When did the Eucharist become a secondary doctrine pertaining to Christian fundamentals? More importantly, why did it become secondary? For Lutherans, it has never been so. And I do believe we are in the right on this issue. In fact, up until the days of the Radical Reformation that resulted in Zwinglianism and Calvinism, the Eucharist was never a secondary issue. Of course, this is a direct result of heterodox and heretical stances on the Eucharist that deny that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ. The lower ones view of the Eucharist, the easier it is to relegate it to a secondary status that does not pertain to the fundamentals of the faith.
The Lutheran Father Martin Chemnitz, writing in the 16th century (1590) in his book The Lord's Supper, identified many of the problems even then.
"This irreverent desire to invent various interpretations for the last will and testament of the Son of God is confirmed by the proposal that there be a kind of immunity to criticism in this area, so long as one retains the fundamentals of the other articles of faith, since there is no danger to faith or loss of salvation no matter how a person wishes to treat, interpret, or understand the words of the Supper - so long as one accepts an interpretation which is in keeping with some passages of Scripture. Long ago Pelagius argued the same way - that it had nothing to do with the essence of religion how a person understood and interpreted the words of Scripture dealing with original sin in Rom. 5:12 ff., Eph 2:1 ff., or Ps. 51:5. thus it was said that the essence of the question was not a matter of faith.
Therefore, first and foremost in this whole argument, we must set forth and impress on hearts and minds by constant consideration the true, clear, and compelling reasons, affecting not only the ears and minds but also including dangers to conscience, in regard to the words of the Supper. They are the words of the last will and testament of the very Son of God and not a game or place for exercising the mind by dreaming up unending interpretations that depart from the simplicity and proper meaning of the words. The mind should treat and consider these words with neither temerity nor frivolity but with reverence and piety and in great fear of the Lord.
In the first place, it is certain and cannot be denied that the words of the Supper are not to be classified in the category of points in Scripture which can either be ignored or variously explained or even incorrectly understood and still have no bearing on faith or salvation. For these are the words of the last will and testament not of a mere man but of the very Son of God. He instituted it on the night in which He was betrayed, and it concerned the most important matter of all. He did so with the most serious emotions, words, and actions. Even in glory He repeated these words to Paul, thereby showing it was His will that this be the giving of a new and special dogma that should remain in the church to the end of time.
In the second place, when the last will and testament of a man has been executed, we are required under the law to observe the words with special care so that nothing be done which is either beside or contrary to the final will of the testator. Even the civil laws regard such a will as so sacred that they have determined that those who have made any profit at all from the will for themselves shall be deprived of it, and their inheritance through the provision of the laws themselves shall be taken away from them as being unworthy, on the grounds that they have departed from the will of the testator as it is stipulated in the words of the testament. Now, because the Son of God in His last will and testament has not permitted His heirs liberty of believing or doing whatever seems good to them, but has willed that we believe what He has spoken in His words of institution and do what He has commanded, therefore we should give very careful thought that we do not thrust anything upon these words of the last will and testament of the Son of God, lest we deprive ourselves of the benefit of eternal happiness conveyed to us by His will or our inheritance itself be taken from us as being unworthy because we have departed from the will of the Testator as it has been given to us in the words of His last testament.There is no doubt that all too many will come under judgment, sad to say, because of their shameful contentiousness.
In the third place, after citing the words of the testament of the Son of God, Paul adds an extremely severe threat of judgment and guilt if anyone judges or treats these mysteries in any other way than Christ the Testator has willed and determined in the words of His last will and testament. For he says: 'He who does not discern the body of the Lord eats judgment to himself and is guilty of the body of the Lord' (1 Cor. 11:29). Moreover, he is not speaking of the discerning of the human nature in Christ per se or in an absolute sense, but of the fact that what we eat in the Supper the Son of God calls His body. This Paul wants us to discern, not in accord with anyone's private conjectures but according to and on the basis of the words of Christ's testament, which Paul asserts he received by the revelation of the Son of God (1 Cor. 11:23). Therefore, if anyone departs from the true and genuine sense of those words, it is certain that he is not able to discern what he is eating in the Supper. But would this not simply be an innocent lapse? By no means, for he is eating to his own judgment and becomes guilty of the body of Christ, says Paul.
When we have given serious consideration to those points, we will see that they furnish the best antidote against the willfulness and impudence of human reason and create true reverence and piety in our handling of the words of the testament of the Son of God. at the same time they show how tragic and abhorrent is the mutilation to which the Sacramentarians have subjected these holy words of the last will and testament of the Son of God, tearing them limb from limb and picking them into small pieces by there various radical interpretations, so that there is scarcely anything left from the proper and true meaning of these words which is sound, inviolate, or untouched. No one would endure this patiently if it occurred in the secular realm in the case of the will and testament of a good man."
Martin Chemnitz, The Lord's Supper (pp. 25-28)
We do well to listen to Chemnitz here and relegate the Holy Supper of the Lord to secondary status. This is a result of various interpreters who deny that the bread and wine are the true body and blood of Christ. Let us never depart from our Confession here. For as the author of Hebrews writes, It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
On the other hand, we also must defend the practice of closed communion. St. Paul's warning in 1 Cor. 11 is enough in this area. Those who deny the body of Christ cannot be given the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper, lest they eat and drink judgment to themselves. Open communion based on personal decision of the communicant is not the biblical model in any way, shape, or form. It must be flatly rejected, lest we fail in the area of pastoral care.
+Pax+
5/8/16
Wait...What?
Samuel Bolton (1606-1654) was an English Churchman of the Puritan variety and also was delegated as a member of the Westminster Assembly. In other words, Bolton was a Calvinist.
Bolton once said, "The law sends us to the Gospel so that we may be justified; the Gospel sends us to the Law again to inquire what is our duty as those who are justified."
As Lutherans, we should have some major problems with statements such as this one. In Lutheranism, we often talk about God's proper work and His alien work. His proper work is the Gospel; what God has done in Christ to save us. His alien work is the Law.
You see clearly from statements such as Bolton's, Reformed Theology reverses this altogether. God's proper work in Calvinist world is the law. The Gospel is never God's proper work. Statements such as this one betray Reformed Theology's ideas about Christ and the Gospel. The Gospel is never God's final yes. It's never God's final word. It's never His proper work. The Gospel is only a means to drive us right back to the same thing that condemns us in the first place. Now why would God do that? Sounds a little silly when you see the statement for what it is. But the truth of the matter is, in Reformed Theology the end goal is always the law, not the Gospel.
Strikingly, this statement by a conservative Puritan is theologically reflective of much of mainstream Christianity now days. The Gospel is just a means, but then we must move beyond the Gospel to bigger and better things. In the case of Bolton and the Puritans (and modern denominations such as the OPC), we have to move right back to the thing that killed us in the first place: God's Law. In the case of much of modern day Christianity, it's a bunch of other cultural norms (or perhaps even counter-cultural norms).
It's hard to label this statement as legalism, since Bolton and the Puritans would never assent to a stance that spiritual life is gained through obedience to the Law, but to use a Lutheran term, it certainly bends heavily to the Pietistic side of things.
On the other hand, statements like this have a way of stripping the believer of all assurance of salvation. Instead of looking objectively to Christ, outside of you, the believer has to look to self, to see how well they are obeying the law that the Gospel drove them to. When you chuck the heterodox doctrine of limited atonement into the mix, this problem is magnified.
Puritans such as this simply will not look objectively to Christ crucified for their sins and the means of grace where Christ has promised to meet us - Word and Sacrament. They can't. Their theology will not allow it. Their rejection of the objectivity of the means of grace forces them to look to self for assurance. In this light, Bolton's statement is just consistent with his theology.
Statements like this get it all wrong. Bolton fails to realize that the entire life of a Christian is one of continual repentance, as Luther pointed out in the first of his famous 95 theses. The Christian life is never a life of continual victory and obedience to the law. It is one of continual repentance and forgiveness of sins. The third use of the law is there for Christians to see what is good and pleasing to God - not for us to be driven back to that law by the Gospel. The Gospel is always God's final word. It's His ultimate yes.
And if this is the case, the Gospel is not a means to an end, it is an end in itself. The Christian needs the law too, but mainly for repentance. We see the law and must admit we have not kept it, even while in Christ. Hence, we can never move beyond the Gospel. We must hear those sweet words of Absolution, of what Christ has done for us in the Word, and receive that body and blood in our mouths for the forgiveness of our sins. We continually need the Gospel. It is truly the last word, not a means to drive us back to the very thing that condemned us in the first place as fanatics like Bolton and the Puritans would have us believe.
+Pax+
Bolton once said, "The law sends us to the Gospel so that we may be justified; the Gospel sends us to the Law again to inquire what is our duty as those who are justified."
As Lutherans, we should have some major problems with statements such as this one. In Lutheranism, we often talk about God's proper work and His alien work. His proper work is the Gospel; what God has done in Christ to save us. His alien work is the Law.
You see clearly from statements such as Bolton's, Reformed Theology reverses this altogether. God's proper work in Calvinist world is the law. The Gospel is never God's proper work. Statements such as this one betray Reformed Theology's ideas about Christ and the Gospel. The Gospel is never God's final yes. It's never God's final word. It's never His proper work. The Gospel is only a means to drive us right back to the same thing that condemns us in the first place. Now why would God do that? Sounds a little silly when you see the statement for what it is. But the truth of the matter is, in Reformed Theology the end goal is always the law, not the Gospel.
Strikingly, this statement by a conservative Puritan is theologically reflective of much of mainstream Christianity now days. The Gospel is just a means, but then we must move beyond the Gospel to bigger and better things. In the case of Bolton and the Puritans (and modern denominations such as the OPC), we have to move right back to the thing that killed us in the first place: God's Law. In the case of much of modern day Christianity, it's a bunch of other cultural norms (or perhaps even counter-cultural norms).
It's hard to label this statement as legalism, since Bolton and the Puritans would never assent to a stance that spiritual life is gained through obedience to the Law, but to use a Lutheran term, it certainly bends heavily to the Pietistic side of things.
On the other hand, statements like this have a way of stripping the believer of all assurance of salvation. Instead of looking objectively to Christ, outside of you, the believer has to look to self, to see how well they are obeying the law that the Gospel drove them to. When you chuck the heterodox doctrine of limited atonement into the mix, this problem is magnified.
Puritans such as this simply will not look objectively to Christ crucified for their sins and the means of grace where Christ has promised to meet us - Word and Sacrament. They can't. Their theology will not allow it. Their rejection of the objectivity of the means of grace forces them to look to self for assurance. In this light, Bolton's statement is just consistent with his theology.
Statements like this get it all wrong. Bolton fails to realize that the entire life of a Christian is one of continual repentance, as Luther pointed out in the first of his famous 95 theses. The Christian life is never a life of continual victory and obedience to the law. It is one of continual repentance and forgiveness of sins. The third use of the law is there for Christians to see what is good and pleasing to God - not for us to be driven back to that law by the Gospel. The Gospel is always God's final word. It's His ultimate yes.
And if this is the case, the Gospel is not a means to an end, it is an end in itself. The Christian needs the law too, but mainly for repentance. We see the law and must admit we have not kept it, even while in Christ. Hence, we can never move beyond the Gospel. We must hear those sweet words of Absolution, of what Christ has done for us in the Word, and receive that body and blood in our mouths for the forgiveness of our sins. We continually need the Gospel. It is truly the last word, not a means to drive us back to the very thing that condemned us in the first place as fanatics like Bolton and the Puritans would have us believe.
+Pax+
5/2/16
THE MYSTERY OF THE FAITH
Lutheranism disagrees with both Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinism
and Arminianism are man-made systems formed to try and "reconcile" or
"qualify" or "re-interpret" the Word of God. People are uneasy with
paradox and mystery. Lutheranism takes God's Word as it stands without
trying to "reconcile" or "qualify" or "re-interpret" it.
God's Word teaches that we have no free will before conversion, yet we are still held accountable. We leave this in tension.
God's Word teaches that predestination is true, and is not based on foreseen faith, but purely on the will of God. Yet it also teaches that God desires the salvation of all. We leave this in tension.
God's Word teaches that although God has elected some, yet He loves all and sent His Son to forgive the sins of the entire world. We leave this in tension.
God's Word teaches that although God desires the salvation of all, yet has elected some, that God's grace can be resisted. We leave this in tension.
God's Word teaches that, if one leaves the faith and falls away, it was entirely their own fault. Yet God's Word teaches that if someone stays in the faith, it was purely because of God's monergistic grace. We leave this in tension.
God's Word teaches that many will fall away, yet it also teaches that we are 100% secure in Christ. We leave this in tension.
God's Word teaches that we will always find Christ as for us in His Word and in His Sacraments. We are to go there first, and we are not to speculate about God's hidden will or hidden decrees. We must look to Christ, and not to the hidden G-d.
You see, God's Word is practical and pastoral. It is not systematic. It is not supposed to academic or reconciled or figured out.
In the real world, things are not consistent. Things are messy.
You cannot make an ideal case for the real world.
You cannot make an ideal case for paradox.
You cannot make an ideal case for distinguishing the law and the Gospel.
Christ assumed our human nature.
This Man is God. This God is Man.
The Gospel is outside of you. It cannot be figured out.
Your sins are forgiven.
God's Word teaches that we have no free will before conversion, yet we are still held accountable. We leave this in tension.
God's Word teaches that predestination is true, and is not based on foreseen faith, but purely on the will of God. Yet it also teaches that God desires the salvation of all. We leave this in tension.
God's Word teaches that although God has elected some, yet He loves all and sent His Son to forgive the sins of the entire world. We leave this in tension.
God's Word teaches that although God desires the salvation of all, yet has elected some, that God's grace can be resisted. We leave this in tension.
God's Word teaches that, if one leaves the faith and falls away, it was entirely their own fault. Yet God's Word teaches that if someone stays in the faith, it was purely because of God's monergistic grace. We leave this in tension.
God's Word teaches that many will fall away, yet it also teaches that we are 100% secure in Christ. We leave this in tension.
God's Word teaches that we will always find Christ as for us in His Word and in His Sacraments. We are to go there first, and we are not to speculate about God's hidden will or hidden decrees. We must look to Christ, and not to the hidden G-d.
You see, God's Word is practical and pastoral. It is not systematic. It is not supposed to academic or reconciled or figured out.
In the real world, things are not consistent. Things are messy.
You cannot make an ideal case for the real world.
You cannot make an ideal case for paradox.
You cannot make an ideal case for distinguishing the law and the Gospel.
Christ assumed our human nature.
This Man is God. This God is Man.
The Gospel is outside of you. It cannot be figured out.
Your sins are forgiven.
5/1/16
"You Lutherans hold to works salvation since you affirm baptism saves!"
One of the most misunderstood doctrines ever is the Lutheran viewpoint of baptismal regeneration. In the world of most evangelicals, to hold to baptism saves in any form means one holds to one does work of baptism to contribute to salvation, and so to them, that is denial of both grace alone and faith alone. So we get accused of denying Christ alone saves us at the cross on top of that.
But that only highlights how badly they don't understand where we are coming from. We do not deny that Christ alone saves us at the cross. Nor do we deny it is by grace alone through faith alone we are saved by what Christ did for us 2000 years ago.
To us, baptism is not a human work we do to save ourselves. It is outward means of God's word delivered to us. In our understanding, Christ as God Incarnate comes to us through that outward means. We are passive receivers, by grace alone through faith alone of what Christ did for us 2000 years ago. He comes to us and offers us His forgiveness He won for us at the Cross through such outward means. Faith alone clings outwardly to what Christ did for us and given unto us in that objective outward means.
In our understanding, faith alone does not look inwards to what we do. Nor to our own faith even. We look outside ourselves to the objective promises of Christ's forgiveness offered unto us through outward means.
So we deny baptism is a work we do to earn Christ's forgiveness. It is God's work by which He brings us to Christ who washes us with His forgiveness, by His word. It is His word indeed, not just plain water, that makes baptism. We can look at baptism as the objective work the Holy Spirit did to bring us to Christ and to clothe us with Him and His forgiveness. We can also look at that as the work of the Holy Spirit to seal us. It is indeed sign and seal in that sense.
Folks may say it is commanded for preachers to carry out good works such as preaching and baptizing, so baptism then must be a human work. But they are ignoring the fact that their own argument then must apply also to preaching of the word. By such logic, they are saying they are saved by the word preached to them as if it is somehow their work. They will deny that, of course But they can't argue then baptism is our work when we convert on grounds of it being done to us by another (pastor) without also saying the word preached by the pastor to them for them to believe is somehow their work.
Here's the thing. Zero passages say baptism is our human work. We are told many times it is God's grace to us. 1 Peter 3:21 says baptism that saves you now. Mark 16:16 says those who believe and are baptized will be saved. Galatians 3:27 says those who have been baptized into Christ are also clothed with Him. Acts 22:16 says get up and be baptized, washing your sins and calling on His name. Acts 2:38 says repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 5:25-27 says Christ washed us with water through the Word.
These are explicit Scriptures. Who does the saving? God. Who forgives us of our sins? God.
So baptism is God's work of grace to us, not our own human work. We are receivers of God's grace which He chose to use the means of baptism to come to us with His word.
Folks will continually say look at Ephesians 2:1-9 saying God's grace alone through faith alone is what saves us. But that presents no problem for us. That passage speaks of God's grace as His work to make us alive with Christ when we were dead in our sins and trespasses to give us saving faith as a gift. Guess what Colossians 2:11-13 say is the means by which God makes us alive with Christ when we were dead in sins and trespasses? Yes, the passage says that we were buried with Christ in baptism and raised with Him to newness of life (see also Romans 6:1-4).
Or folks will argue that the thief on the Cross was saved without the benefits of baptism so that must negate any view of baptism saving.
But that is an argument that does not follow. First off, we do not hold to all unbaptized are lost (nor hold to all baptized are saved). We reject baptism is our work, but God's grace. We do not limit God's grace to only baptism. He is God. He can go outside of baptism to grant saving faith to even folks who never had a chance to be baptized before they were saved. Baptism is God's objective means of grace for the assurance of those who are in Christ and have been baptized, but not for us to assume those who are unbaptized are all lost (while the first half of Mark 16:16 says baptism is means of salvation for those who believe, the second half says only unbelief, not lack of baptism, condemns).
Secondly, such an argument does not take into account our understanding of the Incarnation (nor realizes that using that example actually undercuts their own denial of the real presence of Christ in regards to our conversion and continual reception of Him through means of grace). We hold to baptism (as well as the Eucharist) gives us what the thief on the Cross got- the real presence of Christ. the objective word of Christ's forgiveness, being one with Him in death and resurrection).
Thirdly, such an argument assumes (without any Scriptural proof) that the thief was unbaptized. We don't know either way. But to use that as an argument, without knowing, makes it an invalid argument.
Such an argument highlights how often folks caricatured our views. When they aren't arguing we hold to works based salvation, they are arguing we hold to all unbaptized are lost.
We reject both views.
Scriptures do not pit grace alone/faith alone passages against baptismal regeneration. Nor pit Christ saves alone passages against baptismal regeneration.
Indeed, we believe Scriptures teach baptismal regeneration when properly taught as means of the Gospel delivered to us, rather than treated as our work or as some form of law, actually go hand in hand with affirming grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to save us.
In actuality, the nasty side effect of denying any outward means of grace and seeing baptism as a human work or some form of law is that one ends up seeing baptism as something one accomplishes before God, which if anything undercuts the very grace alone and faith alone view one purports to defend in denying baptismal regeneration. And it gets worse, when one looks to one's own fruits or experience of faith for assurance. That is no different then from faith in own faith. Faith then becomes its own form of a human work when that occurs.
We affirm baptismal regeneration because Scriptures teaches it (and the witness of the entirety of church history attests to the fact that this is the historic Christian view of what Scriptures teach on the subject).
We make zero apologies for affirming that while also affirming grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
Here we stand.
But that only highlights how badly they don't understand where we are coming from. We do not deny that Christ alone saves us at the cross. Nor do we deny it is by grace alone through faith alone we are saved by what Christ did for us 2000 years ago.
To us, baptism is not a human work we do to save ourselves. It is outward means of God's word delivered to us. In our understanding, Christ as God Incarnate comes to us through that outward means. We are passive receivers, by grace alone through faith alone of what Christ did for us 2000 years ago. He comes to us and offers us His forgiveness He won for us at the Cross through such outward means. Faith alone clings outwardly to what Christ did for us and given unto us in that objective outward means.
In our understanding, faith alone does not look inwards to what we do. Nor to our own faith even. We look outside ourselves to the objective promises of Christ's forgiveness offered unto us through outward means.
So we deny baptism is a work we do to earn Christ's forgiveness. It is God's work by which He brings us to Christ who washes us with His forgiveness, by His word. It is His word indeed, not just plain water, that makes baptism. We can look at baptism as the objective work the Holy Spirit did to bring us to Christ and to clothe us with Him and His forgiveness. We can also look at that as the work of the Holy Spirit to seal us. It is indeed sign and seal in that sense.
Folks may say it is commanded for preachers to carry out good works such as preaching and baptizing, so baptism then must be a human work. But they are ignoring the fact that their own argument then must apply also to preaching of the word. By such logic, they are saying they are saved by the word preached to them as if it is somehow their work. They will deny that, of course But they can't argue then baptism is our work when we convert on grounds of it being done to us by another (pastor) without also saying the word preached by the pastor to them for them to believe is somehow their work.
Here's the thing. Zero passages say baptism is our human work. We are told many times it is God's grace to us. 1 Peter 3:21 says baptism that saves you now. Mark 16:16 says those who believe and are baptized will be saved. Galatians 3:27 says those who have been baptized into Christ are also clothed with Him. Acts 22:16 says get up and be baptized, washing your sins and calling on His name. Acts 2:38 says repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 5:25-27 says Christ washed us with water through the Word.
These are explicit Scriptures. Who does the saving? God. Who forgives us of our sins? God.
So baptism is God's work of grace to us, not our own human work. We are receivers of God's grace which He chose to use the means of baptism to come to us with His word.
Folks will continually say look at Ephesians 2:1-9 saying God's grace alone through faith alone is what saves us. But that presents no problem for us. That passage speaks of God's grace as His work to make us alive with Christ when we were dead in our sins and trespasses to give us saving faith as a gift. Guess what Colossians 2:11-13 say is the means by which God makes us alive with Christ when we were dead in sins and trespasses? Yes, the passage says that we were buried with Christ in baptism and raised with Him to newness of life (see also Romans 6:1-4).
Or folks will argue that the thief on the Cross was saved without the benefits of baptism so that must negate any view of baptism saving.
But that is an argument that does not follow. First off, we do not hold to all unbaptized are lost (nor hold to all baptized are saved). We reject baptism is our work, but God's grace. We do not limit God's grace to only baptism. He is God. He can go outside of baptism to grant saving faith to even folks who never had a chance to be baptized before they were saved. Baptism is God's objective means of grace for the assurance of those who are in Christ and have been baptized, but not for us to assume those who are unbaptized are all lost (while the first half of Mark 16:16 says baptism is means of salvation for those who believe, the second half says only unbelief, not lack of baptism, condemns).
Secondly, such an argument does not take into account our understanding of the Incarnation (nor realizes that using that example actually undercuts their own denial of the real presence of Christ in regards to our conversion and continual reception of Him through means of grace). We hold to baptism (as well as the Eucharist) gives us what the thief on the Cross got- the real presence of Christ. the objective word of Christ's forgiveness, being one with Him in death and resurrection).
Thirdly, such an argument assumes (without any Scriptural proof) that the thief was unbaptized. We don't know either way. But to use that as an argument, without knowing, makes it an invalid argument.
Such an argument highlights how often folks caricatured our views. When they aren't arguing we hold to works based salvation, they are arguing we hold to all unbaptized are lost.
We reject both views.
Scriptures do not pit grace alone/faith alone passages against baptismal regeneration. Nor pit Christ saves alone passages against baptismal regeneration.
Indeed, we believe Scriptures teach baptismal regeneration when properly taught as means of the Gospel delivered to us, rather than treated as our work or as some form of law, actually go hand in hand with affirming grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to save us.
In actuality, the nasty side effect of denying any outward means of grace and seeing baptism as a human work or some form of law is that one ends up seeing baptism as something one accomplishes before God, which if anything undercuts the very grace alone and faith alone view one purports to defend in denying baptismal regeneration. And it gets worse, when one looks to one's own fruits or experience of faith for assurance. That is no different then from faith in own faith. Faith then becomes its own form of a human work when that occurs.
We affirm baptismal regeneration because Scriptures teaches it (and the witness of the entirety of church history attests to the fact that this is the historic Christian view of what Scriptures teach on the subject).
We make zero apologies for affirming that while also affirming grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
Here we stand.
4/2/16
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.
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.
3/30/16
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.
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.
3/21/16
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.
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!
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!
3/10/16
"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.
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.
2/25/16
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
". . . 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.
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.
2/17/16
"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?
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.
- 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)