I began this blog at the beginning of this year. When I began it I knew, unlike other personal blogs, that it would be limited in time. I knew this because it was for a very limited purpose: to look together at what the Lutheran Confessions "say" about issues that still arise in The Church today. So I was going to eventually run out of material (sooner rather than later) because I was focusing not on fine distinctions in The Confessions themselves, but on their relevancy to specific issues that are actually on the table (whether they ought to be or not) in our culture and in The Church. I think I have done that, and I am grateful to all those who took the time to read my selections from The Lutheran Confessions along with my commentary on them and application to today.
I am leaving the blog up even though it is not active. I hope it will remain a resource for those who care what is written in The Lutheran Confessions that make up a significant portion of our self-definition as Lutherans. (There is a "denominational quiz" running around Facebook that "places" us in denominations. Not surprisingly, I did not find the "lutheran" characterization of doctrines very Lutheran at all.)
From time to time a particular issue may catch my attention that I feel warrants a post, and I will do so and let you know on Facebook that I have done so to give you the opportunity to reflect with me on the position of the text of the Lutheran Confessions.
Thank you again and God bless you in your reflections and your following and your serving.
I did not want to close my blog without a quote from The Lutheran Confessions. So I close with this from the final words of The Lutheran Confessions, the conclusion of The Formula of Concord.
"Therefore, in the presence of God and of all Christendom, among both our contemporaries and our posterity, we wish to have testified that the present explanation of all the foregoing controverted articles here explained, and none other, is our teaching, belief, and confession, in which by God's grace we shall appear with intrepid hearts before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ and for which we shall give an account."
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
Amazing Grace
The question has
been, Is the preaching of the Holy Gospel strictly speaking only a preaching of
grace
which proclaims the forgiveness of sins, or is it also a preaching of
repentance and reproof that condemns unbelief, since unbelief is condemned not
in the law but wholly through the Gospel?
6. But when the law and Gospel are opposed to each other, as
when Moses is spoken of as a teacher of the law in contrast to Christ as a
preacher of the Gospel, then we believe, teach, and confess that the Gospel is
not a proclamation of contrition and reproof but is, strictly speaking,
precisely a comforting and joyful message which does not reprove or terrify but
comforts consciences that are frightened by the law, directs them solely to the
merit of Christ, and raises them up again by the delightful proclamation of
God’s grace and favor acquired through the merits of Christ.
8. Nevertheless, as long as all this—namely, the passion and
death of Christ—proclaims God’s wrath and terrifies people, it is not, strictly
speaking, the preaching of the Gospel but the preaching of Moses and the law,
and therefore it is an “alien work” of Christ by which he comes to his proper
office—namely, to preach grace, to comfort, to make alive.
And this is the preaching of the Gospel, strictly speaking.
1. Hence we
reject and deem it as false and detrimental when men teach that the Gospel,
strictly speaking, is a proclamation of conviction and reproof and not
exclusively a proclamation of grace.
Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article V, Law and Gospel (emphasis added)
Two things up front. I like it better when I don't work on posts on my day off. But I end up doing it to myself. So enough whining. Secondly, this will be a longer post because the vast majority of the words I offer for your consideration are not mine.
GRACE has become almost a magical word in the ELCA. It is both a sword and shield, because anyone who does not agree with you "just doesn't understand grace." This tends to include pastors who preach that God might actually have in mind that we DO something, as well as the concept that God might think that certain things are NOT OK. "He just doesn't understand grace. If he understood grace better.... (fill in the blank)."
The words that I feel a compulsion to share with you today on the topic of grace are not mine. They are the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his work which in English we call "The Cost of Discipleship." The issue this brilliant theologian was addressing was the increasing tendency in The Church to "cheap grace." He proposed that true discipleship is based in "costly grace." And he set forth the difference between them in some detail. I want to add quickly that the man who wrote these words also wrote powerfully, "The Christian Faith is forgiveness of sins. Nothing more and nothing less." (Life Together) But forgiveness leads to "the joy of salvation" when there is a real sense of what we have been forgiven. That is why I included the portions above on the preaching of Law and Gospel. It is those who have a deep sense of sin who rejoice in the forgiveness received by God's grace and love through Jesus Christ. It we don't get sin...we won't appreciate grace. OK, enough, sorry. As promised, "The Cost of Discipleship."
“Cheap
grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves.
Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring
repentance, baptism without church discipline, communion without confession,
absolution without personal confession.
Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross,
grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.
“Costly grace is the gospel which must be
SOUGHT, again and again, the gift which must be ASKED for, the door at which a
man must KNOCK.
“Such grace is costly because it
calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus
Christ. It is costly because
it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only
true life. It is costly because
it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all - it is costly because it
cost God the life of his Son - ye were bought at a price - and what has cost
God much cannot be cheap for us. Above
all it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to
pay for our life, but delivered him up for us.
Costly grace is the Incarnation of God.
Costly grace is the sanctuary of God.”
“The price we are having to pay today in
the shape of the collapse of the organized church is only the inevitable
consequence of our policy of making grace available to all at too low a
cost. We gave away the word and
sacraments wholesale; we baptized, confirmed and absolved a whole nation
unasked and without condition...
But
the call to follow Jesus in the narrow way was hardly ever heard....
“Cheap
grace has turned out to be utterly merciless to our Evangelical Church.”
Thursday, September 13, 2012
On being Not Nice
"But it is manifest that the Roman pontiffs and their adherents defend godless doctrines and godless forms of worship, and it is plain that the marks of the Antichrist coincide with those of the pope's kingdom and his followers."
Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, The Marks of the Antichrist, written by Philip Melanchthon.
"The common people . . . have no knowledge whatever of Christian teaching, and unfortunately many pastors are quite incompetent and unfitted for teaching. Although the people are supposed to be Christian, are baptized, and receive the holy sacrament . . . they live as if they were pigs and irrational beasts, and now that the Gospel has been restored they have mastered the fine art of abusing liberty....
If any refuse to receive your instructions, tell them that they deny Christ and are no Christians. They should not be admitted to the sacrament, be accepted as sponsors in Baptism or be allowed to participate in any Christiain privileges. On the contrary, they should be turned over to the pope and his officials, and even to the devil himself."
Martin Luther's Preface to The Small Catechism
"Such shameful gluttons and servants of their bellies would make better swineheards or dogkeepers than spiritual guides and pastors." (Referring to pastors.)
"Indeed, even among the nobility there are some louts and skinflints who declare that we can do without pastors and preachers from now on because we have everything in books and can learn it all by ourselves. So they blithely let parishes fall into decay, and brazenly allow both pastors and preachers to suffer distress and hunger." (Referring to lay people.)
Martin Luther's Preface to The Large Catechism (parentheticals added)
These quotes from Philip Melanchthon and Martin Luther have something in common. They are not nice. They were not intended to be. The idea for this post came from a sermon that I did this summer during the five weeks of John 6. It became apparent to me on careful reading (over and over) that Jesus was saying things fairly regularly that were just not nice - and clearly not nice. It was equally apparent that Jesus was not trying to be. Then it struck me that what Jesus was being was KIND. He cared about these people. He loved them. In fact He loved them too much to coddle them when that is not what was best for them. I preached a sermon on John 6 I entitled, "Not Nice, but Kind." It seems to me that the Church is being hamstrung by niceness. Everything is about being nice. But everything NOT about being nice. Niceness is not a fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5. But kindness is.
Paul cursed a magician and false prophet in Cyprus, making him blind! (Acts 13: 4-12) And Peter cursed a magician who had converted in Samaria. (Acts 8: 18-24) Not nice.
So what's the difference? Here's what I shared with my congregation.
"Nice" does not want to upset anyone.
"Kind" is more concerned with the other’s good, whether they get upset or not. Kind wants the best for the other.
"Nice" wants to be liked. "Kind" wants the other to live well.
"Nice" likes people. "Kind" loves people.
Jesus loved people too much to leave them where they were - to leave them alone. Jesus led them to where they needed to be. Often Jesus was not nice. But He was kind.
Here's the thing. The Christian Faith is based upon a series of truth statements. Many people today try to pretend that is not so. But it is so. We call them Creeds, or also in the Lutheran tradition, Confessions. And in today's culture many people are offended by truth statements. They don't like them.
Now granted, Christianity is a relationship with God in Jesus Christ. But we don't get to just make up who we think Jesus is, or who we want Him to be. We share truth statements. Someone may decide it is not "nice" to make truth statements that exclude other religions or thought. But nice is not the issue. The question is, "It is true?"
A colleague and friend recently wrote (or quoted, I don't remember) that we ought not to say "This is true." Instead we ought to say, "I believe this to be true." My first thought was that Martin Luther made the statement famous: "This is most certainly true." But aside from that, I am willing to start there. Of course the truth claims that make up The Apostolic Creeds and The Lutheran Confessions could possibly be wrong. But I would take it a step further. "This is what I believe. This is why I believe it. (This would take a bit of time because there are LOTS of good reasons.) And this is why if it is true, then a statement contradicting it is not true." That seems fair to me. Now someone may still be offended that I am claiming that something is universally and objectively true irrespective of whether that person chooses to believe it or not. And further, I am claiming that what someone else believes is not true. But I really can't help what might offend any particular person.
Martin Luther had a tendency to name-calling. I laugh at it and enjoy it, but I would not recommend it as a argument technique. We don't have to be obnoxious. In fact, we shouldn't be. But on the other hand, we need not pretend that Christianity is not made up of truth claims, when, in fact, it is.
An apologist is one who defends the Christian faith. There is no need to apologize about being an apologist. (Sorry; couldn't resist.)
Two reminders as I close. The first is that to confess is "to agree with God." That is, to agree with God about WHAT IS TRUE! Second, and last, all Lutheran pastors have taken an oath to teach and preach the truth statements that are included within The Creeds and The Lutheran Confessions. It's not an option, although many treat it as if it were. That is why I have tried not to just spout my opinions in this blog project. There is WAY too much of that on internet blogs already. I have quoted The Lutheran Confessions, including The Creeds, to bring us back to the truth claims which have formed our faith.
“Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, is of infinite importance. The one thing it cannot be is moderately important.”
C. S. Lewis
Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, The Marks of the Antichrist, written by Philip Melanchthon.
"The common people . . . have no knowledge whatever of Christian teaching, and unfortunately many pastors are quite incompetent and unfitted for teaching. Although the people are supposed to be Christian, are baptized, and receive the holy sacrament . . . they live as if they were pigs and irrational beasts, and now that the Gospel has been restored they have mastered the fine art of abusing liberty....
If any refuse to receive your instructions, tell them that they deny Christ and are no Christians. They should not be admitted to the sacrament, be accepted as sponsors in Baptism or be allowed to participate in any Christiain privileges. On the contrary, they should be turned over to the pope and his officials, and even to the devil himself."
Martin Luther's Preface to The Small Catechism
"Such shameful gluttons and servants of their bellies would make better swineheards or dogkeepers than spiritual guides and pastors." (Referring to pastors.)
"Indeed, even among the nobility there are some louts and skinflints who declare that we can do without pastors and preachers from now on because we have everything in books and can learn it all by ourselves. So they blithely let parishes fall into decay, and brazenly allow both pastors and preachers to suffer distress and hunger." (Referring to lay people.)
Martin Luther's Preface to The Large Catechism (parentheticals added)
These quotes from Philip Melanchthon and Martin Luther have something in common. They are not nice. They were not intended to be. The idea for this post came from a sermon that I did this summer during the five weeks of John 6. It became apparent to me on careful reading (over and over) that Jesus was saying things fairly regularly that were just not nice - and clearly not nice. It was equally apparent that Jesus was not trying to be. Then it struck me that what Jesus was being was KIND. He cared about these people. He loved them. In fact He loved them too much to coddle them when that is not what was best for them. I preached a sermon on John 6 I entitled, "Not Nice, but Kind." It seems to me that the Church is being hamstrung by niceness. Everything is about being nice. But everything NOT about being nice. Niceness is not a fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5. But kindness is.
Paul cursed a magician and false prophet in Cyprus, making him blind! (Acts 13: 4-12) And Peter cursed a magician who had converted in Samaria. (Acts 8: 18-24) Not nice.
So what's the difference? Here's what I shared with my congregation.
"Nice" does not want to upset anyone.
"Kind" is more concerned with the other’s good, whether they get upset or not. Kind wants the best for the other.
"Nice" wants to be liked. "Kind" wants the other to live well.
"Nice" likes people. "Kind" loves people.
Jesus loved people too much to leave them where they were - to leave them alone. Jesus led them to where they needed to be. Often Jesus was not nice. But He was kind.
Here's the thing. The Christian Faith is based upon a series of truth statements. Many people today try to pretend that is not so. But it is so. We call them Creeds, or also in the Lutheran tradition, Confessions. And in today's culture many people are offended by truth statements. They don't like them.
Now granted, Christianity is a relationship with God in Jesus Christ. But we don't get to just make up who we think Jesus is, or who we want Him to be. We share truth statements. Someone may decide it is not "nice" to make truth statements that exclude other religions or thought. But nice is not the issue. The question is, "It is true?"
A colleague and friend recently wrote (or quoted, I don't remember) that we ought not to say "This is true." Instead we ought to say, "I believe this to be true." My first thought was that Martin Luther made the statement famous: "This is most certainly true." But aside from that, I am willing to start there. Of course the truth claims that make up The Apostolic Creeds and The Lutheran Confessions could possibly be wrong. But I would take it a step further. "This is what I believe. This is why I believe it. (This would take a bit of time because there are LOTS of good reasons.) And this is why if it is true, then a statement contradicting it is not true." That seems fair to me. Now someone may still be offended that I am claiming that something is universally and objectively true irrespective of whether that person chooses to believe it or not. And further, I am claiming that what someone else believes is not true. But I really can't help what might offend any particular person.
Martin Luther had a tendency to name-calling. I laugh at it and enjoy it, but I would not recommend it as a argument technique. We don't have to be obnoxious. In fact, we shouldn't be. But on the other hand, we need not pretend that Christianity is not made up of truth claims, when, in fact, it is.
An apologist is one who defends the Christian faith. There is no need to apologize about being an apologist. (Sorry; couldn't resist.)
Two reminders as I close. The first is that to confess is "to agree with God." That is, to agree with God about WHAT IS TRUE! Second, and last, all Lutheran pastors have taken an oath to teach and preach the truth statements that are included within The Creeds and The Lutheran Confessions. It's not an option, although many treat it as if it were. That is why I have tried not to just spout my opinions in this blog project. There is WAY too much of that on internet blogs already. I have quoted The Lutheran Confessions, including The Creeds, to bring us back to the truth claims which have formed our faith.
“Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, is of infinite importance. The one thing it cannot be is moderately important.”
C. S. Lewis
Friday, August 17, 2012
The Bread of Life and the blood of God.
"It is taught among us that the true body and blood of Christ are really present in the Supper of our Lord under the form of bread and wine and are there distributed and received." Augsburg Confession, Article X The Holy Supper.
"Now what is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer: It is the true body and blood of the Lord Christ in and under the bread and wine which we are commanded by Christ's word to eat and drink. As we said of Baptism that it is not mere water, so we say here that the sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine such as is served at the table. It is bread and wine comprehended in God's Word and connected with it." Large Catechism, Martin Luther, Part V.
As Lutherans we believe that the bread and the wine become for us the body and blood of Christ. And since Jesus Christ is God, then it can be said that the bread and wine become for us the body and blood of God. We are currently working our way through John 6 in the Lectionary. I will be preaching on the end of John 6 this Sunday. Jesus tells the people in Capernaum that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. To a Jew this was even more offensive than it sounds to us. Jews were not allowed to touch a dead body. To do so made them ritually unclean. Eat human flesh! And to be Kosher, of course, means to drain the meat of all blood (because the blood is life). To drink blood! The Greek word used by Jesus to describe the reaction of even His own followers is "scandal!"
In a way we cannot fully describe or define - thus the mystery - the bread and wine become for us the true body and true blood of God in Christ . . . because He said so.
As Lutherans we do not believe that the bread and wine merely represent or symbolize His body and blood, because if Jesus meant that, He would have said it. He said "IS." As Lutherans we also do not believe that the bread and wine change physically into flesh and blood. Here's the reference:
"In addition to the words of Christ and of St. Paul (the bread in the Lord's Supper 'is true body of Christ' or 'a participation in the body of Christ'), we at times also use the formulas 'under the bread, with the bread, in the bread.' We do this to reject the papistic (Roman Catholic) transubstantiation and to indicate the sacramental union between the untransformed substance of the bread and the body of Christ." Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article VII, The Lord's Supper.
The Lutheran understanding has been termed "consubstantiation" which I take to mean that the bread and wine do not change physically, but they become in a spiritual but not merely metaphorical way, the body and blood of God.
It is this mysterious truth that makes communion so powerful and meaningful for Lutherans. It IS the body and blood of God which we take inside us. Luther called it, essentially, tasting forgiveness. We refer to it as "the foretaste of the Feast to come." It really is a taste of heaven.
There are some ramifications to such a high understanding of the body and blood of God. One is "the ban." There has been some discussion and controversy regarding whether NOT serving someone is ever appropriate. While Luther said more about this elsewhere, the Confessions are not without references.
"So everyone who wishes to be a Christian and go to the sacrament should be familiar with them. For we do not intend to admit to the sacrament and administer it to those who do not know what they seek or why they come....
"For this reason we must make a distinction among men. Those who are shameless and unruly must be told to stay away, for they are not fit to receive the forgiveness of sins since they do not desire it and do not want to be good....
"The only exception is the person who desires no grace and absolution and has no intention to amend his life."
Large Catechism, Martin Luther, Part V, The Lord's Supper.
The most amazing (to me) example of this is Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, who exercized "the ban" against The Emperor! He was admitted to The Lord's Supper when he had confessed and repented before Ambrose!
There are ramifications that are a bit more mundane but are very telling. Unconsumed wine is never poured back. It is also never dumped down the sink (unless it is a special sink that goes straight into the ground). It's not just wine anymore. And bread that has been consecrated is never thrown away. It's not just bread anymore.
Sure it's a mystery. But sometimes the beginning of understanding what something is, is to understand what it is not.
A week from Sunday (we do not have communion every Sunday) we will gather with the saints throughout time and space and receive the gift of grace present in the body and blood God.
Amen.
"Now what is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer: It is the true body and blood of the Lord Christ in and under the bread and wine which we are commanded by Christ's word to eat and drink. As we said of Baptism that it is not mere water, so we say here that the sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine such as is served at the table. It is bread and wine comprehended in God's Word and connected with it." Large Catechism, Martin Luther, Part V.
As Lutherans we believe that the bread and the wine become for us the body and blood of Christ. And since Jesus Christ is God, then it can be said that the bread and wine become for us the body and blood of God. We are currently working our way through John 6 in the Lectionary. I will be preaching on the end of John 6 this Sunday. Jesus tells the people in Capernaum that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. To a Jew this was even more offensive than it sounds to us. Jews were not allowed to touch a dead body. To do so made them ritually unclean. Eat human flesh! And to be Kosher, of course, means to drain the meat of all blood (because the blood is life). To drink blood! The Greek word used by Jesus to describe the reaction of even His own followers is "scandal!"
In a way we cannot fully describe or define - thus the mystery - the bread and wine become for us the true body and true blood of God in Christ . . . because He said so.
As Lutherans we do not believe that the bread and wine merely represent or symbolize His body and blood, because if Jesus meant that, He would have said it. He said "IS." As Lutherans we also do not believe that the bread and wine change physically into flesh and blood. Here's the reference:
"In addition to the words of Christ and of St. Paul (the bread in the Lord's Supper 'is true body of Christ' or 'a participation in the body of Christ'), we at times also use the formulas 'under the bread, with the bread, in the bread.' We do this to reject the papistic (Roman Catholic) transubstantiation and to indicate the sacramental union between the untransformed substance of the bread and the body of Christ." Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article VII, The Lord's Supper.
The Lutheran understanding has been termed "consubstantiation" which I take to mean that the bread and wine do not change physically, but they become in a spiritual but not merely metaphorical way, the body and blood of God.
It is this mysterious truth that makes communion so powerful and meaningful for Lutherans. It IS the body and blood of God which we take inside us. Luther called it, essentially, tasting forgiveness. We refer to it as "the foretaste of the Feast to come." It really is a taste of heaven.
There are some ramifications to such a high understanding of the body and blood of God. One is "the ban." There has been some discussion and controversy regarding whether NOT serving someone is ever appropriate. While Luther said more about this elsewhere, the Confessions are not without references.
"So everyone who wishes to be a Christian and go to the sacrament should be familiar with them. For we do not intend to admit to the sacrament and administer it to those who do not know what they seek or why they come....
"For this reason we must make a distinction among men. Those who are shameless and unruly must be told to stay away, for they are not fit to receive the forgiveness of sins since they do not desire it and do not want to be good....
"The only exception is the person who desires no grace and absolution and has no intention to amend his life."
Large Catechism, Martin Luther, Part V, The Lord's Supper.
The most amazing (to me) example of this is Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, who exercized "the ban" against The Emperor! He was admitted to The Lord's Supper when he had confessed and repented before Ambrose!
There are ramifications that are a bit more mundane but are very telling. Unconsumed wine is never poured back. It is also never dumped down the sink (unless it is a special sink that goes straight into the ground). It's not just wine anymore. And bread that has been consecrated is never thrown away. It's not just bread anymore.
Sure it's a mystery. But sometimes the beginning of understanding what something is, is to understand what it is not.
A week from Sunday (we do not have communion every Sunday) we will gather with the saints throughout time and space and receive the gift of grace present in the body and blood God.
Amen.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
The Bread of Life
It has been awhile since my last post. I realized when I started this blog that topics would come pouring out at the beginning and tend to trickle as I moved along. These past weeks we have been working our way through John 6 "The Bread of Life." I decided that a blog on what The Confessions teach about communion, The Lord's Supper, Eucharist, would be timely. So I am working on it and hope to have it up soon. This coming post will be "very Lutheran" as the Lutheran perspective on communion is somewhat unique.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
BTW, Remember...
In light of my last post I thought a reminder was in order.
Remember...hell is NOT a witnessing tool. It is motivation to witness. (Thus says Chemnitz in Formula of Concord. And "this is most certainly true.")
Remember...hell is NOT a witnessing tool. It is motivation to witness. (Thus says Chemnitz in Formula of Concord. And "this is most certainly true.")
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Free for All?
"It is God's will that men should hear his Word and not stop their ears." Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article 2, Free Will.
"(N)amely...in his purpose and counsel God has ordained the following: 4. That he would justify and graciously accept into the adoption of children and into the inheritance of eternal life all who in sincere repentance and true faith accept Christ."
"On the contrary, as God has ordained in his counsel that the Holy Spirit would call, enlighten, and convert the elect through the Word and that he would justify and save all who accept Christ through true faith, so he has also ordained in his counsel that he would harden, reject, and condemn all who, when they are called through the Word, spurn the Word and persistently resist the Word."
"The reason why all who hear the Word do not come to faith and therefore receive the greater damnation is not that God did not want them to be saved. It is their own fault because they heard the Word of God not to learn but only to despise, blaspheme, and ridicule it, and they resisted the Holy Spirit who wanted to work within them, as was the case with the Pharisees and their party at the time of Christ."
Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article 6, Election. (emphasis added)
When I was in seminary I learned early on that there was a strong strain of universalism (universal salvation) running through the student body. This concerned me; so much so that I chose to write a Master's Thesis to graduate. It was not required for graduation and my degree - I chose it. I wrote 80 page on the human role in justification from a Lutheran perspective as an argument against the doctrine of universal salvation. The chapter on the Book of Concord teachings I entitled, "To Accept Him." The thesis itself was entitled, "Free for All?" Is salvation free for all, or is it only a free for all?
I have noticed two related tendencies in Lutheran circles lately. I think maybe they are related. As I have mentioned below, there is a tendency to minimize or even wipe away any distinctiveness in the Christian faith vis a vis other religions in the name of tolerance, or open-mindedness, or even niceness. The other tendency is to minimize the human role in receiving salvation, thereby minimizing the human role in sharing the message of salvation. If there is no eternal significance to whether anyone will ACCEPT CHRIST (the words of The Formula), then there is no real sense of urgency as to whether anyone believes or not (or in what anyone believes).
But if what we believe, or do not believe, does have eternal significance, then the sense of urgency that sent the Apostles to their deaths to tell the truth about Jesus and share the true and full Gospel Message is also pressed upon us. As I mentioned earlier, the Apostles were willing to die to share the truth about Jesus because they were totally convinced that the people to whom the Holy Spirit sent them were NOT OK. They needed to hear the truth about Jesus. People still do.
Of course we cannot save anyone; nor can we make anyone believe. The Holy Spirit does that.
"I believe that by my own reason or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to him. But the Holy Spirit has called me through the Gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, and sanctified and preserved me in truth faith...." Small Catechism, Creed, Third Article.
But God spreads the Good News through US.
If it mattered eternally whether someone "confessed with their mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believed in their heart that God raised him from the dead" (Romans 10), how would we share the Good News? And how often?
In my reading on leadership in The Church of the 21st Century (not as extensive as many), I have come across four traits that seem to be key for being who God has called us to be in this current cultural climate: HOPE, TRUST, COURAGE and TRUTH. As a disciple of the writings of C. S. Lewis ("disciple" really means student - but active student), I am reminded that the question we need to be asking "in such a time as this" (Esther) is not: Is it popular? Is it progressive (or emergent)? Is it hip or trendy? The question we need to be asking is: IS IT TRUE?
Our Mission Statement at St. John's is a good one: With glad and generous hearts we bring the Good News to all, in gratitude for God's grace.
In general, while joy and generosity are great, as is gratitude, there needs to be a whole lot more bringing of the Good News. It matters.
"(N)amely...in his purpose and counsel God has ordained the following: 4. That he would justify and graciously accept into the adoption of children and into the inheritance of eternal life all who in sincere repentance and true faith accept Christ."
"On the contrary, as God has ordained in his counsel that the Holy Spirit would call, enlighten, and convert the elect through the Word and that he would justify and save all who accept Christ through true faith, so he has also ordained in his counsel that he would harden, reject, and condemn all who, when they are called through the Word, spurn the Word and persistently resist the Word."
"The reason why all who hear the Word do not come to faith and therefore receive the greater damnation is not that God did not want them to be saved. It is their own fault because they heard the Word of God not to learn but only to despise, blaspheme, and ridicule it, and they resisted the Holy Spirit who wanted to work within them, as was the case with the Pharisees and their party at the time of Christ."
Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article 6, Election. (emphasis added)
When I was in seminary I learned early on that there was a strong strain of universalism (universal salvation) running through the student body. This concerned me; so much so that I chose to write a Master's Thesis to graduate. It was not required for graduation and my degree - I chose it. I wrote 80 page on the human role in justification from a Lutheran perspective as an argument against the doctrine of universal salvation. The chapter on the Book of Concord teachings I entitled, "To Accept Him." The thesis itself was entitled, "Free for All?" Is salvation free for all, or is it only a free for all?
I have noticed two related tendencies in Lutheran circles lately. I think maybe they are related. As I have mentioned below, there is a tendency to minimize or even wipe away any distinctiveness in the Christian faith vis a vis other religions in the name of tolerance, or open-mindedness, or even niceness. The other tendency is to minimize the human role in receiving salvation, thereby minimizing the human role in sharing the message of salvation. If there is no eternal significance to whether anyone will ACCEPT CHRIST (the words of The Formula), then there is no real sense of urgency as to whether anyone believes or not (or in what anyone believes).
But if what we believe, or do not believe, does have eternal significance, then the sense of urgency that sent the Apostles to their deaths to tell the truth about Jesus and share the true and full Gospel Message is also pressed upon us. As I mentioned earlier, the Apostles were willing to die to share the truth about Jesus because they were totally convinced that the people to whom the Holy Spirit sent them were NOT OK. They needed to hear the truth about Jesus. People still do.
Of course we cannot save anyone; nor can we make anyone believe. The Holy Spirit does that.
"I believe that by my own reason or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to him. But the Holy Spirit has called me through the Gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, and sanctified and preserved me in truth faith...." Small Catechism, Creed, Third Article.
But God spreads the Good News through US.
If it mattered eternally whether someone "confessed with their mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believed in their heart that God raised him from the dead" (Romans 10), how would we share the Good News? And how often?
In my reading on leadership in The Church of the 21st Century (not as extensive as many), I have come across four traits that seem to be key for being who God has called us to be in this current cultural climate: HOPE, TRUST, COURAGE and TRUTH. As a disciple of the writings of C. S. Lewis ("disciple" really means student - but active student), I am reminded that the question we need to be asking "in such a time as this" (Esther) is not: Is it popular? Is it progressive (or emergent)? Is it hip or trendy? The question we need to be asking is: IS IT TRUE?
Our Mission Statement at St. John's is a good one: With glad and generous hearts we bring the Good News to all, in gratitude for God's grace.
In general, while joy and generosity are great, as is gratitude, there needs to be a whole lot more bringing of the Good News. It matters.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Why share the Good News?
Thank you all for following my blog. My next entry will be on the question: Why share the Good News? At St. John's we have a Mission Statement: With glad and generous hearts we bring the Good News to all, in gratitude for God's grace.
We are working on living into that confession through the guidance of our Vision Statement. But in a world of universalism, relativism and general "tolerance", is there really any point in sharing the Good News? I will look at this topic from the perspective of The Lutheran Confessions "soon."
But for now, I am going on vacation with my wife until mid-July, and will write on this subject when we return.
Yours and His, but not in that order,
Bob
We are working on living into that confession through the guidance of our Vision Statement. But in a world of universalism, relativism and general "tolerance", is there really any point in sharing the Good News? I will look at this topic from the perspective of The Lutheran Confessions "soon."
But for now, I am going on vacation with my wife until mid-July, and will write on this subject when we return.
Yours and His, but not in that order,
Bob
Friday, June 22, 2012
Why I am not emergent / emerging.
There is a movement in The Church right now that is gaining momentum. It is alternately called "Emergence" or "The Emerging Church." One problem with the title to this post is that The Emerging Church is hard to define. One observer likened it to trying to nail Jello to a wall. In poking around YouTube I found a description of four (4) senses of Emerging that varied widely.
Now I confess that I have not read Dr. Tickle's (with a last name like mine I never make fun of anyone else's last name) book, "Emergence." But I had the opportunity to view an in-depth interview and discussion around her book on DVD. So I am working with the definition that she provided over the span of this extensive DVD series. She is not the only one who has "written the book" on Emergence, but she is certainly one of the key players. I will also mention Brian McLaren.
Dr. Tickle sets out an impressive history of The Christian Church. She has discovered and shared that there is an upheaval that takes place in The Christian Church once every 500 years (pretty much like clockwork). In this upheaval, traditional understandings of authority are questioned, and rejected, and then over a few hundred years, new authorities are established. As you can imagine, things are pretty "tense" during the time when one authority source is swept aside and and another has not yet taken its place. She posits that we are currently in that time. The authority of Scripture as "inerrent" and "infallible" has been swept aside, and no other authority has as yet risen to prominence. She describes this upheaval as "a rummage sale" or "yard sale" in which some things are sold off while others are retained.
Now I have no reason to doubt her assessment historically, or sociologically. This seems to me to be a fair description of postmodernism in which we find ourselves. (I will not take the time to reflect on whether we are now in post-postmodernism.) The question, of course, centers on what gets "sold off" - discarded.
The first and most obvious is the authority of Scripture. This is definitional to the current time since that is the "outgoing" authority. So the first reason I am not emergent is that I reject the need, the propriety, to assume away the authority of Scripture as "the norm of ... faith and life." (Oh yea, there's that pesky oath again that Lutheran pastors all take to become pastors.) To be sure, emergent pastors say that they honor and apply The Bible. But every post, every article, every video, from Emergence I have seen or read has the qualifier implied "except the parts that we now know better than and make no sense to us."
What else is set aside? Substitutionary atonement "has to go." Earlier in my discussion of substitutionary atonement I quoted Dr. Tickle in her DVD presentation of her book stating that the concept of atonement does not appear in The New Testament. This is nonsense. Also "down the drain" is an actual hell. In a documentary, Brian McLaren, one of the "fathers" of the movement stated that substitutionary atonement is unconscionable and must be rejected, along with a literal hell.
A recent article in The Alban Institute e-newsletter posited that if we would just stop talking about "the exclusivity and universality of the Christ event" (Jesus is The Way and The Truth and The Life and The only way to God) we would get way more young adults in our churches. It's not popular. It's not nice. It's not open-minded and tolerant. (But what if it's true?)
As I mentioned above, there may be many levels of emergence. Emerging Worship as a way of giving glory to God I am all for. Remember Leonard Sweet, "I will put The Living Water into any container from which people will drink. The Living Water never changes; containers change all the time." I am all for ways of worshiping that are engaging to people and connect them to God. But our understanding of the God we worship has boundaries. We are not free to simply accept any opinion regaring who God is. (Interestingly, in the documentary I viewed Leonard Sweet was thrown into the Emerging Church movement, when he wrote personally and directly to me that he believes The Emerging Church movement is a mistake, a turning away from The Church Christ has called us to be. It's complex and confusing.)
An example. Quite a few years ago now I was talking to a young adult friend in Latvia about the challenges of staying committed to Christ through college. When he exited the train a few stops before me, a woman came up and said that she had overheard our conversation and asked if I would read something and tell her what I thought. I agreed and read the passage she indicated in her book. She asked what I thought and I told her I thought it was nonsense. She was taken aback by this, of course, and asked, Why. I said that the passage was all about The Temple and the worship in the temple. There was no discussion of God at all. The Temple is useless apart from The God of the Temple. God is the focus of worship, not the temple. She was Bahai, and as a Bahai was not at all concerned about the God of the temple, but the worship in the temple itself. Bahai can worship whatever god they want in the temple. But we are the Church of Jesus Christ (not Later Day Saints). We do not have that "luxurgy." God has revealed Godself through Jesus Christ, God the Son, and in and through The Holy Bible, by God the Holy Spirit.
When it comes to The Emerging Church, the things I am prepared to "sell off" at "the rummage sale" are so few when it comes to God and salvation, that the sale becomes a waste of time and energy.
I am not emergent.
Now I confess that I have not read Dr. Tickle's (with a last name like mine I never make fun of anyone else's last name) book, "Emergence." But I had the opportunity to view an in-depth interview and discussion around her book on DVD. So I am working with the definition that she provided over the span of this extensive DVD series. She is not the only one who has "written the book" on Emergence, but she is certainly one of the key players. I will also mention Brian McLaren.
Dr. Tickle sets out an impressive history of The Christian Church. She has discovered and shared that there is an upheaval that takes place in The Christian Church once every 500 years (pretty much like clockwork). In this upheaval, traditional understandings of authority are questioned, and rejected, and then over a few hundred years, new authorities are established. As you can imagine, things are pretty "tense" during the time when one authority source is swept aside and and another has not yet taken its place. She posits that we are currently in that time. The authority of Scripture as "inerrent" and "infallible" has been swept aside, and no other authority has as yet risen to prominence. She describes this upheaval as "a rummage sale" or "yard sale" in which some things are sold off while others are retained.
Now I have no reason to doubt her assessment historically, or sociologically. This seems to me to be a fair description of postmodernism in which we find ourselves. (I will not take the time to reflect on whether we are now in post-postmodernism.) The question, of course, centers on what gets "sold off" - discarded.
The first and most obvious is the authority of Scripture. This is definitional to the current time since that is the "outgoing" authority. So the first reason I am not emergent is that I reject the need, the propriety, to assume away the authority of Scripture as "the norm of ... faith and life." (Oh yea, there's that pesky oath again that Lutheran pastors all take to become pastors.) To be sure, emergent pastors say that they honor and apply The Bible. But every post, every article, every video, from Emergence I have seen or read has the qualifier implied "except the parts that we now know better than and make no sense to us."
What else is set aside? Substitutionary atonement "has to go." Earlier in my discussion of substitutionary atonement I quoted Dr. Tickle in her DVD presentation of her book stating that the concept of atonement does not appear in The New Testament. This is nonsense. Also "down the drain" is an actual hell. In a documentary, Brian McLaren, one of the "fathers" of the movement stated that substitutionary atonement is unconscionable and must be rejected, along with a literal hell.
A recent article in The Alban Institute e-newsletter posited that if we would just stop talking about "the exclusivity and universality of the Christ event" (Jesus is The Way and The Truth and The Life and The only way to God) we would get way more young adults in our churches. It's not popular. It's not nice. It's not open-minded and tolerant. (But what if it's true?)
As I mentioned above, there may be many levels of emergence. Emerging Worship as a way of giving glory to God I am all for. Remember Leonard Sweet, "I will put The Living Water into any container from which people will drink. The Living Water never changes; containers change all the time." I am all for ways of worshiping that are engaging to people and connect them to God. But our understanding of the God we worship has boundaries. We are not free to simply accept any opinion regaring who God is. (Interestingly, in the documentary I viewed Leonard Sweet was thrown into the Emerging Church movement, when he wrote personally and directly to me that he believes The Emerging Church movement is a mistake, a turning away from The Church Christ has called us to be. It's complex and confusing.)
An example. Quite a few years ago now I was talking to a young adult friend in Latvia about the challenges of staying committed to Christ through college. When he exited the train a few stops before me, a woman came up and said that she had overheard our conversation and asked if I would read something and tell her what I thought. I agreed and read the passage she indicated in her book. She asked what I thought and I told her I thought it was nonsense. She was taken aback by this, of course, and asked, Why. I said that the passage was all about The Temple and the worship in the temple. There was no discussion of God at all. The Temple is useless apart from The God of the Temple. God is the focus of worship, not the temple. She was Bahai, and as a Bahai was not at all concerned about the God of the temple, but the worship in the temple itself. Bahai can worship whatever god they want in the temple. But we are the Church of Jesus Christ (not Later Day Saints). We do not have that "luxurgy." God has revealed Godself through Jesus Christ, God the Son, and in and through The Holy Bible, by God the Holy Spirit.
When it comes to The Emerging Church, the things I am prepared to "sell off" at "the rummage sale" are so few when it comes to God and salvation, that the sale becomes a waste of time and energy.
I am not emergent.
Monday, June 4, 2012
You and I were made for worship....
The Third Commandment: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."
"What does this mean? We should fear and love God, and so we should not despise his Word and the preaching of the same, but deem it holy and gladly hear and learn it."
Luther's Small Catechism
"Secondly, and most especially, we keep holy days so that people may have time and opportunity, which otherwise would not be available, to participate in public worship, that is, that they may assemble to hear and discuss God's Word and then praise God with song and prayer....
Places, times, persons, and the entire outward order of worship are therefore instituted and appointed in order that God's Word may exert its power publicly."
The Third Commandment: Luther's Large Catechism.
Sorry it took so long for me to get to this. This post was a bit harder for a different reason than others. It was difficult for me because it has been self-evident since I came into The Church 38 years ago, 2 months before my 18th birthday. I am a modern. I am learning to speak and present "postmodern" but I will always remain a modern. As an 18 year old beginning the experience of regular worship, it was not about how it moved me (though it did); nor about what I "got out of it" (though I did); but rather because it was TRUE. Gospel Truth that powerful demanded a response. And public worship of The One was the appropriate response. So I am old enough (as I write this on my birthday) to not "get" the postmodern (Gen X, Gen One / Next, Gen 3) calculation and processing, "Should I go to church tomorrow or not? Why yes? Why no?"
But I am also a realist. Somewhere along the way worship became like Cod Liver Oil. For those who are not 56 or older, Cod Liver Oil is exactly what it sounds like, and it tasted exactly as you'd expect. My parents did not ladle it down my throat while I held my nose. Actually I used it for turtle bait. It was that nasty. But many remember holding their nose and taking a ladle full as quickly as possible to get it down. Why this torture? It was good for you. So you did it no matter how nasty it was. For many in the older generations worship has become like Cod Liver Oil. (It is that way for the younger generations too, but they simply choose NOT to drink it.) Many go to worship because "it's good for you" whether or not they feel they really got anything out of it.
Not everything in postmodernism is bad. "Because it's good for you" is a reason to go to worhsip, but not the only reason. Worship should never have become that, and never needed to. It certainly does not need to be that today.
The worship wars rage on - only the form and tactics of battle have changed. I read a blog recently about worship in which the writer was bemoaning and criticizing the tendency of churches to offer multiple worship services. He was arguing that different worship services appeals to the consumer mentality of worshipers, which should be avoided, and that different styles separates and even polarizes the congregation into different worshipping bodies. I laughed (it was not a merry laugh) and thought, "OK, let's do ALL services as contemporary praise and worship services then." To which he would doubtless have responded, "No, not that. That is not what I meant." LOL, no doubt. (He provided an example on youtube of his "right" way to do worship. <sigh>)
Chris Tomlin is correct. "You and I were made to worship. You and I were born to love (God)." Worship IS the appropriate response to an Almighty, All-loving, Creator and Savior. John Calvin wrote that the purpose of life is "to glorify God, and to enjoy God's presence forever." Amen.
I close with a quote (loosely rendered) from Dr. Leonard Sweet's "Aqua Church" that changed the direction of my ministry and drove me to the Doctor of Ministry program in Preaching.
"I will put The Living Water into any container from which people will drink. The Living Water never changes. Containers can change all the time."
Worship is a VERB. "Just do it." (Sorry. It slipped.)
Rev. Dr. Robert C. Castro (Bob)
"What does this mean? We should fear and love God, and so we should not despise his Word and the preaching of the same, but deem it holy and gladly hear and learn it."
Luther's Small Catechism
"Secondly, and most especially, we keep holy days so that people may have time and opportunity, which otherwise would not be available, to participate in public worship, that is, that they may assemble to hear and discuss God's Word and then praise God with song and prayer....
Places, times, persons, and the entire outward order of worship are therefore instituted and appointed in order that God's Word may exert its power publicly."
The Third Commandment: Luther's Large Catechism.
Sorry it took so long for me to get to this. This post was a bit harder for a different reason than others. It was difficult for me because it has been self-evident since I came into The Church 38 years ago, 2 months before my 18th birthday. I am a modern. I am learning to speak and present "postmodern" but I will always remain a modern. As an 18 year old beginning the experience of regular worship, it was not about how it moved me (though it did); nor about what I "got out of it" (though I did); but rather because it was TRUE. Gospel Truth that powerful demanded a response. And public worship of The One was the appropriate response. So I am old enough (as I write this on my birthday) to not "get" the postmodern (Gen X, Gen One / Next, Gen 3) calculation and processing, "Should I go to church tomorrow or not? Why yes? Why no?"
But I am also a realist. Somewhere along the way worship became like Cod Liver Oil. For those who are not 56 or older, Cod Liver Oil is exactly what it sounds like, and it tasted exactly as you'd expect. My parents did not ladle it down my throat while I held my nose. Actually I used it for turtle bait. It was that nasty. But many remember holding their nose and taking a ladle full as quickly as possible to get it down. Why this torture? It was good for you. So you did it no matter how nasty it was. For many in the older generations worship has become like Cod Liver Oil. (It is that way for the younger generations too, but they simply choose NOT to drink it.) Many go to worship because "it's good for you" whether or not they feel they really got anything out of it.
Not everything in postmodernism is bad. "Because it's good for you" is a reason to go to worhsip, but not the only reason. Worship should never have become that, and never needed to. It certainly does not need to be that today.
The worship wars rage on - only the form and tactics of battle have changed. I read a blog recently about worship in which the writer was bemoaning and criticizing the tendency of churches to offer multiple worship services. He was arguing that different worship services appeals to the consumer mentality of worshipers, which should be avoided, and that different styles separates and even polarizes the congregation into different worshipping bodies. I laughed (it was not a merry laugh) and thought, "OK, let's do ALL services as contemporary praise and worship services then." To which he would doubtless have responded, "No, not that. That is not what I meant." LOL, no doubt. (He provided an example on youtube of his "right" way to do worship. <sigh>)
Chris Tomlin is correct. "You and I were made to worship. You and I were born to love (God)." Worship IS the appropriate response to an Almighty, All-loving, Creator and Savior. John Calvin wrote that the purpose of life is "to glorify God, and to enjoy God's presence forever." Amen.
I close with a quote (loosely rendered) from Dr. Leonard Sweet's "Aqua Church" that changed the direction of my ministry and drove me to the Doctor of Ministry program in Preaching.
"I will put The Living Water into any container from which people will drink. The Living Water never changes. Containers can change all the time."
Worship is a VERB. "Just do it." (Sorry. It slipped.)
Rev. Dr. Robert C. Castro (Bob)
Monday, May 14, 2012
I know you're out there....
"I know you're out there. I can hear you breathing."
As I have mentioned, many of my ideas for posts come from discussions / strings on the ELCA Facebook Group. I was considering a post on Repentance. But then I had another idea. I have made posts on topics that I thought very important based upon discussions taking place among pastors. But I have not asked you to chime in on what you think is important. Are there topics that you would like to see covered? If I were not able reflect on the topics of interest to you directly from The Lutheran Confessions (Not everything is covered, although they are pretty comprehensive.) I would certainly be willing to reflect based upon how I read The Bible. (And my last post was a summary of how I read Scripture.)
Are there questions you would like to discuss or see discussed? I will check back from time to time to see if one is posted here as a comment. But feel free to send suggestions to my e-mail as well. You can use lauva1956@gmail.com. But I think it would be better to use my Yahoo address: lauva_1@yahoo.com. The Yahoo account I check every day; the gmail account only periodically.
Thank you all for tuning in.
Rev. Dr. Robert C. Castro (LOL, Bob.)
As I have mentioned, many of my ideas for posts come from discussions / strings on the ELCA Facebook Group. I was considering a post on Repentance. But then I had another idea. I have made posts on topics that I thought very important based upon discussions taking place among pastors. But I have not asked you to chime in on what you think is important. Are there topics that you would like to see covered? If I were not able reflect on the topics of interest to you directly from The Lutheran Confessions (Not everything is covered, although they are pretty comprehensive.) I would certainly be willing to reflect based upon how I read The Bible. (And my last post was a summary of how I read Scripture.)
Are there questions you would like to discuss or see discussed? I will check back from time to time to see if one is posted here as a comment. But feel free to send suggestions to my e-mail as well. You can use lauva1956@gmail.com. But I think it would be better to use my Yahoo address: lauva_1@yahoo.com. The Yahoo account I check every day; the gmail account only periodically.
Thank you all for tuning in.
Rev. Dr. Robert C. Castro (LOL, Bob.)
Friday, April 27, 2012
The Sword of the Spirit / The Word of God
1.We believe,
teach, and confess that the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New
Testaments are the only rule and norm according to which all doctrines and
teachers alike must be appraised and judged, as it is written in Ps. 119:105,
“Thy word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” And St. Paul says in
Gal. 1:8, “Even if an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary
to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.”[1]
3…In this way
the distinction between the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments and
all other writings is maintained, and which as the only touchstone all
doctrines should and must be understood and judged as good or evil, right or
wrong.
Epitome of the
Formula of Concord, Rule and Norm, Part
I. Articles 1, 3
[1] The Book of Concord the confessions of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church. 1959 (T. G. Tappert, Ed.) (464). Philadelphia:
Mühlenberg Press.
This is another one of those posts which one would think would be self-evident. So I feel like apologizing, but I'm not going to, because in our culture today it is not self evident.
What is the role of The Holy Bible in our Faith? If you ask any ELCA Lutheran pastor if he or she teaches in accordance with the Bible, he or she will answer, "Yes, of course." But it is axiomatic that the Bible must be interpreted. The lense through which we read the Bible is call a Hermeneutic. Most ELCA theologians and pastors, including myself, do not apply a hermeneutic of literalism. Not everything in the Bible was intended to be taken literally. Given that, to take everything literally is actually not a faithful application of Scripture. But the danger is obvious. What in the Bible should be taken literally and what ought not to be?
A related issue is the question of "infallibility" and "inerrancy." The professors at Lutheran School of Theology presented an excellent case for taking the position that infallibility and inerrancy asks the wrong question. When I first began seminary in August of 1994, we were assigned an article by the late Dr. Joseph Sittler. It was an excellent argument for the place of Scripture in faith. I do not recall a better one. (And I used to get paid to make and analyze arguments.) He argued that making the issue "infallibility" or "inerrancy" (These are virtually synonymous, meaning totally without error of any kind.) not only asks the wrong question, but presents a danger to faith. By basing faith upon these concepts, if it is demonstrated to someone that there is an error (even if the demonstration is incorrect) the faith of the person is at risk. Dr. Sittler proposed an excellent definition of the place of the Bible in our faith.
The Bible is the incomparable testimony of the nature, the work and the will of God.
(Emphasis added. I did not place the statement in quotes because I have been unable to verify the exact words from the article. The Archivist of Dr. Sittler's works at LSTC is graciously researching to find the exact reference to confirm the quote. If any word is in error, I will gladly make the correction in a future post as this is a very important definition of the place of Scripture for Faith.)
I emphasize the word "incomparable" because this is the word upon which all turns. Y'all know what that means. Nothing compares. Nothing rules over scripture. Nothing is its judge. Not psychology or sociology, not science (or pseudo-science), not any form of criticism - nothing. (I get that we do not worship The Bible; we worship the God of the Bible. And Jesus Himself IS The Word of God. But the reference here at in the oath of ordination refers to The Bible.)
When I entered seminary our two children were in LCMS School. As a lawyer we could pay the tuition and did. As a pastor we could not. A friend of my daughter called her to tell her about the new church they were attending. If you were a member, then there was no tuition. So with the consent of my pastor and the consent of the LCMS senior pastor, my wife and children became Missouri Synod the four years I was in seminary. The senior pastor was well known in LCMS circles and eventually went on to a professorship at Concordia, Fort Wayne. We talked. He asked me one time about historical criticism. This was the main issue that divided the LCMS at Concordia, St. Louis, resulting in the formation of The Seminary of Jesus Christ in Exile (Seminex). My response was this (having been recently taught the historical method). (Many of my professors at LSTC were the ones who had left in protest.) The historical method is a tool. Like any tool it can be used, or it can be abused. A hammer can pound a nail or a skull. A screwdriver and push a screw or pierce a heart. When the historical method is used to help us understand and apply Scripture to our lives, it is a tool being used for its intended purpose. When it is used to "tell us" which verses in the Bible we are free to ignore, it is being abused.
If I had a dollar for every time I shared The Bible on a particular issue and had the retort given, "We don't proof text", well...you know. In the Church there is a dangerous tendency to find "reasons" (translate excuses) to not apply The Bible in what Luther called "its plain meaning" or plain sense. There are many reasons for this, I think. Our culture has things it does not want to believe. So there is a temptation to interpret those very things away when they appear in Scripture.
I also love the quote attributed to Mark Twain. When asked if it bothered him that so many things in The Bible are so hard to understand, he responded, "Actually, to tell the truth, I am much more troubled by the parts that are very clear."
This unwillingness to apply the plain sense impacts all of the questions that I have addressed below. The deficiency, as I have argued it, in almost every case comes from being unwilling or unable to apply The Word of God in its plain sense.
Of course Jesus is God (whatever Dr. Dominic Crossan, Dr. Marcus Borg, and Dr. Bart Ehrman may argue otherwise to their disciples).
Of course the New Testament includes the concept of atonement.
Of course I believe in angels and demons.
Of course I cannot teach that everyone goes to heaven (even if in God's sovereignty and love and grace it turns out that all will). God in Christ has told us what Good News to preach.
When teaching on The Bible in my beloved Latvia, I came up with 5 principles for reading and applying The Word of God that I have found helpful. I have used them in presenting The Alpha Course as well. I list them here without the refences and discussion. If you are interested I am happy to provide the examples used to demonstrate the points. They are:
1. Everything in The Bible is true, but not everything is in The Bible.
2. We need to use our God-given reason when reading The Bible.
3. We need to read The Bible in its context (historical and literary).
4. Not everything in The Bible is for us; and not everything in The Bible is forever.
5. Not everything in The Bible was meant to be taken literally.
I close by reposting the oath that I took, that all ELCA pastors (and I assume other Lutheran pastors).
It's not a word game. It's not a battle over opinions.
The Bible is the incomparable testimony of the nature, the work and the will of God.
Amen.
The church in which
you are to be ordained
confesses
that the Holy Scriptures are the word of God and are the norm of its faith and
life.
We accept, teach, and confess the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian Creeds.
We also acknowledge the Lutheran Confessions
as true witnesses and faithful expositions of the Holy Scriptures.
Will you therefore preach and teach in accordance with the Holy Scriptures
and these creeds and confessions?
Each ordinand responds: I will, and I ask God to help me.
We accept, teach, and confess the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian Creeds.
We also acknowledge the Lutheran Confessions
as true witnesses and faithful expositions of the Holy Scriptures.
Will you therefore preach and teach in accordance with the Holy Scriptures
and these creeds and confessions?
Each ordinand responds: I will, and I ask God to help me.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
I believe in the Resurrection of the body.
"The term 'resurrection of the flesh,' however, is not well chosen. When we Germans hear the word Fleisch, we think no farther than the butcher shop. Idiomatically we would say 'resurrection of the body.' However, this is not of great importance, as long as the words are rightly understood."
Large Catechism, Apostles' Creed, Article III.
"Fourthly, concerning the doctrine of the resurrection, Scripture testifies that precisely the substance of this our flesh, but without sin, shall arise, and that in eternal life we shall have and keep precisely this soul, although without sin. If there were no difference whatsoever between our corrupted body and soul on the one hand and original sin on the other, then it would follow, contrary to this article of our Christian faith, either that our flesh would not rise on Judgment Day and that in eternal life, instead of this essence of our body and soul, we should have another substance or another soul since we there shall be without sin...."
Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article I, Original Sin.
I struggled with this one. I had to spend a lot more time in the Book of Concord than I thought I would. What the quote of Martin Luther in the Large Catechism says to me is that the contributors to The Lutheran Confessions took it as self-evident that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, and that we will as well. The Apostles' Creed says that we believe in the resurrection of the body, so they did believe it. Imagine.
The Scripture reference for this is Luke 24: 36-43. In this resurrection appearance, the apostles think Jesus is a spirit after his resurrection. First Jesus tells them he is "flesh and bone". Then to prove it, he eats a piece of fish in their presence. Given the lengths to which Jesus went to demonstrate that he was bodily raised, and given the clarity of The Apostles' Creed that we believe in "the resurrection of the body," it may seem odd to post on the topic of whether Jesus bodily rose from the dead, and that we will as well. But Gnostics are alive and well in the world today. (Gnostics believe that physical is "bad" and spirit is "good" so there is no bodily resurrection for Jesus or for us.) And each year at this time of year Drs. Crossan and Borg of The Historical Jesus Movement (and The Jesus Seminar) gain notoriety and money by selling the conclusion that despite what the confessors found self-evident, somehow Jesus did not bodily rise from the dead.
Most of the topics I have raised in this blog come from actual "discussions", either face to face or digitally. The discussion last week was a proposition that there is no evidence for The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is something we have to just accept on "blind faith" because there is no evidence. Two years ago, after reading Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" and Josh McDowell's "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," I wrote a closing argument (rebuttal summary) in the hypothetical case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. As a disciple of C. S. Lewis, obviously I am convinced that there is evidence for our belief that The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is an historical fact, in the sense that it actually occurred in history. (I have that presentation on DVD BTW.) It is not surprising that The Historical Jesus proponents would deny a bodily resurrection, since they also deny the divinity of Christ. The post earlier on the divinity of Christ came from a discussion at a leadership event in which a pastor shared that he did not believe that Jesus is God because Dr. Crossan had demonstrated that he is not. Really? These heresies go together. And they both have the same intent: an attempt to set aside the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as The Way and The Truth and The Life.
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the most important event in the history of history. It demonstrated that Jesus was exactly who he said he was, and that God keeps God's promises. Don't allow the wild speculations of a handful of scholars steal your hope and joy this Easter season. He is risen indeed. And because he lives, we too shall live.
I believe in the resurrection of the body.
Large Catechism, Apostles' Creed, Article III.
"Fourthly, concerning the doctrine of the resurrection, Scripture testifies that precisely the substance of this our flesh, but without sin, shall arise, and that in eternal life we shall have and keep precisely this soul, although without sin. If there were no difference whatsoever between our corrupted body and soul on the one hand and original sin on the other, then it would follow, contrary to this article of our Christian faith, either that our flesh would not rise on Judgment Day and that in eternal life, instead of this essence of our body and soul, we should have another substance or another soul since we there shall be without sin...."
Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article I, Original Sin.
I struggled with this one. I had to spend a lot more time in the Book of Concord than I thought I would. What the quote of Martin Luther in the Large Catechism says to me is that the contributors to The Lutheran Confessions took it as self-evident that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, and that we will as well. The Apostles' Creed says that we believe in the resurrection of the body, so they did believe it. Imagine.
The Scripture reference for this is Luke 24: 36-43. In this resurrection appearance, the apostles think Jesus is a spirit after his resurrection. First Jesus tells them he is "flesh and bone". Then to prove it, he eats a piece of fish in their presence. Given the lengths to which Jesus went to demonstrate that he was bodily raised, and given the clarity of The Apostles' Creed that we believe in "the resurrection of the body," it may seem odd to post on the topic of whether Jesus bodily rose from the dead, and that we will as well. But Gnostics are alive and well in the world today. (Gnostics believe that physical is "bad" and spirit is "good" so there is no bodily resurrection for Jesus or for us.) And each year at this time of year Drs. Crossan and Borg of The Historical Jesus Movement (and The Jesus Seminar) gain notoriety and money by selling the conclusion that despite what the confessors found self-evident, somehow Jesus did not bodily rise from the dead.
Most of the topics I have raised in this blog come from actual "discussions", either face to face or digitally. The discussion last week was a proposition that there is no evidence for The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is something we have to just accept on "blind faith" because there is no evidence. Two years ago, after reading Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" and Josh McDowell's "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," I wrote a closing argument (rebuttal summary) in the hypothetical case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. As a disciple of C. S. Lewis, obviously I am convinced that there is evidence for our belief that The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is an historical fact, in the sense that it actually occurred in history. (I have that presentation on DVD BTW.) It is not surprising that The Historical Jesus proponents would deny a bodily resurrection, since they also deny the divinity of Christ. The post earlier on the divinity of Christ came from a discussion at a leadership event in which a pastor shared that he did not believe that Jesus is God because Dr. Crossan had demonstrated that he is not. Really? These heresies go together. And they both have the same intent: an attempt to set aside the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as The Way and The Truth and The Life.
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the most important event in the history of history. It demonstrated that Jesus was exactly who he said he was, and that God keeps God's promises. Don't allow the wild speculations of a handful of scholars steal your hope and joy this Easter season. He is risen indeed. And because he lives, we too shall live.
I believe in the resurrection of the body.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Let's review.
I am planning my next post on The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. As I head in to that post, I thought this would be a good time to review what I have attempted to demonstrate from The Lutheran Confessions, and from Scripture, so far.
Let's review.
1. The Lutheran Confessions (including the ancient creeds) continue to be important to our faith walk today. They not only define what it is to be Lutheran, they define what it is to be Christian.
2. Jesus is Eternal God, just as the Nicene Creed sets forth. This is what distinguishes Christianity from every other religion "in the history of history."
3. Jesus died for our sins, as satisfaction for our sins by His blood. There are differing "theories" of atonement, descriptions of HOW this works, but THAT it works is essential.
4. The writers of the Lutheran Confessions wrote believing that there will be a hell and there will be human beings that inhabit it forever along with the demons. We "chuck" this doctrine to our own peril and the eternal peril of those we love (which ought to be everyone). Jesus spoke quite a bit about hell and damnation.
5. The writers of the Lutheran Confessions took at face value the declarations in Scripture that angels and demons actually exist and actually impact the lives of human beings.
6. Martin Luther referred to the good that we do as "faith active in love." The Lutheran Confessions make it quite clear that we live out our faith in acts of love and obedience, what Luther also referred to as "living wet" - living out our baptism every day.
7. Jesus is the only way to heaven. He said so (John 14:6) and the confessors believed Him. Is is possible that God has another way? God is God. But again, we are responsible for The Message that has been shared with us. We don't deny the words of Jesus Himself because we find them unpopular.
8. Our human natures are totally stained by sin. God created our human natures "good" and they remain so, but the stain covers them completely. The reason Jesus is the only way, the reason His death matters eternally, is that only His blood removes the stain. There is no where else to go.
I have argued at the beginning of this blog that our ordination oath obligates us to teach in accordance with The Lutheran Confessions. Some have stated that they do so "in so far as they are a faithful exposition of scripture." But I posted the oath below to demonstrate that those words do not appear in the oath. Instead we confess that they ARE a faithful exposition of Scripture. And for each of these points I have gone the next step to demonstrate that they do in fact faithfully convey the teachings of Scripture, our norm of faith.
As Resurrection Sunday approaches, what my Latvian brothers and sisters call, Lieldienas (The Great Day) we will look closely together at what The Lutheran Confessions set forth regarding the center of Christian Faith, the Resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Thank you for walking with me.
Let's review.
1. The Lutheran Confessions (including the ancient creeds) continue to be important to our faith walk today. They not only define what it is to be Lutheran, they define what it is to be Christian.
2. Jesus is Eternal God, just as the Nicene Creed sets forth. This is what distinguishes Christianity from every other religion "in the history of history."
3. Jesus died for our sins, as satisfaction for our sins by His blood. There are differing "theories" of atonement, descriptions of HOW this works, but THAT it works is essential.
4. The writers of the Lutheran Confessions wrote believing that there will be a hell and there will be human beings that inhabit it forever along with the demons. We "chuck" this doctrine to our own peril and the eternal peril of those we love (which ought to be everyone). Jesus spoke quite a bit about hell and damnation.
5. The writers of the Lutheran Confessions took at face value the declarations in Scripture that angels and demons actually exist and actually impact the lives of human beings.
6. Martin Luther referred to the good that we do as "faith active in love." The Lutheran Confessions make it quite clear that we live out our faith in acts of love and obedience, what Luther also referred to as "living wet" - living out our baptism every day.
7. Jesus is the only way to heaven. He said so (John 14:6) and the confessors believed Him. Is is possible that God has another way? God is God. But again, we are responsible for The Message that has been shared with us. We don't deny the words of Jesus Himself because we find them unpopular.
8. Our human natures are totally stained by sin. God created our human natures "good" and they remain so, but the stain covers them completely. The reason Jesus is the only way, the reason His death matters eternally, is that only His blood removes the stain. There is no where else to go.
I have argued at the beginning of this blog that our ordination oath obligates us to teach in accordance with The Lutheran Confessions. Some have stated that they do so "in so far as they are a faithful exposition of scripture." But I posted the oath below to demonstrate that those words do not appear in the oath. Instead we confess that they ARE a faithful exposition of Scripture. And for each of these points I have gone the next step to demonstrate that they do in fact faithfully convey the teachings of Scripture, our norm of faith.
As Resurrection Sunday approaches, what my Latvian brothers and sisters call, Lieldienas (The Great Day) we will look closely together at what The Lutheran Confessions set forth regarding the center of Christian Faith, the Resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Thank you for walking with me.
Monday, March 12, 2012
St. Valentine and St. Patrick
I love the stories of St. Valentine and St. Patrick. I love remembering them on their "day". But the celebration is always made bittersweet for me by the ironic cultural trappings we have used to surround these days.
About a hundred years after The Apostle Paul's life was ended by the emporer in Rome, there was a priest in Rome by the name of Valentine. When the emperor banned marriage for soldiers conscripted in the Roman army, Valentine let it be known through the Christian underground that he was willing to perform secret marriages before God for Christian soldiers. He was eventually discovered, arrested, tried, and the Emperor Claudius took his head (he was a Roman citizen) in the same manner of Paul's execution. He died for the sake of love. The date of his death was February 14th. Valentine (later sainted by the church) stood for Christ in a pagan culture, against paganism, for the truth of Jesus Christ. And how do we remember St. Valentine's Day - the day of this great saint of God in Jesus Christ? Cupid, pagan god of love. Cupid was his Roman name. In the "original" Greek he is Eros, god of erotic love. St. Valentine stood in the Name of Jesus Christ, the one true God of agape - unconditional God-love. I Corinthians 13.
Hundreds of years later, a teen named Patrick was at home in the area now France, when he was captured by raiders and taken as a slave to the island of Ireland. He lived among the pagan people of Ireland for many, many years, his young adulthood, before finally escaping back to his homeland. But God the Holy Spirit moved on Patrick's Christian (Christ-loving) heart, filling it with love for those who had captured and enslaved (and often brutalized) him. Patrick became driven to return to the island of his enslavement with the Good News of Jesus Christ, who is The Way, and The Truth, and The Life. Pouring out his life for the people of Ireland and being "marked for death" more than once, he started over 300 churches in Ireland to the honor and glory of The Name. He battled paganism and superstition across Ireland. And how do we remember St. Patrick's Day in our culture? Leprechauns (and, or course, public drunkenness).
I love the story of St. Patrick for another important reason. The Holy Spirit - GOD - drove St. Patrick to Ireland because the people there were NOT OK. THEY were enslaved in darkness of paganism and superstition, and God would have that end. So God sent Patrick with The Truth about Jesus Christ, the ONLY way to heaven, so that the peoples of Ireland could be welcomed into what really is the one true faith. Of course there is truth in all religions. To concede that is to concede nothing. All other religions are simply in error when in comes to the person, the nature, the work of Jesus Christ. (I discussed this at some length below in the post on why Jesus really is the only way, and will not repeat it here.)
The point is this. As the followers of Jesus, until we get that the Good News we have to share can't be gotten anywhere else and can't be given by anyone else (other than the followers) we have not yet begun to do what Jesus commissioned us to do.
Soli Deo Gloria - to God alone be glory.
Blessed St. Patrick's Day.
(BTW, St. Patrick's Breastplate is pretty easily available online, but if you would like me to send you the very readable and poetic version I discovered and formatted for use in worship and meetings, let me know and I would be happy to send it out.)
About a hundred years after The Apostle Paul's life was ended by the emporer in Rome, there was a priest in Rome by the name of Valentine. When the emperor banned marriage for soldiers conscripted in the Roman army, Valentine let it be known through the Christian underground that he was willing to perform secret marriages before God for Christian soldiers. He was eventually discovered, arrested, tried, and the Emperor Claudius took his head (he was a Roman citizen) in the same manner of Paul's execution. He died for the sake of love. The date of his death was February 14th. Valentine (later sainted by the church) stood for Christ in a pagan culture, against paganism, for the truth of Jesus Christ. And how do we remember St. Valentine's Day - the day of this great saint of God in Jesus Christ? Cupid, pagan god of love. Cupid was his Roman name. In the "original" Greek he is Eros, god of erotic love. St. Valentine stood in the Name of Jesus Christ, the one true God of agape - unconditional God-love. I Corinthians 13.
Hundreds of years later, a teen named Patrick was at home in the area now France, when he was captured by raiders and taken as a slave to the island of Ireland. He lived among the pagan people of Ireland for many, many years, his young adulthood, before finally escaping back to his homeland. But God the Holy Spirit moved on Patrick's Christian (Christ-loving) heart, filling it with love for those who had captured and enslaved (and often brutalized) him. Patrick became driven to return to the island of his enslavement with the Good News of Jesus Christ, who is The Way, and The Truth, and The Life. Pouring out his life for the people of Ireland and being "marked for death" more than once, he started over 300 churches in Ireland to the honor and glory of The Name. He battled paganism and superstition across Ireland. And how do we remember St. Patrick's Day in our culture? Leprechauns (and, or course, public drunkenness).
I love the story of St. Patrick for another important reason. The Holy Spirit - GOD - drove St. Patrick to Ireland because the people there were NOT OK. THEY were enslaved in darkness of paganism and superstition, and God would have that end. So God sent Patrick with The Truth about Jesus Christ, the ONLY way to heaven, so that the peoples of Ireland could be welcomed into what really is the one true faith. Of course there is truth in all religions. To concede that is to concede nothing. All other religions are simply in error when in comes to the person, the nature, the work of Jesus Christ. (I discussed this at some length below in the post on why Jesus really is the only way, and will not repeat it here.)
The point is this. As the followers of Jesus, until we get that the Good News we have to share can't be gotten anywhere else and can't be given by anyone else (other than the followers) we have not yet begun to do what Jesus commissioned us to do.
Soli Deo Gloria - to God alone be glory.
Blessed St. Patrick's Day.
(BTW, St. Patrick's Breastplate is pretty easily available online, but if you would like me to send you the very readable and poetic version I discovered and formatted for use in worship and meetings, let me know and I would be happy to send it out.)
Monday, March 5, 2012
Total Depravity?
TOTAL DEPRAVITY?
Formula of Concord: 2, 11, 85
Formula
of Concord: 1, 1, 3
On the other hand, we believe, teach, and confess
that original sin is not a slight corruption of human nature, but rather a
corruption so deep that there is nothing sound or uncorrupted left in the human
body or soul, in its internal or external powers. Instead, as the church sings,
“Through Adam’s fall human nature and our essence are completely corrupted.”6 The damage is so indescribable that it
cannot be recognized by our reason but only from God’s Word. The damage is such
that only God alone can separate human nature and the corruption of this nature
from each other. This separation will take place completely through death, at
the resurrection, when the nature which we now have will rise and live
eternally, without original sin—separated and severed from it—as it is written
in Job 19[:26, 27], “I will be covered in my own skin, and in my
flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold.”
These provisions of the Formula of Concord deal with "original sin." So first of all, YES, the Lutheran Confessions teach that "original sin" is something very real. With regard to the concept of total depravity, it can come down to definitions. The Formula of Concord is also clear that human beings in the civil arena have some capacity to make good and right choices. Humans can do good works. But when it comes to being in a relationship with God, when it comes to overcoming sin, humans bring nothing to the table. It is not that human nature, created in the image of God, created "very good" has become evil. It is that sin is a stain on human nature. And the stain is complete. It's not a spot or two. All of human nature is all covered in sin. And only Jesus can separate the good human nature from the stain of sin. (This goes back to the "Atonement" post below, because God accomplished that through the blood of Christ.) The Confession in the old red Service Book began "I am by nature sinful and unclean." That language was changed in the green hymnal, "We confess that we are in bondage to sin, and cannot free ourselves." I have no problem with this. I can see how the language in the old red hymnal could be confusing in that someone might think that human nature IS evil. Being in prison to sin, and in bondage of slavery, is a good image.
The reason this is so important is that only those who recognize that they are "in bondage to sin and cannot free themselves" recognize they need a Savior. This accounts for much of the "all ways lead to heaven" position that I addressed in a post below. If we can all just "do a little better" or all "move in the right direction" then not trusting in Christ, but trusting in some other "guru" is all one. But we are not going to get to God by "trying harder" or "doing better" or "moving in the right direction." We are going to get to God the way God prescribed, in and through Jesus Christ, who is Savior and Lord (and eternal God). There is no other way. Only a Savior can save us from sin.
Friday, February 24, 2012
One way? Once saved?
"The first and foremost article is this, that Jesus Christ, our God and our Lord, 'was put to death for our trespasses and raised again for our justification.' He alone is 'the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.'"
Smalcald Articles, Part II, Article I. (emphasis added)
"The content of the Gospel is this, that the Son of God, Christ our Lord, himself assumed and bore the curse of the law and expiated and paid for all our sins, that through him alone we re-enter the good graces of God, obtain forgiveness of sins through faith, are freed from death and all the punishments of sin, and are saved eternally."
Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article V, "Law and Gospel"
"In the third place, a disputation has arisen whether good works preserve salvation or are necessary to preserve faith, righteousness and salvation. This, of course, is a serious and important question since only he who endures to the end will be saved (Matthew 24:13) and 'We share in Christ only if we hold our first confidence firm to the end.' (Hebrews 3:14) . . .
Therefore, we must begin by earnestly criticizing and rejecting the false Epicurean delusion which some dream up that it is impossible to lose faith and the gift of righteousness and salvation, once it has been received, through any sin, even a wanton and deliberate one, or througth wicked works, and that even though a Christian follows his evil lusts without fear and shame, resists the Holy Spirit, and deliberately proceeds to sin against his conscience, he can nevertheless retain faith, the grace of God, righteousness, and salvation."
Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article IV "Good Works"
I take up two matters this week because it seems to me they are related. The first is whether faith can be lost. Can someone have saving faith, but then lose it? The second is "the exclusivity and universality of the Christ event" (which I assumed below in discussion, but did not provide the reference) and the question of whether a Christian can lose his or her faith.
This week's Lectionary Bible Lessons includes as a pericope the portion of Peter's first letter in which he wrote, "Baptism which now saves you...." This phrase ripped out of all context and joined with the false idea that "once saved, always saved" is a major factor, I believe, in the tendency we have to "get the baby done." At baptism we receive our ticket to heaven, which we get validated at confirmation. So we're good to go. Now no pastor would ever say that this is true. It is clearly not. But we might like to believe that we have someone in the baptismal fold they are eternally safe.
NO NO NO.
Faith can be lost. Luther in "Freedom of a Christian" used the metaphor of a plant that is allowed to die. The plant was a gift and was received and maybe even cared for in the short term, but if it is not continually cared for, it dies. Faith is like that. Faith can die. (Luther wrote the same in his letter to the Anabaptists.)
I understand that Luther strove mightily for a system in which we have assurance of our salvation because God did everything. But as I pointed out earlier, in the second and third parts of "Freedom of a Christian" Luther also pointed out that God's saving action requires a response. Luther's explanation to each of the Ten Commandments begins, "We should fear and love God...."
YES. We should fear and love God. One of the responses to God's love in our love to God, is obedience, not out of duty, but out of love.
The two key passages of the Bible are listed in the quotes from The Book of Concord above.
But here's the thing. One of the ways people lose faith is to look for another way. One of the ways we fail in our evangelism is to allow for another way. Remember, one motivation for sharing The Good News of God in Jesus Christ is that Hell is real. Eternal life matters eternally. Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." John 14: 6.
The Apostles were willing to die to share the truth that Jesus is THE way and THE truth and THE life. Here's why that matters. Conversion to Islam is NOT OK, anymore than conversion to Jehovah's Witness or Mormonism. We are NOT worshiping the same God. Jesus IS eternal God. (Franklin Graham took a big hit in the media for saying publicly what is "certainly true." We are not worshiping the same God.) We are called and sent by Jesus, God the Son to proclaim "the exclusivity and the universality of the Christ event." (Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven; but Jesus is THE way available for everyone.)
(Have you noticed that in every nation founded upon Christian principles that Islam is legal, and in every nation founded upon Muslim principles Christianity - which includes the duty to share one's faith - is illegal? This is not coincidence.)
Let me be clear in conclusion. This is a free country. People need to be free to choose whatever religious or spiritual path they choose to follow. But in a free country we are also allowed to share the truth of Scripture, however unpopular it may be, that Jesus is the only way. No hate. No fear. Grace and Truth.
Smalcald Articles, Part II, Article I. (emphasis added)
"The content of the Gospel is this, that the Son of God, Christ our Lord, himself assumed and bore the curse of the law and expiated and paid for all our sins, that through him alone we re-enter the good graces of God, obtain forgiveness of sins through faith, are freed from death and all the punishments of sin, and are saved eternally."
Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article V, "Law and Gospel"
"In the third place, a disputation has arisen whether good works preserve salvation or are necessary to preserve faith, righteousness and salvation. This, of course, is a serious and important question since only he who endures to the end will be saved (Matthew 24:13) and 'We share in Christ only if we hold our first confidence firm to the end.' (Hebrews 3:14) . . .
Therefore, we must begin by earnestly criticizing and rejecting the false Epicurean delusion which some dream up that it is impossible to lose faith and the gift of righteousness and salvation, once it has been received, through any sin, even a wanton and deliberate one, or througth wicked works, and that even though a Christian follows his evil lusts without fear and shame, resists the Holy Spirit, and deliberately proceeds to sin against his conscience, he can nevertheless retain faith, the grace of God, righteousness, and salvation."
Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article IV "Good Works"
I take up two matters this week because it seems to me they are related. The first is whether faith can be lost. Can someone have saving faith, but then lose it? The second is "the exclusivity and universality of the Christ event" (which I assumed below in discussion, but did not provide the reference) and the question of whether a Christian can lose his or her faith.
This week's Lectionary Bible Lessons includes as a pericope the portion of Peter's first letter in which he wrote, "Baptism which now saves you...." This phrase ripped out of all context and joined with the false idea that "once saved, always saved" is a major factor, I believe, in the tendency we have to "get the baby done." At baptism we receive our ticket to heaven, which we get validated at confirmation. So we're good to go. Now no pastor would ever say that this is true. It is clearly not. But we might like to believe that we have someone in the baptismal fold they are eternally safe.
NO NO NO.
Faith can be lost. Luther in "Freedom of a Christian" used the metaphor of a plant that is allowed to die. The plant was a gift and was received and maybe even cared for in the short term, but if it is not continually cared for, it dies. Faith is like that. Faith can die. (Luther wrote the same in his letter to the Anabaptists.)
I understand that Luther strove mightily for a system in which we have assurance of our salvation because God did everything. But as I pointed out earlier, in the second and third parts of "Freedom of a Christian" Luther also pointed out that God's saving action requires a response. Luther's explanation to each of the Ten Commandments begins, "We should fear and love God...."
YES. We should fear and love God. One of the responses to God's love in our love to God, is obedience, not out of duty, but out of love.
The two key passages of the Bible are listed in the quotes from The Book of Concord above.
But here's the thing. One of the ways people lose faith is to look for another way. One of the ways we fail in our evangelism is to allow for another way. Remember, one motivation for sharing The Good News of God in Jesus Christ is that Hell is real. Eternal life matters eternally. Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." John 14: 6.
The Apostles were willing to die to share the truth that Jesus is THE way and THE truth and THE life. Here's why that matters. Conversion to Islam is NOT OK, anymore than conversion to Jehovah's Witness or Mormonism. We are NOT worshiping the same God. Jesus IS eternal God. (Franklin Graham took a big hit in the media for saying publicly what is "certainly true." We are not worshiping the same God.) We are called and sent by Jesus, God the Son to proclaim "the exclusivity and the universality of the Christ event." (Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven; but Jesus is THE way available for everyone.)
(Have you noticed that in every nation founded upon Christian principles that Islam is legal, and in every nation founded upon Muslim principles Christianity - which includes the duty to share one's faith - is illegal? This is not coincidence.)
Let me be clear in conclusion. This is a free country. People need to be free to choose whatever religious or spiritual path they choose to follow. But in a free country we are also allowed to share the truth of Scripture, however unpopular it may be, that Jesus is the only way. No hate. No fear. Grace and Truth.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Don't just sit there. DO something.
"It is also taught among us that good works should and must be done, not that we are to rely on them to earn grace, but that we may do God's will and glorify him. It is always faith alone that apprehends grace and forgiveness of sin. When through faith the Holy Spirit is given, the heart is moved to do good works." The Augsburg Confession, Article XX, "Faith and Good Works.
"Good works follow such faith, renewal and forgiveness.... To this we must add that if good works do not follow, our faith is false and not true."
Smalcald Articles: Part III: Article XIII "How Man is Justified before God, and His Good Works."
"When, however, the question is asked, how a Christian can identify, either in his own case or in the case of others, a true living faith and distinguish it from a simulated and dead faith (since many lazy and secure Christians delude themselves into thinking that they have faith when they do not have true faith), the Apology gives the following answer: 'James calls that faith dead where all kinds of good works and the fruits of the Spirit do not follow.'"
Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article III, "Righteousness"
This is a bigger deal than may appear at first. For hundreds of years the Lutheran Church has been quoting Ephesians 2: 8-9 to demonstrate that we are saved by grace through faith, not by what we do. And rightly so. But Luther and the writers of The Lutheran Confessions did not stop there, and we cannot either. Ephesians 2: 10: "For we are His creation - created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them." (Holman Christian Standard Bible) (emphasis added).
My favorite work on this subject is Martin Luther's "Freedom of a Christian" (which is not a part of The Lutheran Confessions). Luther wrote it in three parts. First he laid the foundation of salvation by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9). But then in the second part he went on to say that while God's Love for us is unconditional, we respond to that love with love for God, including devotion and worship. In part three he continued that we serve The Lord by serving those whom He loves - everyone. Obedience is a response of love for the love that God showed us.
I love the King James translation of logiken (logos) in Romans 12: 1. Most translations these days translate it "spiritual". But King James uses "reasonable" (logical - which is the literal word). In light of all that Jesus has done for us in the love of God, it just makes sense that we would offer ourselves to Him in love and service.
An observation I have been making for awhile now is that for hundreds of years we as Lutherans have focused so much on "saved by faith through grace apart from works" and on sharing the Good News that "God loves you" that we missed an important piece. We have spent so much time answering the question whether God loves us, that we have failed to ask, "But do you love God?" And following, "If you did, what would that look like?" For a long time Lutheran churches tended to have pews with people sitting around being loved by God. But then most of them "did the math" and realized that since "nothing you can do can make God love you more, and nothing you can do can make God love you less" that they could sit around at home (or wherever) "being loved by God" and instead our churches tended to have mostly just pews. I believe a big reason for that was that no one asked them, "But do you love God?" I have been studying Scripture for almost 40 years now, and I remain convinced that God's promises are NOT for those whom God loves. God loves everyone. Scripture is clear that God's promises ARE FOR THOSE WHO LOVE GOD. We needed long ago to move on to the next question.
In 2000 the ELCA made an excellent attempt to address this "oversight" in the Discipleship Materials "Living Faith Practices." They put out excellent study materials showing that this is what a living faith actually looks like: pray, worship, study the Bible, invite others, encourage the generations behind us, serve and give. VERBS!
So, in conclusion, I am sick to death that any suggestion that we might actually do something with our faith in response to God's love, is met with responses like: "That's works righteousness!" "That's fundamentalist legalism!" "That's not Lutheran." NO. It IS VERY LUTHERAN to use verbs in a sermon and to suggest an actual response to The Good News that looks something like "Go in peace and serve The Lord." Such a response in obedience and love just makes sense.
Martin Luther in "Freedom of a Christian" called our response to God's love in devotion, obedience and service "Faith active in Love." Yea. That.
"Good works follow such faith, renewal and forgiveness.... To this we must add that if good works do not follow, our faith is false and not true."
Smalcald Articles: Part III: Article XIII "How Man is Justified before God, and His Good Works."
"When, however, the question is asked, how a Christian can identify, either in his own case or in the case of others, a true living faith and distinguish it from a simulated and dead faith (since many lazy and secure Christians delude themselves into thinking that they have faith when they do not have true faith), the Apology gives the following answer: 'James calls that faith dead where all kinds of good works and the fruits of the Spirit do not follow.'"
Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article III, "Righteousness"
This is a bigger deal than may appear at first. For hundreds of years the Lutheran Church has been quoting Ephesians 2: 8-9 to demonstrate that we are saved by grace through faith, not by what we do. And rightly so. But Luther and the writers of The Lutheran Confessions did not stop there, and we cannot either. Ephesians 2: 10: "For we are His creation - created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them." (Holman Christian Standard Bible) (emphasis added).
My favorite work on this subject is Martin Luther's "Freedom of a Christian" (which is not a part of The Lutheran Confessions). Luther wrote it in three parts. First he laid the foundation of salvation by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9). But then in the second part he went on to say that while God's Love for us is unconditional, we respond to that love with love for God, including devotion and worship. In part three he continued that we serve The Lord by serving those whom He loves - everyone. Obedience is a response of love for the love that God showed us.
I love the King James translation of logiken (logos) in Romans 12: 1. Most translations these days translate it "spiritual". But King James uses "reasonable" (logical - which is the literal word). In light of all that Jesus has done for us in the love of God, it just makes sense that we would offer ourselves to Him in love and service.
An observation I have been making for awhile now is that for hundreds of years we as Lutherans have focused so much on "saved by faith through grace apart from works" and on sharing the Good News that "God loves you" that we missed an important piece. We have spent so much time answering the question whether God loves us, that we have failed to ask, "But do you love God?" And following, "If you did, what would that look like?" For a long time Lutheran churches tended to have pews with people sitting around being loved by God. But then most of them "did the math" and realized that since "nothing you can do can make God love you more, and nothing you can do can make God love you less" that they could sit around at home (or wherever) "being loved by God" and instead our churches tended to have mostly just pews. I believe a big reason for that was that no one asked them, "But do you love God?" I have been studying Scripture for almost 40 years now, and I remain convinced that God's promises are NOT for those whom God loves. God loves everyone. Scripture is clear that God's promises ARE FOR THOSE WHO LOVE GOD. We needed long ago to move on to the next question.
In 2000 the ELCA made an excellent attempt to address this "oversight" in the Discipleship Materials "Living Faith Practices." They put out excellent study materials showing that this is what a living faith actually looks like: pray, worship, study the Bible, invite others, encourage the generations behind us, serve and give. VERBS!
So, in conclusion, I am sick to death that any suggestion that we might actually do something with our faith in response to God's love, is met with responses like: "That's works righteousness!" "That's fundamentalist legalism!" "That's not Lutheran." NO. It IS VERY LUTHERAN to use verbs in a sermon and to suggest an actual response to The Good News that looks something like "Go in peace and serve The Lord." Such a response in obedience and love just makes sense.
Martin Luther in "Freedom of a Christian" called our response to God's love in devotion, obedience and service "Faith active in Love." Yea. That.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Angels and Demons
“We
must also explain that we are not talking here about the faith possessed by the
devil and the ungodly, who also believe the story that Christ
suffered and was raised from the dead. But we are talking about true faith,
which believes that we obtain grace and forgiveness of sin through Christ.
All
who know that in Christ they have a gracious God call upon him and are not,
like the heathen, without God. For the devil and the ungodly do not believe
this article about the forgiveness of sin. That is why they are enemies of God,
cannot call upon him, and cannot hope for anything good from him. Moreover, as
has now been indicated, Scripture talks about faith but does not label it
knowledge such as the devil and the ungodly have. For Hebrews 11:1 teaches that
faith is not only a matter of historical knowledge, but a matter of having
confidence in God to receive his promise. Augustine
also reminds us that we should understand the word “faith” in Scripture to mean
confidence in God—that God is gracious to us—and not merely such knowledge of
these stories as the devils also have.”
The
Augsburg Confession: Article 20: Concerning Faith and Good Works.
“It
is also taught that our Lord Jesus Christ will return on the Last Day to judge,
to raise all the dead, to give eternal life and eternal joy to those who
believe and are elect, but to condemn the ungodly and the devils to hell and
eternal punishment.
Rejected,
therefore, are the Anabaptists who teach that the devils and condemned human
beings will not suffer eternal torture and torment.
Likewise
rejected are some Jewish teachings, which have also appeared in the present,
that before the resurrection of the dead saints and righteous people alone will
possess a secular kingdom and will annihilate all the ungodly.” The Augsburg Confession: Article 17:
Concerning the Return of Christ to Judgment.
These quotes from the Augsburg Confession make an interesting bridge. The second quote is from my last post on hell and judgment. The first quote will be repeated in my next blog on faith and "works." What I am talking about today is demons and angels. As is often the case, my motivation to post on a particular topic came from a post in the ELCA Clergy Group on Facebook regarding the Mark Lectionary text of Jesus casting out the demon in the synagogue in Mark 1. This raised the question, not surprisingly, of whether as clergy persons we believe in demons. There were many posts about casting out the demons of bigotry or racism, etc. But in Mark 1, Jesus did two things. He taught. But then he cast out a demon. This is another subject which, I confess, baffles me in terms of those who do not believe in literal demons (or angels). I share the quotes above from The Augsburg Confession to hopefully make clear that Melanchthon (and Luther) did no such "spiritualizing" or "allegorizing." Luther talked about doing spiritual battle with Satan. He believed.
Of course, with regard to Scripture, those who choose not to believe in literal demons or the devil are faced with a tough choice. Did Jesus not really understand what He was doing when He was casting out demons (which He actually did with regularity)? Did He think He was casting out demons but in actuality He was healing of something? (The condition of choice seems to be epilepsy.) Do epileptics tend to have "word of knowledge" to know what demons know but the people around Jesus did not know? Another option is no better. Was Jesus intentionally misleading His followers? He knew He wasn't actually casting out demons, but they were so backward that He lied to them when He knew He was actually healing instead? Or maybe He just never actually meant what He said when talking about Satan or demons?
The same problem comes up with angels. If someone chooses not to believe in literal angels, then who told Mary she was going to give birth to the Son of God? Oh wait! That assumes that you believe in The Virgin Birth. Let's get that out of the way quickly.
"And in Jesus Christ...born of the Virgin Mary...." Apostles' Creed. Article 2.
"And in one Lord, Jesus Christ... who was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary...." Nicene Creed. Article 2.
And who told the women "He is not here. He is risen."?
It is possible that God passed these messages on directly. (Have you noticed that often in the Bible the angel and THE LORD tend to flow in and out of each other? C. S. Lewis wrote about it.) But why does the Bible say twice that angels ministered to Jesus?
So I believe in literal angels and demons. As I shared in the ELCA Clergy Group, having attended an exorcism (which I have) gives you a different perspective. It no longer becomes just a theological, theoretical discussion point. The late Keith Green, singer and songwriter wrote a song years ago, "No One Believes in Me Anymore." Satan reveled in the work he could do among people so sure he does not exist.
I end with a reading list. Frank Peretti wrote a two novel set about angels and demons called, "This Present Darkness" (from Ephesians 6) and "Piercing the Darkness." I enjoyed them both. Then, of course, there is the classic novel by C. S. Lewis, "The Screwtape Letters." If you read it (and it is also available unabridged on audio-book), don't miss the epilogue "Screwtape Gives a Toast." Prophetic.
Next blog post will be "Don't just sit there. Do something!" Do Lutherans teach about "doing"?
Blessings. And may God's angels watch over you and protect you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)