Holy Spirit prior to conversion, it is still an idolization of the choice of the will, not to mention a soft form of works righteousness.

We see this all around us in our society, particularly regarding sexual choices. The sexual revolution has succeeded far beyond its original beginnings. Not only must we now accept persons for the sexual choices they make, but to dissent and argue against those choices is the ultimate form of hatred. Or so our society tells us.

Not only this, but the biggest example of the idolatry of choice in our society is the whole brouhaha surrounding abortion. Pro-aborts biggest argument is that abortion is the woman's right to choose. Moreover, they have also adopted much of the same language as the sexual revolution. For instance, if you don't have a uterus (that is, if you're a male) you are unqualified to make any statement in the negative against abortion.

Pro-aborts go to great lengths to justify this as well. Many of them also argue that the infant in the womb is just a fetus, not a person or human. They then fall back on "science" to support their argument. But this just seems to me yet another attempt to justify a political pandering to the culture.

From where I stand, it's awfully simple. If the infant in the womb is not a human person, pardon my French, but what the hell is it? Instead of pandering to the culture and the pro-choice folks, we ought to simply call a spade a spade. This is a human person and they justify murdering them, all in the name of choice. Roman Catholic philosopher Dr. Peter Kreeft has written a very apropos article regarding this topic. It can be found here:

Apple Argument Against Abortion

So instead of dropping theology to an idolatrous level where freedom to choose is its greatest virtue and using many of the same tactics as the sexual revolutionaries and pro-choice murder crowd, give them something better. In fact, give them something that is biblical and Christian.

Give them the Christ, proclaimed in Word and Sacrament. A Savior who doesn't need our sneaky cultural works to save people from their sins. He does so without our freedom to choose. He did it at Calvary on the cross apart from an altar call given by the Apostle John or His Mother the Blessed Virgin Mary. And He continues to do it by His life giving Word, in the preaching of the Gospel, Holy Baptism, and His body and blood for the forgiveness of our sins.

Good thing that Christ is not bound to our idolatrous theology that puts us and our choices as paramount.

+Pax+

1 Peter 3:18-22

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah,while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. ~1 Peter 3:18-22 (ESV)

Here we have one of the clearest baptism passages in the New Testament. Unfortunately, this text has been a major battleground among Christians over the last few hundred years or so. There have been numerous interpretations put forth regarding the proper meaning of this passage. Some have been good, others feasible, and still others have been quite a stretch. I think, at the end of the day, it is not that difficult of a passage to figure out.

Top: John Piper Bottom: 1 Peter 3:21

Certainly, interpretations of this passage fall along denominational lines. Consider Baptist pastor John Piper: "Now the problem with this is that Peter seems very aware that his words are open to dangerous misuse. This is why, as soon as they are out of his mouth, as it were, he qualifies them lest we take them the wrong way. In verse 21 he does say, "Baptism now saves you" - that sounds like the water has a saving effect in and of itself apart from faith. He knows that is what it sounds like and so he adds immediately, "Not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.""

And then later, "God saves you through the work of Christ. But you receive that salvation through calling on the name of the Lord, by trusting him. And it is God's will all over the world and in every culture - no matter how simple or how sophisticated - that this appeal to God be expressed in baptism."

Piper's article can be found here: Piper - Baptism

Hence, Pastor Piper is essentially arguing that Peter put the words in verse 21 regarding "removal of dirt" as a warning to not use his words to mean that baptism saves. As an aside, why would Peter write that at all if he thought they could be dangerously misconstrued to mean what they say? That makes a grand total of no sense whatsoever. And finally, Piper concludes that baptism is a symbolic appeal or pledge to God done by the believer as an expression of faith.

The most glaring problem with Piper's interpretation of this passage is that the passage simply does not say that. Peter is drawing a type and antitype parallel here. He references Noah and the ark. Moreover, Peter also is clear that Noah and his family were brought safely through the water. This is a type. The flood, in which Noah and his family were on the ark, were brought safely through the water. They were quite literally saved through the water in the physical realm.

The antitype, the greater reality which the flood pointed to is baptism. Just as Noah and his family were safely brought through the waters and saved, Peter says baptism, which corresponds to the flood, now also saves you.

And in this light, I agree with Pr. Piper when he says that Peter inserts language about removal of dirt as being important in that Peter does not want his words to be misused. However, the parallel that Peter is drawing actually speaks in the opposite direction as Pr. Piper would have us believe. Pr. Piper is essentially saying that Peter is saying that baptism now saves you, but not really saves you. It doesn't make you clean. In short, Piper is inserting somewhat of a contradiction into Peter's words in order to fit his preconceived theological leanings.

The more likely meaning, and really the plain meaning of this passage, is that Peter does not want his readers to believe that baptism is a strict one for one parallel with the flood. In other words, when Peter says that baptism now saves you and then continues with the removal of dirt language, he is telling us that baptism does not save us physically and temporally as God saved Noah and his family through the water. This water of baptism is a Word of God and is not a physical salvation from calamity. It is an eternal salvation. It is the greater antitype. Hence, Peter continues on: "...but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him." (1 Peter 3:21b-22)

In other words, whereas Noah was temporally delivered through the water, we are eternally delivered through the water. How? How can water do such things? Well, it can't. But God can. As Luther reminds us in his Small Catechism:

How can water do such great things?

It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost,which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.

How then? Peter answers thus: Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Baptism gives us Jesus. All the power and authority that Jesus has due to His crucifixion and resurrection is given to us in Baptism. (Matt 28:18-20)

Hence, Pr. Piper's answer, while creative and in attempt to be faithful to the biblical report, is untenable. Not only because Piper creates a contradiction in Peter, but also in that his preconceived theology simply will not allow the passage to speak clearly as it does. Where Pr. Piper thinks he is doing the church a service by exegeting Peter, he is in reality teaching people the opposite of what Peter has said, and that is never a good thing.

Baptism now saves you. Thanks be to God.

+Pax+

The Great Divide by Jordan Cooper: A Review

I was recently fortunate enough to receive a review copy from Wipf and Stock publishers of Pr. Jordan Cooper's book titled The Great Divide: A Lutheran Evaluation of Reformed Theology.

The Great Divide

From the outset, the reader here should know that I have traveled a very similar path as Pr. Cooper. I likewise once was a Reformed Calvinist and now am a Confessional Lutheran. That being said, this book by Pr. Cooper fills a big void in a topic that I have found many Lutherans are not very aware of. That is, the differences between Reformed Theology and Lutheran Theology and how Lutheranism in general views specific Reformed doctrines on which we both agree as well as differ.

If the reader is looking for a treatise that covers every single nuance in Reformed Theology, they will be disappointed. Yet that is not the author's intent of this book. In my estimation, this book is aimed directly at educated armchair theologians who are laymen like myself. And in that regard, Pr. Cooper's book shines brightly.

The first great positive of Pr. Cooper's book is that, as a former Calvinist, he understands Reformed Theology very clearly. A great strength of the book is that Pr. Cooper deals fairly with basic Reformed doctrine. He does not misrepresent Calvinist Theology as many attempts in the past have been wont to do. He clearly grasps Reformed doctrines such as double predestination, limited atonement, and perseverance. As best as possible for the short and concise treatment that Pr. Cooper levies, he accurately and fairly lays out the doctrines of Reformed Theology. He does this mainly by directly quoting Reformed Confessions of faith (mainly the Westminster Confession) and numerous Reformed authors with whom the reader will most likely be familiar, such as James White (Reformed Baptist) and R.C. Sproul (Presbyterian). Pr. Cooper also quotes and references numerous less known Reformed authors from times past, although not as much as the modern more popular ones. This I view to be a strength of the book, as the majority of the readers will be much more familiar with R.C. Sproul than they are with Charles Hodge, for instance.

After laying out the Reformed doctrines that Pr. Cooper is evaluating, he lays out the Lutheran doctrines of the same topic. He does this as well by extensive quotations from the Lutheran Confessions contained in the Book of Concord as well as numerous Lutheran theologians. The reader is left with a pure treatment of both camps' doctrines on numerous core theological topics, coming straight from sources that are proponents of each view.

The treatment of what each theology teaches takes up the bulk of each chapter. After treating both sides of the coin, Pr. Cooper goes into some detail as to why Lutheranism does not agree (and in some cases, has some agreement) with the Reformed doctrines. He does this through pointing to different Lutheran theologians and their rebuttals as well as some exegesis of Scripture. However, Pr. Cooper does not bog us down in long, drawn out exegesis of the original languages to the point that will lose the lay reader. He keeps it simple and understandable. Certainly, this may detract from the book for the scholar, but for me, it was a huge addition.

Finally, Pr. Cooper concludes each chapter as to why we should privilege the Lutheran doctrine over the Reformed doctrine, based on his treatment of both doctrines in the chapter. This is of course to be expected, as Pr. Cooper is a Confessional Lutheran pastor.

It needs to also be said that Pr. Cooper's book does not cover every single nuance of Reformed Theology. There are many differing views in Reformed Theology as a whole, and the book itself is not intended to cover every single one of them. Such a book would be multiples volumes long or extremely thick. For instance, he does not cover every single baptismal theory that those who claim Reformed Theology hold to. And that is OK. This is not the scope of the book. The book deals in basics and advances to an intermediate level, clearly showing the differences between the two camps while not burying us under a mess of theological detail that many lay readers will have to research to understand.

The differences are very clear between Reformed Theology and Lutheran Theology, and Pr. Cooper, through accurate representation of the two, has made this readily apparent to the reader. For what the book intends to accomplish, it succeeds in a glowing manner, showing that the gulf between Calvinism and Lutheranism is indeed a great one.

Highly Recommended.

***I received this book as a review copy from Wipf and Stock publishers. I was in no way required to promote this title or write of it positively. The review posted contains strictly my own thoughts.

Calvinist Canards

canard. noun, plural canards. 1) a false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or rumor.

Ahhhhh, the canards that come from the tough guy internet Calvinists. Today I have a fun one.

Canard: John Calvin's face.

The fun Calvinist canard of the day is this: If God wants to save everyone, everyone would then be saved. Or, it seems that you are saying that God is trying to save these people who are not saved.

Don't fall for it. It's a canard. What they are implying is that we (meaning everyone who isn't a Calvinist) have a God that tries His best but is unable to do anything about the situation. What they are indirectly implying is that only they have an Almighty, Sovereign God, and we have a weak beggar who is impotent to accomplish His will. Hence, limited atonement and so on. They are trying to pigeonhole you into an Arminian, Pelagian, or Open Theistic conception of God. Don't fall for it. We actually have a concept of God that is closer to Calvinism than those other things just mentioned. Of course, in their limited theological mind, anything that is not Calvinism does fall into those categories. But it just is not true.

These are the categories in which the militant tough guy internet Calvinist operates. So, why should we reject this question and/or charge?

Well, first of all, it betrays the inability of this sort of Calvinist to think in terms outside of absolute predestination and autonomous free will. It fails to recognize that all theology does not fall into one of two categories - Calvinism/Determinism or Arminianism/Pelagianism/Libertarianism. In fact, those systems of thought (I am referring specifically to Calvinism and Arminianism here) are Johnny-come-latelies in the theological arena. Before the Reformed Church erupted into this dichotomy with the Remonstrants, hardly any theological system started and ended all discussion based on this paradigm. In fact, Calvinism as well as Arminianism are radical departures from catholic Christianity. They are not a Reforming of the church - they are a completely new branch. The modern internet Calvinist wants to relegate everything to the doctrine of election, thereby placing the Sacraments and other super-duper important things on a secondary status.

Second, it's a backwards question. It likewise betrays the willingness of the internet Calvinist to start and base his whole theology off of God's hidden will (election in eternity past) and not in God's revealed will (Christ Incarnate, crucified, and risen for us). This makes Christ crucified an outworking of election.

Third, it gets the internet Calvinist into some pretty deep water regarding the work of the Spirit in saving sinners. This is why Calvinism has distinguished between the inward call (regeneration) and the outward call (preaching of the Word). The inward call is a special call the elect alone receive whereby they are made partakers of Christ and born again. This happens when the Gospel is preached, but it is the Spirit alone who regenerates, and only in the elect. How then can they affirm that the preaching of the Gospel is pure grace when it is heard by the hearers? Well, they cannot, because the Spirit refuses to give the inward call to the non-elect. Hence, it traverses awfully close to the slippery slope of separation of the spiritual from the natural means of grace.

It is far simpler, and more biblical, to simply say that the Spirit is at work in the preaching of the Gospel 100% of the time to 100% of the hearers. If they reject it, it's because they rejected it, not because there was no inward call involved. If they receive it, it is because the Holy Spirit gave it. Thus, grace received is 100% a gift of God, plus nothing. Whereas, grace rejected is 100% the work of man, nothing of God.

This whole idea of God trying and getting what He wants with 100% certainty is the reason why these internet Calvinists have to come up with novel interpretations of numerous plain and clear passages in Scripture. To name a few, 1 Tim 2:4-6, 2 Pet 3:9, 1 Tim 4:10, 1 John 2:2, and 2 Pet 2:1.

Instead, we are far better off Scripturally starting with and sticking to - God's revealed will given to us in Christ Jesus alone, and not trying to cram the revealed will into the hidden will that ends up with doctrines like limited atonement and rejects doctrines like baptismal regeneration. Worse yet, they have to reject some clear Scriptures to hold to what they do.

This is a canard. Moreover, it's a bad case of philosophical systematics trumping the revealed Word of Christ.

+Pax+