This is the final program in response to Matt Haney's lecture against a Lutheran view of baptism. I dealt mostly with his misrepresentation of Luther and the Anabaptists.
I wonder how Mr. Haney would feel knowing that Charles Spurgeon--who admired Luther, by the way--was a cigar smoker, and could spout off with a temper just as quick as Luther's. Or that Anabaptists were not monolithic in their theology ( see http://www.rbc.org.nz/library/anabap.htm#radicals ).
Good podcast, Jordan, but I can't blame you for wanting to move on from this. Looking forward to more good stuff!
I commented back on Part 1 or 2 of this thing that I didn't think that Haney had really read that much Luther because his page count on his notes was waaay too short to have read much Luther.
It's clear from this audio portion that he hasn't even really studied Lutheran confessional writings. One would think that that kind of research would be important before investing this much pulpit time calling their salvation into question.
Article XXIV of the Augsburg confession is not only one line long. In fact, that line is just about the only line in that whole section that could be misconstrued as "pro-Mass" in any kind of medieval Rome sense.
In paticular, Haney should have read a few paragraphs down where that scoundrel, Melanchthon, wrote: "Concerning these opinions our teachers have given warning that they depart from the Holy Scriptures and diminish the glory of the passion of Christ. For Christ's passion was an oblation and satisfaction, not for original guilt only, but also for all other sins, as it is written to the Hebrews 10:10: We are sanctified through the offering of Jesus Christ once for all. Also, Hebrews 10:14: By one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. [It is an unheard-of innovation in the Church to teach that Christ by His death made satisfaction only for original sin and not likewise for all other sin. Accordingly it is hoped that everybody will understand that this error has not been reproved without due reason.]"
Note the two quotes from Hebrews... apparently Luther agrees with Melanchthon's Apology only when it slanders him as a Mass-celebrating Romanist, but not when enumerating the abuses of that same Mass or in defense of Luther's stance regarding the canonicity of certain books.
I, too, am glad that we are moving on. My blood pressure must be horrible.
Pastors Richard and Surburg believe that our Baptists friends have a different hermeneutic which is heavily influenced by Platonism or neoplatonism. They point to St. Augustine as the chief culprit. Accordingly, a dualistic worldview which sees physical or material matter as imperfect or evil does not allow anything that is material to be an instrument of God's grace. A Lutheran minister told me years ago that John Calvin was somewhat perplexed by John Chapter 20 were Christ appeared to the disciples inside a locked room. After making His presence known, our Lord encouraged the disciples to examine his scars and wounds. Our Lord's glorified body was still a physical body, but John Calvin still couldn't believe that Christ was truly presence in, with, and under the bread and the wine. Your thoughts.
Baptists and Calvinists don't have that much common ground. I don't see Augustine or Calvin as promoting what you describe as a dualistic view or what I think would more commonly be described as a neo-gnostic view of the physical world. Accepting that Christ's resurrected body is a physical body, which is obviously true, is a long ways from accepting the doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ's physical presence.
One wonders if Haney could really be seething at Jesus for instituting something so stupid as baptism. After all, Jesus did not check with Haney prior to giving the great commission. Perhaps Haney is offended.
Thank you for keeping up the good work of your podcasting. It is so nice being able to listen to a Lutheran in a world where the men with audio publications are Reformed and/or Evangelical.
I wonder if Haney would agree with the Anabaptist errors that were condemned in the Formula of Concord.
While there are definite similarities, the American Reformed Baptists have alot more in common with the English Puritans than the medieval Anabaptists that Luther confronted.
The same is true of modern Arminian Baptists... who have more in common with revivalists like Charles Finney than the Anabaptists that you find referenced in the Book of Concord.
I'm guilty of throwing that reference around as much as anyone, but at the end of the day it is probably more of a generalization or epithet than a true theological label.
They agree on a few individual doctrines, but they are not true historical Anabaptists just like Mormons are true historical Arians and the Emergent Church types are not true historical Gnostics.
Doesn't Illbehonest believe in preparationism as a means of regeneration? Couldn't that be construed as a work, especially as it is far more active than baptism.
Me thinks the pot might be calling the kettle black.
9 comments:
I wonder how Mr. Haney would feel knowing that Charles Spurgeon--who admired Luther, by the way--was a cigar smoker, and could spout off with a temper just as quick as Luther's. Or that Anabaptists were not monolithic in their theology ( see http://www.rbc.org.nz/library/anabap.htm#radicals ).
Good podcast, Jordan, but I can't blame you for wanting to move on from this. Looking forward to more good stuff!
I commented back on Part 1 or 2 of this thing that I didn't think that Haney had really read that much Luther because his page count on his notes was waaay too short to have read much Luther.
It's clear from this audio portion that he hasn't even really studied Lutheran confessional writings. One would think that that kind of research would be important before investing this much pulpit time calling their salvation into question.
Article XXIV of the Augsburg confession is not only one line long. In fact, that line is just about the only line in that whole section that could be misconstrued as "pro-Mass" in any kind of medieval Rome sense.
In paticular, Haney should have read a few paragraphs down where that scoundrel, Melanchthon, wrote: "Concerning these opinions our teachers have given warning that they depart from the Holy Scriptures and diminish the glory of the passion of Christ. For Christ's passion was an oblation and satisfaction, not for original guilt only, but also for all other sins, as it is written to the Hebrews 10:10: We are sanctified through the offering of Jesus Christ once for all. Also, Hebrews 10:14: By one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. [It is an unheard-of innovation in the Church to teach that Christ by His death made satisfaction only for original sin and not likewise for all other sin. Accordingly it is hoped that everybody will understand that this error has not been reproved without due reason.]"
Note the two quotes from Hebrews... apparently Luther agrees with Melanchthon's Apology only when it slanders him as a Mass-celebrating Romanist, but not when enumerating the abuses of that same Mass or in defense of Luther's stance regarding the canonicity of certain books.
I, too, am glad that we are moving on. My blood pressure must be horrible.
Pastors Richard and Surburg believe that our Baptists friends have a different hermeneutic which is heavily influenced by Platonism or neoplatonism. They point to St. Augustine as the chief culprit. Accordingly, a dualistic worldview which sees physical or material matter as imperfect or evil does not allow anything that is material to be an instrument of God's grace. A Lutheran minister told me years ago that John Calvin was somewhat perplexed by John Chapter 20 were Christ appeared to the disciples inside a locked room. After making His presence known, our Lord encouraged the disciples to examine his scars and wounds. Our Lord's glorified body was still a physical body, but John Calvin still couldn't believe that Christ was truly presence in, with, and under the bread and the wine. Your thoughts.
Baptists and Calvinists don't have that much common ground. I don't see Augustine or Calvin as promoting what you describe as a dualistic view or what I think would more commonly be described as a neo-gnostic view of the physical world. Accepting that Christ's resurrected body is a physical body, which is obviously true, is a long ways from accepting the doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ's physical presence.
One wonders if Haney could really be seething at Jesus for instituting something so stupid as baptism. After all, Jesus did not check with Haney prior to giving the great commission. Perhaps Haney is offended.
Jordan,
Thank you for keeping up the good work of your podcasting. It is so nice being able to listen to a Lutheran in a world where the men with audio publications are Reformed and/or Evangelical.
I wonder if Haney would agree with the Anabaptist errors that were condemned in the Formula of Concord.
While there are definite similarities, the American Reformed Baptists have alot more in common with the English Puritans than the medieval Anabaptists that Luther confronted.
The same is true of modern Arminian Baptists... who have more in common with revivalists like Charles Finney than the Anabaptists that you find referenced in the Book of Concord.
I'm guilty of throwing that reference around as much as anyone, but at the end of the day it is probably more of a generalization or epithet than a true theological label.
They agree on a few individual doctrines, but they are not true historical Anabaptists just like Mormons are true historical Arians and the Emergent Church types are not true historical Gnostics.
Doesn't Illbehonest believe in preparationism as a means of regeneration? Couldn't that be construed as a work, especially as it is far more active than baptism.
Me thinks the pot might be calling the kettle black.
Good point David. Strangely enough, this preparationist theology ends up becoming a form of synergism.
Post a Comment