Then why is it that the meaning of words change when it comes to this:
And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!” And they began to question one another, which of them it could be who was going to do this. (Luke 22:14-23 ESV - bold italics mine)
Apparently, Christ didn't mean that, and what He really said was 'This is not My body, but just a metaphor, a mere symbol!'
Why does Christ all of sudden go symbolic or metaphoric? He doesn't. Words have meaning. We, as readers, don't change the meanings of words because they need to fit our rational minds. 'Is' does mean 'is.' If we truly trust God and His Word, and that we trust Him that He will do a good work, for He is just and merciful and holy; then why not trust His entire counsel. Trust His Word in totality. He is a trustworthy God, and He is faithful and true.
Thank you Zach. Love what you've written. As a post-Presbyterian, post-Pentecostal, post-Mennonite - now Lutheran pastor, the biggest reason why (in my experience) folks don't take these precious words as they are is because they mistakenly think (reason?) that it moves faith away from Jesus Himself, to faith in participation in the Holy Supper, especially because Jesus said "this cup is for the forgiveness of sins." They just can't believe Jesus literally meant for us "this do in remembrance of Me" for salvation. This mindset, which they can't see in themselves, is a mindset they have inherited from the Enlightenment - and I know you know what that's all about. I've found that helping folks see that having faith in Jesus is only possible by having faith in WHAT HE SAID (having faith the way Abraham did) and not by making up an imaginary Jesus figure in their minds to believe in, helps in the conversation.
ReplyDeleteWith Thanks for your work,
Denton
Thanks for commenting, Denton... As a still-somewhat newbie to confessional Lutheran (about 1 and 1/2 years), that was one of the final hurdles I had to maneuver (that, and infant baptism). Going through catechism with our pastor, it was a lot of what I just wrote that he helped sort this stuff out and helped me come to realize why we believe what we believe. If we believe God to be good, holy, and just, then we can believe ALL that He has said. Not just the 'rational' parts. Our God is good and worthy of our trust.
ReplyDeleteJesus also said, "I am the door", and none of his disciples knocked on him.
ReplyDeleteThanks Tyler for your thoughts. I would agree that there are several times in which certainly speaks in metaphor. However, I would point you to some additional scripture to clear up some difference.
DeleteTruly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
(John 6:47-59 ESV)
The problem, as I see with your premise, is that there is not a connection, for instance, to John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:55 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink" (John 6:55).
Jesus continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me." (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." Ultimately, I find this statement to be extremely difficult to pin down as metaphor.
Respectfully...
So, as you see it, when you go and kneel down before the altar at your church and receive communion, what is the benefit to you? What is being accomplished there as you observe the supper?
ReplyDeleteHere's a portion from Luther's Large Catechism that reflects the efficacy of the Lord's Supper:
ReplyDelete20] Thus we have briefly the first point which relates to the essence of this Sacrament. Now examine further the efficacy and benefits on account of which really the Sacrament was instituted; which is also its most necessary part, that we may know what we should seek and obtain there. 21] Now this is plain and clear from the words just mentioned: This is My body and blood, given and shed for you, for the remission of sins. 22] Briefly that is as much as to say: For this reason we go to the Sacrament because there we receive such a treasure by and in which we obtain forgiveness of sins. Why so? Because the words stand here and give us this; for on this account He bids me eat and drink, that it may be my own and may benefit me, as a sure pledge and token, yea, the very same treasure that is appointed for me against my sins, death, and every calamity.
To read further, following is a link to the section re: the Lord's Supper in the Large Catechism. From this link you can peruse the rest of the Book of Concord to get a better idea of where confessional Lutherans stand in regards to the Lord's Supper.
The link - Large Catechism - Sacrament of the Altar
I specifically asked you, "as you see it", to get an answer from your own words, but as I feared, you provided me with the answer of another, namely, Martin Luther. Do you think it is possible that when Luther tackled the issues of baptism and the Lord's supper, he could have allowed his history as a devout Catholic to influence the conclusions he came to? It sounds to me that a "confessional Lutheran" means that you accept as true Luther's interpretation of all of Scripture, as much as he wrote. Is this true?
ReplyDeleteI will attempt to explain my point of view, however I must say that I think the Book of Concord (Small Catechism, Large Catechism, Augsburg Confession, Formula of Concord, etc.) faithfully exposits what scripture teaches. That is why I quoted what I did. But I will try to explain in my own words...
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I would never claim that Luther is/ was inerrant. He didn't even claim that. But as far as what is written in the Book of Concord (not all of it authored by Luther, but by others, as well), as it normally cites scripture to back up its claims, I read it as a very good exposition of what the Bible is conveying. And from everything I've read about Luther, he always considered himself a 'lower-cased c' catholic Christian. He saw the papists as very dangerous to the Church, but he also believed that he could reform the Catholic church of his time to something that was more faithful to scripture and the gospel. His attempt was not to create a division within the Church. Only to bring reformation. So, yes... everything he had known and learned, he brought to the table. Some of the things the Church taught were good and salutary. While other teachings were quite wrong.
In regards to baptism, the Lord's Supper, and the 'means of grace,' I believe that God works through means (i.e. the preaching and hearing of God's Word.) Through the preaching of the law, a person comes to know his sins and God's wrath. Through the preaching of the Gospel about the forgiveness of sins in Christ, faith is given to Him. (Faith comes by hearing, hearing the Word of God.)
Look to the Israelites in the desert as they were bitten by snakes. God, via Moses, gave them a means of grace by putting up a pole with a bronze snake. By looking upon the snake, God promised them they would be healed. The snake itself did not bring healing, it was God's promise attached to the thing. Same thing with the Lord's Supper and Baptism. As a believer, I trust God's Word, His promises more than my inner, subjective feelings. As Jesus promised in John 6 - "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life." It is certainly a difficult saying, but I trust that Jesus does not lie.
You say that you do not think that Luther was inerrant. And yes, Luther himself said, "Lutherans? Why do you call yourselves Lutherans? Call yourselves Christians!" But if you're a "confessional Lutheran", or to put it another way, "Someone who confesses what Luther believed", you still take for yourself all that he found from Scripture. So, is there anything that you'd disagree with Luther on? Whatever the case, God's word commands each child of God, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15). "THYSELF".
DeleteConcerning the "means of grace". According to Ephesians 2:8, there is but one means of grace for the saved individual at this time. "For by grace are ye saved, through faith." "Through" is the "by means of". There is nothing in between the work God did for humanity at the cross and resurrection, and the faith that believes it. In fact, to do any works is to reckon the reward of debt.
Faith is not a work, as you well know I'm sure. But baptism and the Lord's supper are works. I know you've been told that they are not OUR works but God's works. "Not water only, but water combined with the Word" for example, concerning baptism. Nevertheless, whether they be of God or of man, they are works that are different from the ones which God said would save a person today: Christ's death and resurrection (Romans 4:25). God put forth his greatest effort in procuring salvation for us so that we would only have to believe him. And the faith we are to have is the faith of Abraham--the faith that simply took God at his word, and the faith that received the imputation of righteousness as a result.
Now, there was a time for water baptism. It was an ordinance given as a means of cleansing prior to the advent of the Millennial Kingdom of God, when Christ returns to rule on the earth in the future. It, like the Last Supper, was meant to point the Jews (Israel) to their New Covenant, under which remission of sins would be given to them. When the Jews heard the preaching about Christ, they were told to "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins". 1 Peter 3:21 defines this water baptism, saying that the water itself cleansing a person's flesh did nothing to save, but the answer of good conscience did. The "answer of a good conscience" was the earnest desire to be right with God (evidenced by the confession as participants went down into the water), and baptism was given as an outward sign of that inward circumcision of heart. It was for cleansing, not as though the water itself did anything, nor as though it had any power when combined with the word; but God required signs from the Jews, signs which proved they believed him. This is the way it was for the nation of Israel.
Abraham was justified by faith alone with no requirement to prove that he believed God; but when God furthered his plans to make a nation out of him, he added circumcision as a physical confirmation of the righteousness he had by faith, then called on him to prove his faith by offering up Isaac, the only one through whom the nation could come. James says this made his faith "perfect". So this "faith plus works" principle continued throughout the generations of Israel, on toward such things as baptism. Just as Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). Just as James said, "I'll show you my faith BY my works", God gave the Jews a work in connection with his promise, so that the true Jews among Israel could be seen, while the false would not obey and would thus be "known by their fruits". Indeed, the very nature of faith is that when it is called upon to act, it acts.
DeleteBut such is not the case today with faith. The call of faith today is not works, but rest. We respond to a finished work by not doing anything, while in times past, with no promise of a finished work, the people responded by working. What is left to do? Christ took away our sins once and for all by the sacrifice of himself. He earned righteousness for us, which we receive by simply trusting him. What more is needed? Doesn't that solve every problem we have as men? We "all sinned and come short of the glory of God". But we are "justified freely by his grace" on the account of the redemption that is in Christ. Furthermore, God has given no outward seal of righteousness by faith. The only seal he has provided is the seal of the Holy Spirit, which is the guarantee of our body's redemption. That is a spiritual proof, not a physical one. And no man can judge whether another has it or does not have it.
Contrary to what most Lutherans think, this is not a debate between the logical and the biblical (i.e. "I can't fathom that I'm actually partaking of Christ's body and blood, so I won't believe it"). It's a debate between the biblical and the biblical. It has everything to do with how we rightly divide the word of truth. There are more baptisms than one in the bible, some of them dry, but only one is for today.
I speak to you as a former Lutheran, with a warning. Just as it is with the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, so it is with all these interdenominational squabbles. They are all debates which "strive about words to no profit", because they take the eyes off of the true spiritual warfare going on all around us. Denominations fight each other unceasingly so as to win arguments about each one's view of God's word. But God's concern is not who maintains a Calvinistic view, or who maintains allegiance to Jacobus Arminius' teachings (I use these as examples since it is perhaps the most common source of contention in the church). God is concerned with belief of his word rightly divided, handled in its proper way.
The student of the word must be very careful to find the exact meaning God intended. We owe it to God and ourselves to question everything; to consider, "This is how it was then. Is there anything in the scriptures that would say that something has changed? That maybe God operated differently then than he does now and will in the future? When did things change? And what specific things changed? Did all the apostles preach the same things? At what time, and through whom did God speak to the Gentles, and likewise to the Jews?"
DeleteFor starters, Israel and the church are entirely different entities, each with different instructions from God. These things and many more need to be taken into consideration. The apostle Paul said, "Consider what I say, and the Lord give thee understanding in all things." According to that statement, Paul should be our starting point. If we understand his teachings, we can receive understanding of the whole bible.
I hope you'll think about these things, Zach. Understanding God's word is no light thing. For us who are saved, we all are going to give an account to God for what we knew about His word. What was wrong will be burnt up, and what was right will be rewarded. I want you to enter glory with as many rewards as possible.
Tyler,
DeleteBefore I would even attempt to educate you on what historical Christianity has said the benefits of the Eucharist are and whose work it is (a lesson in Green in necessary for those who reject what is plain and simple reading in the English translation) I'd like to address your confusion on what the reformation fathers were doing when they wrote their confession of what the Christian Church.
The reformers were charged by the papists with coming up with new teachings that conflicted with both Scripture as well as with church traditions which were to be held as having the same authority as Scripture and the false infallibility of their bishop in Rome. The reformation fathers always started with a statement, went to Scripture to make their case that what was being taught was in accord with the same, moved to what the church fathers said so that it could be proven that they were not teaching some strange new doctrine as they had been accused of, and ended with a condemnatory statement to make clear what not only did they not teach but what they condemned as false teaching and heresy.
“I specifically asked you, "as you see it", to get an answer from your own words, but as I feared, you provided me with the answer of another, namely, Martin Luther.” If a church father or theological expert can be referenced where exactly is the harm? It is not for each one of us to come up with what doctrine is but rather it is up to each one of us to bend our knee to the one confession of faith the catholic Church has always confessed.
Concerning your statements "Someone who confesses what Luther believed" and “And yes, Luther himself said, "Lutherans? Why do you call yourselves Lutherans? Call yourselves Christians!" But if you're a "confessional Lutheran", or to put it another way, "Someone who confesses what Luther believed", you still take for yourself all that he found from Scripture.” Zack never said that he believed what Luther believed what Luther believed and he never said that he takes all that Luther found in Scripture as fact. You made that assertion even though Zach claimed otherwise. If you want to look for folks who follow the teachings of singular men I suggest you visit a mosque or maybe a Mormon temple and not Lutherans who adhere to that evangelical catholic faith that they had to write down to address people accusing them of things they were not guilty of by the like of Tetzel or Leo X.
Frank,
DeleteThank you for taking the time to "educate" me.
So then, all those martyred by the Catholics, would you say they "bended the knee" to the Catholic church? I hardly even know where you're coming from here. Would you side with the Catholics in their disdain for anyone who spoke against infant baptism and the Lord's Supper?
Excuse me for such a silly inquiry, but who was it that decided the Catholic "confession of faith" was the written-in-stone confession of what God's word truly means?
As for Zach, I was making no false accusations. I used to be a Missouri Synod Lutheran, and never did the pastor teach anything contrary to what Luther taught. No one made any attempts to contend with what he believed; only uphold. And when I disagreed, they would not hear my complaints against the doctrine, and I left. Zach claimed that he didn't believe Luther was "innerant", meaning "perfect, infallible". So, as you said (sic) "Zack never said that he believed what Luther believed what Luther believed and he never said that he takes all that Luther found in Scripture as fact."
So, what is a Lutheran, then? Excuse me for being so uneducated, but doesn't someone who tacks someone else's name upon themselves, agree with that person? A Lutheran calls himself "Lutheran" in order to attempt to distinguish himself from other Christian denominations, for the sake of adhering to one man's Christian doctrine. Yes there were other reformers involved at Luther's time, but who says they were right? Do you honestly believe the Reformation reclaimed everything lost from the right understanding of God's word?
And that is really the issue here. You just about floored me with the statement, "It is not for each one of us to come up with what doctrine is but rather it is up to each one of us to bend our knee to the one confession of faith the catholic Church has always confessed." You're flat-out denying 2 Timothy 2:15, and you should be ashamed of yourself, just as the verse states.
How could we possibly study to show OURSELVES approved, if, from our very earliest inclination to look at the word of God, someone such as yourself comes to say, "Now, now, little one; bend your knee to the one confession of the catholic faith." Come to think of it, I think Luther would be a ashamed of you! Why? Number 1, he studied for himself, and number 2, he wanted the BIBLE to be read and studied by the common people, which is why he translated it, so that they would not have to be in subjection to an interpretative authority, such as the Catholic church.
The best thing he found was justification by faith (which he later tampered with, adding the necessities of baptism and the Lord's supper), and he found that by studying for himself. That, and his hatred toward indulgences. But justification by faith (rather than indulgences) is what afforded him that understanding.
Every single Christian will appear before the judgment (bema) seat. Those who come out with rewards are the ones who "took heed" to how they built on the one foundation, which is Christ (1 Corinthians 3). In that chapter of Paul's epistle, Paul specifically addressed the issue of following MEN. Not that following men, in particular, was the vilest thing (because Paul implored believers to follow him AS he followed Christ!), but that the Corinthians were doing it carnally, for the sake of division rather than unity. It's like two little children favoring one super hero over another for childish reasons--exalting one over another for no mature cause. That's harmless for children, but not for adults of faith.
ReplyDeleteAnd I realize that educated Lutherans do not choose to follow Luther's teachings for childish reasons. Zach chose to leave American Evangelicalism (Amen to that!) in favor of Lutheranism. He made an educated decision. I do not agree with his decision, but at least he was not born into it, given it by his parents blindly.
And I thank God immensely for the recovery of justification by faith. As Luther said, "This one and firm rock, which we call the doctrine of justification is the chief article of the whole Christian doctrine, which comprehends the understanding of all godliness." I couldn't agree more. Without that understanding, none can be saved.
But what I was attempting to do, was express the gravity of truth, and how it is absolutely necessary for the Christian, if he strives for rewards, to build on the foundation with gold, silver and precious stones rather than wood, hay and stubble.
"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men..." 2 Corinthians 5:10, 11
Nowhere in the word of God are we implored to study extra-biblical Christian history (history made after the canon of Scripture was completed). And we won't be judged for our understanding of such. God cares for what he said. And not only what he said, but for what he said RIGHTLY DIVIDED. That means, we don't simply quote a bible verse, apply it to ourselves, and obey it. We find what belongs to God's operation for this present time, and adhere to it.
I do not use Christian history to interpret the bible, I use the bible to interpret Christian history. Referencing a theologian is not harmful, you are right. But "referencing" and "following" are two different things. I reference where theologians are correct. But no man, except the apostle Paul, is someone we should follow. Because Christ was in Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, and Christ in him commanded us to follow him, we can trust such exhortations.
Paul was not an infallible man, but his doctrine was--because it was the word of God (Colossians 1:25). Therefore, we can rest assured that we can follow a man with perfect doctrine, if we follow the apostle Paul! I presume you are a Gentile, Frank. Therefore, follow Paul!
"So, what is a Lutheran, then? Excuse me for being so uneducated, but doesn't someone who tacks someone else's name upon themselves, agree with that person?"
ReplyDeleteNo. If that is what you believe you are wrong.
“You just about floored me with the statement, "It is not for each one of us to come up with what doctrine is but rather it is up to each one of us to bend our knee to the one confession of faith the catholic Church has always confessed." You're flat-out denying 2 Timothy 2:15, and you should be ashamed of yourself, just as the verse states.”
I'm not denying 2 Timothy 2:15; in fact I'm actually confessing exactly what the apostle says when he writes that all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.
“Come to think of it, I think Luther would be a ashamed of you! Why? Number 1, he studied for himself, and number 2, he wanted the BIBLE to be read and studied by the common people, which is why he translated it, so that they would not have to be in subjection to an interpretative authority, such as the Catholic church.”
It is clear you are no student of either Luther, the confessions of the Church catholic or church history. Luther, as well as all of the other reformers, did in fact want all of the people to be reading their Bibles. However, he didn't think that sound doctrine was divorced from those whose call it was to teach and preach as well as the church fathers who rightfully confessed the faith handed down by the prophets and the apostles. This is why the reformers keep quoting church father after church father to their Roman opponents; to show that they are NOT teaching anything new or innovative to the people. Dr. Luther and the reformers that followed never said that the people had to submit to the interpretative authority of the Catholic or even Lutheran churches but rather to the Word of God as both Zach and I have stated before.
So let's put this to the test then; we confess that when Christ says “this is my Body” and “this is my Blood”... we believe our Lord means what He says and don't try to qualify or quantify the meaning to conform to what we would want it to believe because of human reason, textual criticism, or simple unbelief in order to say is doesn't really mean is (getting back to Zach's original point).
I greatly appreciate your taking the time to converse with me, and I'm not being sarcastic in saying that. You answer me with respect and quote what I say, responding accordingly. And of course, it is my goal to convince you of many things I have found to be true in the bible.
DeleteI have to bring up the "name" issue once more. If I'm a Calvinist, don't I agree with John Calvin? If I don't in every area, I will say that perhaps, I'm a "3-point" Calvinist, or that I "don't agree with Calvin in every area, but I do in a few." Or if I'm a Chistian, don't I agree with Christ (or at least am supposed to)? The whole principle there is taking upon yourself the name of another so as to identify yourself with him.
As touching doctrine, I'm merely suggesting the question,"How do we know Luther and the reformers were correct?" I know that God's word has been guaranteed continuance and preservation throughout all ages by God himself. But I submit that the understanding thereof is not promised to remain. This is why I say that, ultimately, concerning one's own position before God at the judgment seat, where we give an account of our deeds, each one of us is personally responsible for studying the word of God.
I had a Lutheran pastor one time say this to me: when he perceived the call to the pastorate, he began studying the bible. But not only did he study the bible, he studied it alongside a book called "Mueller's Dogmatics". I appreciate the time and effort Dr. Mueller put into the authoring of this book. But I find it very conscience-defying to surrender any hope of finding the truth through your personal studies with the Holy Spirit. Would you agree, Frank, that this was a wrong approach to the word of God?
I apologize for whatever things of Luther or any other I have spoken wrongly. I have not devoted my time to studying them, nor have I continued to research their lives. My time has been in the bible. I have never seen a need to study church history, which is extra-biblical study. Nowhere is it commanded, and never in any way is it vital to the life of Christ in the believer. The word of God alone "effectually worketh in you that believe". And that's what we want, right? We want the word of God to be operative in our inward man so much so that we are "henceforth no more children, tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine".
Honestly, I question the "call" of those who preach and teach. How do we identify who should be preaching and teaching unless we can confirm that what they say is true through our own searching, just as the Bereans did. They were called "noble" for doing so.
What I meant about interpretative authority, was that the people, not having the bible in their own language or hands, could not do anything but be in subjection to what the Catholic church of the time was teaching. In translating the bible, Luther gave them a way out of that misery, for which I am very thankful. And yes, I agree that Luther did not command subjection to his teachings. If I sounded as if I stated otherwise, I apologize.
Please tell me who the "church fathers" are. If they are not the authors of the bible, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then I discredit them. I only cleave to the teachings I KNOW were inspired by God. Everything else is subjective. I simply do not have a promise from God that St. Augustine was correct about the bible. If you can present one for me, I will be happy to submit to the word of God concerning St. Augustine or any other who had no part in authoring Scripture.
I'd like to explain why I do not believe that "this is my body and this is my blood" means Christ's literal, physical body and blood. And I can assure you that human reason, criticism or unbelief has not brought me to the conclusion I've come to--however disputable that may be from your end. But I have to find some things out about you first.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you believe saves a person from damnation? What must a person do? Once a person is saved, is he saved forever or can he yet be lost? This is most important to me; so if you wish, you can choose to not answer my other questions. If you want to address those as well for the sake of countering my argument, please feel free. But oblige me the answering of these questions first and foremost, because this is what determines a man's eternal dwelling place. It all comes down to what we believe. Our faith in the truth is the only thing standing between heaven and hell.
Tyler
“I have to bring up the "name" issue once more. If I'm a Calvinist, don't I agree with John Calvin? If I don't in every area, I will say that perhaps, I'm a "3-point" Calvinist, or that I "don't agree with Calvin in every area, but I do in a few." Or if I'm a Chistian, don't I agree with Christ (or at least am supposed to)? The whole principle there is taking upon yourself the name of another so as to identify yourself with him.”
ReplyDeleteAs Zach and I have both stated previously; the name Lutheran was a label placed on the reformer by the papists as the reformers declared that they were evangelical catholics and not a group of individuals who believed what Luther wrote or said. You keep making the claim that the Lutherans believed or agreed with Dr. Luther which is why they were called Lutherans and that is simply not the case. Eventually, I'm guessing, that the evangelical catholics just got tired of repeating themselves on the blogs to people who didn't actually read what it was they wrote over and over and over... and just threw up their hands in frustrated defeat and gave up defending themselves against such a ridiculous accusation.
“I had a Lutheran pastor one time say this to me: when he perceived the call to the pastorate, he began studying the bible. But not only did he study the bible, he studied it alongside a book called "Mueller's Dogmatics".”
Maybe this pastor understood how very little he knew concerning Scripture and was using a dogmatics guide as a study aide; who knows? Very few people who decide that they are being drawn into vocation of pastor know Greek or Hebrew but they still have to consult textbooks not considered part of the canon of Scripture in order to learn the original languages. I hope we would not scold them for this anymore than we would scowl at the common layperson who uses a study bible filled with notes or commentary who want to plumb the rich depths of God's Word. I don't know of a single pastoral education program or seminary that trains men to be undershepherds for the task of feeding Christ's sheep that does not utilize extra-Biblical sources in that instruction.
“Honestly, I question the "call" of those who preach and teach. How do we identify who should be preaching and teaching unless we can confirm that what they say is true through our own searching, just as the Bereans did.”
You can question the “call” all you wish but we have both a model for how men are to be placed in that office (see Acts 9 and Gal 2) as well as clear instruction from the apostle Paul in his pastoral epistles (specifically 1 Timothy) how a man is deem to be fit for this important office of service to Christ's Church and they are tested as to what they know which means it is not the perspective pastor's own searching which is tested but rather whether or not what they will teach actually conforms to Scripture. Scripture does not allow for post modernity's “what I think it means is... this” that has become so popular in Americanized Christianity.
“Please tell me who the "church fathers" are. If they are not the authors of the bible, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then I discredit them. I only cleave to the teachings I KNOW were inspired by God. Everything else is subjective. I simply do not have a promise from God that St. Augustine was correct about the bible. If you can present one for me, I will be happy to submit to the word of God concerning St. Augustine or any other who had no part in authoring Scripture.”
ReplyDeleteYou are either being insincere, argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, or just plain ignorant concerning who the church father were and what they offer us. Furthermore; that statement is one logical fallacy after another.
I didn't (and nor did Mr. Dorman by the way!) say that Augustine or any other church father had a part in authoring Scripture and it is idiotic of you to make such a claim that I did. If you wish to engage in an adult discussion please take time to read what is being written before writing such utter nonsense!
Now let me address what the role of one of the church fathers is in relation to the reformation era theological confessions. If, lets say, a reformer is accused of denying the doctrine that Christ is present bodily in the Sacrament of the Altar and he says Chrysostom taught Christ's presence in the Eucharist and before him Augustine taught this and before this Polycarp; an actual student of St. John the apostle, a disciple of Christ himself... the reformer is not saying that Chrysostom, Augustine, or Polycarp's writings have the authority of Scripture but rather the reformer is showing that this doctrine has always been taught by the church and goes all the way back to the apostles. But reformation era Christians NEVER started there did they? No. Instead they STARTED with Jesus' actual words and work their way forward through history.
So once again let's put this to the test then; we confess that when Christ says “this is my Body” and “this is my Blood”... we believe our Lord means what He says and don't try to qualify or quantify the meaning to conform to what we would want it to believe because of human reason, textual criticism, or simple unbelief in order to say is doesn't really mean is.
If a church father XYZ agrees with Scripture and says Jesus is the Christ repeating Peter's great confession he is to be commended for this repeating back what God has given in Scripture. Church father XYZ's statement is in fact correct in that it is in accord with Scripture and that sir is the very definition of a confession; a repeating back of what God's prophets and apostles have recorded and given to Christianity in what is the Bible.
If you want to argue with people who place the writings of their leaders on par with their scriptures I suggest you strike up a conversation with the local Mormon or Jehovah's Witness; at least in that case your argument with have some validity.
“I'd like to explain why I do not believe that "this is my body and this is my blood" means Christ's literal, physical body and blood. And I can assure you that human reason, criticism or unbelief has not brought me to the conclusion I've come to--however disputable that may be from your end.”
ReplyDeleteI did not ask you about why you don't believe Christ's clear and plain words (I have news for you... it's even clearer in the Greek) in the institution of the Lord's Supper.
“But I have to find some things out about you first. What do you believe saves a person from damnation? What must a person do? Once a person is saved, is he saved forever or can he yet be lost?… But oblige me the answering of these questions first”
Uh, no. Adding a soteriological debate to the sacramental and epistemological discussion already underway while neither of those are actually being addressed by you would be foolishness. If Mr. Dorman wants to write a post on soteriology or election I'll be happy to discuss those subjects there where it's appropriate. Normal conversations or debates typically stick to one issue and don't keep adding subjects that move increasingly away from the subject. I have no desire to go down endless bunny trails and ask that the subject at hand be discussed.
Indulge me on my change of topic. Consider me a fool for all of my other questions, accusations and statements. I don't mind. But honor my request, however unorthodox. The Lutheran confession links Soteriology with Sacramental theology, doesn't it? It being related, can't we divert our attention to salvation? I'm not aware of a law saying otherwise. If we don't want to overwhelm Zach's blog with unrelated topics, then we can converse further over personal email. Mine is tyler.wentzel@gmail.com
DeleteBut since I'm not sure you'll give me your email address, I'll state my case here. Actually, it's quite simple, so it won't take much time to read.
According to God's word, salvation is by grace through faith alone. Faith in the grace of God--the works of Jesus Christ on our behalf: his death, burial and resurrection--is the only thing accepted for salvation. We simply place our trust in the word of God, as Abraham did, and our trust in God's word concerning our salvation, saves us.
What does his word say about salvation? "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Corinthians 5:21). God took care of our sin problem, so that we could embrace his righteousness. We do this by believing he took care of our sins.
God appointed Christ Jesus, his Son, to be made sin at the cross of Calvary. The payment for all our sins, those of the entire world, was made at the cross. This is evidenced by the simple statement, "Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again." The Scripture says that God was "in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them", meaning that, when Christ died, his payment was so complete that God refuses to count any sins against any individual on the entire planet. Christ appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And he did just that. Accordingly, God is not concerned with our sins any longer. He will not count them against us, because he counted them against Christ 2,000 years ago.
Now, with our sin issue completely taken care of, are we saved? We're delivered from the penalty of our sins. But we are not saved. We must have righteousness to be acceptable with God. And not man's righteousness, but God's. The kind of righteousness that only God has. We may freely inherit the righteousness of God. And we "do" this by faith. Faith is counted for righteousness.
Mankind's sin separated him from God so that God could not count man righteous. It would be impossible for him to do so, unless he was corrupt and a liar. But he is able to justify mankind based solely upon Jesus Christ's obedience and death. By the obedience of Christ, many will be made righteous. Since Jesus satisfied God concerning our sins, God is free to count whoever believes in him, righteous. He is "the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus."
The moment we believe, we are justified forever. This is because the righteousness we are given is God's. It's his gift to us. And as he has said, he will never take it away. "Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus". Moreover, he seals us with the Holy Spirit of promise. Having begun a good work in us, he will finish it at the day of Christ.
Therefore, water baptism and the Lord's supper have no part in our salvation. We receive no forgiveness or justification in or through them in any way. We never need to be forgiven again, since the cross. And we never need to be declared right again, since our faith in the cross. And those are the only two things we need to be saved. Forgiveness was won for us all at the cross. Justification is given when we believe.
“I'll state my case here. Actually, it's quite simple, so it won't take much time to read.”
ReplyDeleteNow there is an honest statement; this is clearly your case and not that of the entirety of Scripture given to Christ's Church.
“Therefore, water baptism and the Lord's supper have no part in our salvation. We receive no forgiveness or justification in or through them in any way.”
For this statement to be correct Christ must be a liar as he attaches the forgiveness of sins to our passive (the verbs in Greek are passive on our end of things) receiving of the Eucharist, St. Paul has to be a liar as he equates our old Adam drowning in Baptism to Christ's actual death and resurrection in Rom 6, Titus 3 and and St. Peter must be a liar as he say that Baptism saves us 1 Pet 3.
The only question is who do I believe here?
What, don't you know that there are many different baptisms in the Bible? One of water, one of fire, one of Christ's death, one of our death with Christ, one of the children of Israel unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea? And I'm afraid the Apostle Paul never uses the term "drowning" when he speaks of baptism.
DeleteYou have no recognition of the dispensational changes that have occurred from times past to the present, do you? I suppose that you believe God never had any changes in his purpose from then to now. Or have you never considered that the apostle Paul preached something different than the other apostles? Or have you contemplated when the body of Christ began?
You believe Luther and the reformers, and the church fathers! That question has an easy answer!
Don't you know that Christ was delivered for our offences? His offering of himself put away sin. You, as well as so many others, attach another means to God's grace beyond faith.
Now, let's see: Paul says that we're saved by grace through faith and no other thing. Passive or active, I don't care. He did not say "grace through the Eucharist", or "grace through baptism". And that faith is not just in anything in God's word. You can believe a great many things in the bible and go to hell when you die. There has to be "one faith" as the apostle says. Faith in the finished work of Christ. That is a solid foundation upon which we can stand: that the minute we trust the gospel of Christ, we're saved and sealed.
Being "forgiven" is a past-tense statement. The issue of our sin is settled before God, and has been since 2,000 years ago at the cross. God set Christ forth as a "propitiation through FAITH IN HIS BLOOD". Once he was set forth as the man through whom forgiveness came, we need only look upon the cross by faith, believing what was accomplished there, and we are saved from wrath through him!
If it says that Christ died FOR our sins, what else was FOR our sins? Didn't his death accomplish it all? What about the words "It is finished"? Now if his death did accomplish the remission of sins, then why do we seek it anywhere else? "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin" (Romans 4:8). 2 Corinthians 5:19 states that this is everyone! God will not impute sin unto mankind today. God stands ready, therefore, to impute his righteousness to whoever believes the gospel, "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed, from faith to faith" (Romans 1:17).
And the baptism, then, is in accordance with faith. Believing the gospel IS being baptized. "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Galatians 3:26, 27). For the baptism Paul speaks of is "by one Spirit". It is not performed by God THROUGH a man (as of water baptism). It is performed by God TO a man (as of spirit baptism). Trusting the gospel causes us to be baptized in spirit into the body of Christ. There is not one drop of water involved.
This began as a debate of Sacraments, but as I feared, it has become an issue of salvation. Frank, judging by what you have said, I am certain that you do not believe the gospel of Christ. Say against me what you will, but your issue is not with me but with God. If only you would see that you never need stand guilty before God as long as you live because Jesus' death was sufficient to cover all your sins, regardless of what you do or do not do.
And Zach, if you're still reading these, please, please reconsider your conversion to Lutheranism! What assurance do you have in the remission of sins you supposedly obtain from Sunday to Sunday by the "Holy Communion"? What is your covering if you do not eat the Lord's body and blood? And if you received justification through baptism, and most of the members of your church received it through baptism as infants, does God then rescind the justification he gives and require your continual observance of a ritual for the remission of your sins?
ReplyDeleteThe preaching of the cross is foolishness to them that perish (1 Corinthians 1:18) and an offence to man's thinking (Galatians 5:11). They say, "It is not enough". But the gospel of Christ, the preaching of the cross, is the power of God to salvation. This is because, "It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (1 Corinthians 1:21).
Okay, Means of Grace 101...
ReplyDeleteBaptism and the Lord's Supper are not extra works, separate from and in addition to the cross-- no more than preaching or reading the Bible are extra works, separate from the cross, that do not save. The reason that Baptism and the Lord's Supper save us is because through the promise of the Word, they give us Jesus and all his benefits; they deliver to us the cross in the here and now. We cannot go back in time to embrace the cross. Salvation is not a mere mental exercise where we think of something that happened a long time ago. It is faith, trust, in a concrete promise that is for us, and is applied to us individually. How do I know I am saved? Christ has baptized me into himself and clothed me with his righteousness, won for me on the cross. No one can say that without faith. FAITH is not a "means of grace." Faith receives the means through with the Gospel comes to us. Faith does not cause salvation, but receives it.
And those who read verses about Baptism and conclude that they are "waterless" have no other justification for doing so except that those verses to not fit into their preconceived assumptions that "Baptism saves" must be wrong.
What is a Lutheran? Contrary to popular belief, a Lutheran is not someone who agrees with everything Luther ever said. A Lutheran is someone who believes that the confessions of the Lutheran church-- many of them not written by Luther at all-- are a correct explanation of what the Scriptures teach.
I find that very few people who claim to not "follow men, but just read the Bible for myself" actually do so. Are you suggesting, Tyler, that you came up with the idea of "dispensations" all by yourself? There is an interpretive tradition behind that (albeit a pretty flimsy one). There is an interpretive tradition behind taking "This is my body" in a purely symbolic way (albeit a tradition that cannot be consistently found at all until the 16th century). I think the real problem is that you are quick to believe that those who disagree with you are doing so mindlessly, without reading and studying the Scriptures, simply because they agree with other Christians throughout history who have also read and studied the Scriptures.
For the love of Cthulhu… dispensationalism too?
ReplyDeleteI have GOT to let you go for the hat trick here; Do pastors have the authority to forgive sins through their office as pastor? I mean, Jesus did tell them to forgive and retain sins didn’t he?
No, pastors do not have the authority to forgive sins; the apostles commissioned by Christ on earth did. And they exercised that authority by preaching a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sin". Just as 1 Peter 3:21 attests to, the hearer would hear the message ("Repent"), be cut to the heart by it, and enter into the waters of baptism with the "answer of a good conscience toward God". By changing his mind about his sins, acknowledging he was sinful, his conscience was converted from bad to good. And he expressed this change of mind by the outward token: water baptism. Just as circumcision proved Abraham believed God, water baptism proved the Jews believed the message of the kingdom ministered to them. The "for (unto, towards) the remission of sins", did not refer to the baptism of water remitting sins, but to the remission of sins promised in the New Testament, earthly, literal, millennial kingdom (promised land) that the Jews will one day occupy. For when Jesus said, "I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, til I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom", he was not referring to not drinking wine particularly, but rather to the application of the remission of sins given at the advent of the Father's kingdom. Just as Jesus said, "Unless you are born of water and the Spirit, you cannot enter the kingdom of God".
ReplyDeleteThe kingdom was preached as "at hand" (so close you could almost touch it) while Jesus was on earth, and it was necessary to be born of "water and the Spirit" to enter into it. So, Acts 2:38 was the promise given. If the Jews would repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (future, in the kingdom), they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". Combining the kingdom scriptures pertaining to water baptism, we can see that the one who believed the gospel of the kingdom (conscience change) and responded by being baptized, was saved and would enter the kingdom of God on earth.
I realize that anyone can study for themselves and come to the wrong conclusions. "Dispensation" however, is not an idea. It's a word in the bible used to express how household affairs are conducted. Israel had her household and the body of Christ has hers; and, in accordance with the "preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery", the body of Christ received some distinct wisdom hidden and reserved for her, one part of which was: a different baptism.
Paul was simply not sent, as the other apostles were, to baptize. He was sent to preach the gospel, the cross of Christ. Peter was obedient to his commission, and Paul was obedient to his. And it pleased God through the "foolishness" (as far as the world sees it) of preaching so save those who would believe the message. Peter's message pertained to the "grace that shall be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ", the salvation Israel would receive when Christ returned to establish his earthly rule (cf. Romans 11:26, 27). But Paul's message pertained to the "grace wherein ye stand", the present reception of grace to the believer of his message.
I understand the idea of believing in a work which is active personally in your own life, as a means of receiving God's grace. But it is simply not the case with salvation today! It most certainly IS a mental assent to what happened at the cross! Read 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. The Corinthians received, stood and were saved by simply believing the gospel! Hearing the preaching of the gospel and responding in faith saves! Faith is counted for righteousness. If you believe the message God has for you, it (your belief) is counted for righteousness. Abraham believed that his seed would be as numerous as the sand on the shore, and it (his faith) was counted for righteousness. He didn't do anything. The second he believed, he was counted righteous.
You all may think that I came on here to promote "Baptistic Theology vs. Reformed Theology" or something like that. (I say "Baptistic" not because I'm a Baptist, but because that is the mainstream denomination usually associated with promoting salvation by faith in the cross alone, without doing anything.) I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm trying to win salvation. The concrete promise that is for us, is that Jesus died, was buried and rose again. And through his death and resurrection, all that is necessary to be saved was provided. His death was for our sins, he paid for them by it; and his life was for our righteousness. And he gives that righteousness when we trust his death for our sins!
ReplyDeleteThe "simplicity" (2 Corinthians 11:3) which is in Christ couldn't be any more simple! You may believe something in God's word and apply it to yourself as a salvation promises, but if it isn't the salvation promise God gave you, it isn't the assurance of the gospel of Christ. The baptism that makes us righteous is not water combined with the word. When we believe, we are baptized by the "faith of the operation of God" into all that Christ did and is, so that God is just in freely giving us, with him, all things. If faith is counted to us for righteousness, and being baptized into Christ is counted for righteousness, how much simpler could it be? Believing the gospel accomplishes righteousness; and being placed into Christ accomplishes righteousness.
We are SEALED, kept safe, confirmed, secure by trusting "the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation" (Ephesians 1:13).
You are all so convinced that the works of water baptism and the Eucharist are the works of God, so that you feel safe quoting, "Not by righteous works which we have done...". But, according to Paul, neither of those are worked by God for our benefit. By being water baptized and receiving the Eucharist for the remission of sins, you are not believing that Christ died for your sins. He already did it. The remission of sins is complete. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" in "due time". At the right time, God sent Christ forth to die for us. That is automatically applied to everyone who is born into the world.
And by the way, Christ did not win righteousness for you at the cross. He won forgiveness for you at the cross. He won righteousness for you at the resurrection. And you enter into that resurrection life by "believing on him to life everlasting" (1 Timothy 1:16).
“No, pastors do not have the authority to forgive sins; the apostles commissioned by Christ on earth did. And they exercised that authority by preaching a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sin"”
ReplyDeleteIf baptism has no part in our salvation why did Jesus tell the apostles in the Great Commission to make disciples of all nations by baptizing them and teaching them to observe all that He had commanded in Matt 28? Shouldn't we believe the words of Christ when He says do this? Yes! By the way, we should also believe the words of the Eucharist when our Lord says this is My blood given for you for the remission of sins!
If “Paul was simply not sent, as the other apostles were, to baptize. He was sent to preach the gospel, the cross of Christ.” why did Jesus send out send out the apostles to preach repentance and the forgiveness of sins in Luke 24?
“I say "Baptistic" not because I'm a Baptist, but because that is the mainstream denomination usually associated with promoting salvation by faith in the cross alone, without doing anything.”
Your understanding of Reformed and Baptist theology is deficient, plain and simple. I think you would be wise read up on the various manifestations of Reformed theology before you exercise that lack of knowledge any further.
Finally, “You are all so convinced that the works of water baptism and the Eucharist are the works of God, so that you feel safe quoting, "Not by righteous works which we have done...". But, according to Paul, neither of those are worked by God for our benefit.” Tyler, please show me from Scripture where Saint Paul says this. The Greek verbs are very clear if you are not able to understand the English; the works that our Lord does requires a passivity on our part because that is what the text says. We can no more perform works to the benefit of our salvation than a dead man get get up and walk on his own.
“By being water baptized and receiving the Eucharist for the remission of sins, you are not believing that Christ died for your sins.” That is a damnable lie and there is not a single person here who has said any such drivel. No orthodox Christian believes this or says this. Please show me one place where any of the commentators have said this or retract this lie! It would seem that your spiritual gift is not being able to accurately articulate or maybe even understand anyone's theological position save the one you have crafted on your own... I may not agree with a Reformed, Roman Catholics, or Eastern Orthodox Christians on a variety of issues but at least I show enough respect to represent their positions with accuracy even if I disagree with them; you would do well to make an effort to do the same and show a similar maturity.