Just and Sinner

Why should Christians Perform Good Works? A Reply to Tulian Tchividjian

2012-01-27T12:00:00.000-08:00

In Tullian Tchividjian's new book "Jesus+Nothing=Everything", one of the central claims made is that the only motivation for doing good works is thankfulness for the gospel. According to Tchividjian, having any other motivation for good works is equivalent to Pharisaism. I hear these kinds of statements a lot from the supposed "Lutheran leaning" Reformed crowd. However, much like the two kingdom theology of this group, I find that this approach to good works is far from the Lutheran tradition. Martin Chemnitz, in his Loci Theologici, outlines several reasons why the Christian should perform good works. They are as follows:

I. Good Works as they apply to God Himself
1. It is the command of God
2. It is the will of God
3. If God is our father, we should be obedient sons
4. Christ redeemed us that he might purify us
5. Good works are the fruit of the Spirit
6. We glorify God through our works
7. That we might become imitators of God
8. That we might walk worthily of God

II. Causes which apply to the Renegerate
1. Because they have been born again, and are new creatures
2. Because they are sons of light
3. That they might witness to the genuineness of faith
4. That they may be assured that they don't have dead faith
5. So that faith might not be lost
6. So that we may avoid the punishments of God in this life
7. We should have zeal for doing good

III. The impelling and final causes of Good Works as over against our neighbors
1. That our neighbor might be helped and served
2. That others may be invited to godliness by our example
3. That we give no one a cause for offense
4. That by blessing we may shut the mouths of our adversaries

All of these can be found in greater detail with scriptural proofs in Loci Theologici Vol. III, 1183-1184.

All of our good works should be performed with the gospel of Christ in view, and never without the recognition of our utter dependence on the grace of God. However, the language that is often used that thankfulness for the gospel is the sole motivation for good works is unhelpful. It does not exhaust the Biblical testimony or the teaching of the Lutheran tradition.

Is the gospel purely forensic?

2012-01-21T09:58:00.000-08:00

In the continuing discussions in the Reformed camp over the issue of union with Christ and its relation to justification, one of the questions that has consistently risen is that of the definition of the gospel. Is the gospel the forensic doctrine of justification? Is it solely defined as imputation of righteousness and forgiveness on the personal ordo salutis?

It is often the assumption that the Lutheran approach to the gospel consists purely of subjective justification of the sinner without ontological or transformational categories. It is pure legal declaration. But is this portrayal of the Lutheran position accurate?

The Smalcald Articles make it apparent that for Luther, the center of the gospel is the objective work of Christ in history for us. This is how Luther defines the "chief article" of the Christian faith:

"That Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins, and was raised again for our justification, Rom. 4:25.

2] And He alone is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world, John 1:29; and God has laid upon Him the iniquities of us all, Is. 53:6.

3] Likewise: All have sinned and are justified without merit [freely, and without their own works or merits] by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood, Rom. 3:23f

4] Now, since it is necessary to believe this, and it cannot be otherwise acquired or apprehended by any work, law, or merit, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us as St. Paul says, Rom. 3:28: For we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law. Likewise 3:26: That He might be just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Christ." (Part II: Article 1)

Both objective and subjective justification constitute the gospel. Luther is also not willing to dismiss the effective change in the believer's heart as something foreign to the gospel. He states later in the Smalcald Articles of the doctrine of justification,

"I do not know how to change in the least what I have previously and constantly taught about justification. Namely, that through faith, as St. Peter says, we have a new and clean heart, and God will and does account us entirely righteous and holy for the sake of Christ our Mediator. Although sin in the flesh has not yet been completely removed or become dead, yet He will not punish or remember it." (Part III Article 13:1)

Not only is regeneration an aspect of the gospel for the Lutheran church, but also the Christian's adoption as God's child. As Melancthon writes in the Apology, “Since we receive forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit through faith alone, faith justifies. For those reconciled are counted as righteous and as God’s children.” (Apology IV:II:86)

Chemnitz also defines the gospel as something broader than simply imputation and forgiveness in his Loci Theologici, “For the Gospel contains the promise of the Spirit of renewal, who writes the Law into the heart of believers, Jer. 31:33. It also teaches how the beginnings of obedience, although imperfect and contaminated in many ways, are pleasing to God in those who are righteous for the sake of Christ." (Loci Theologici II-III, 826)

The gospel is the message of Christ for us and his accomplished salvation in his life, death, and resurrection. This brings imputation, forgiveness, adoption, eschatological vindication, and the Spirit who renews hearts. Hopefully this helps clarify some of these issues in the ongoing dialogue.

Puritan Confusion of Law and Gospel

2012-01-11T08:59:00.000-08:00

For those in the so-called "new Calvinism" camp, the puritans are often considered the apex of Reformed Christianity. I personally, even while I was a Reformed Christian, never liked the puritans all that much. I never really even appreciated the writings of Jonathan Edwards (despite the fact that I live right near the church he preached at), as he was far too introspective. Though I do appreciate his philosophical acumen. A recent review of Tullian Tchividjian's book "Jesus + Nothing = Everything" on the podcast Reformed Media Review highlights some of the reasons which I do not have an affinity with the Puritans. Puritan scholar Mark Jones at one point stated the issue rather clearly,

"The Protestant Scholastics and Puritans viewed the gospel not simply as Christ for us... but the gospel for them actually commanded as well as promised. And Samuel Rutherford actually says that the gospel commands with an even stronger force than the law because of the great indicative behind the commands."

Though many in the Reformed camp try to highlight similarities between the Lutheran and Reformed perspectives on law and gospel, this demonstrates where we often have parted ways. Yes, there are some who hold to a more strict distinction between law and gospel (though limited atonement really negates Luther's distinction), but there is no consensus in Reformed theology on the issue either historically, or in modern discussions.

These kinds of statements simply don't hold water Biblically.

Look how the Mosaic law is described by Peter at the council of Jerusalem,
"Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" (Acts 15:10)

Look at how the gospel is described by Jesus,
"For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:30)

Does the gospel command with a stronger force than the law? I think the texts speak for themselves.

1 Corinthians 1:10-17 and Baptismal Regeneration

2012-01-09T20:21:00.000-08:00

I once heard a Reformed seminary professor confess that several texts in scripture sound like baptismal regeneration, but because of one specific text, he denied the possibility. That text comes from 1 Corinthians,

"I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."

The argument goes something like this: Paul went to Corinth to save those who were lost. Paul preached the gospel but did not baptize. Therefore, Paul viewed the preaching of the gospel as saving but not the act of baptism.

My initial reaction to this argument is simple that the text has nothing to say directly about the effect of baptism, so that to infer from this that baptism serves a symbolic purpose (or something slightly above that) is stretching the text beyond what is exegetically tenable.

But if we are to infer anything from this text about the efficacy of baptism, I would argue that it necessitates something beyond a purely symbolic approach. Paul is assuming that those who baptized the individual in the congregation would be so identified with the one receiving the sacrament that those receiving baptism would attribute their Christian life to the hands of the baptizer.

Paul assumes a saving efficacy in the baptismal act, because he shows that those who were baptized by Paul would look at Paul in the role that Christ himself has in our salvation. As Paul rhetorically asks, "was Paul crucified for you?" I cannot imagine a situation in a church wherein a purely symbolic act would so divide a church that those receiving such an "ordinance" would divide themselves over who performed this ordinance for them.

This belief of the Corinthians is further seen as Paul references the fact that the Corinthians were baptizing for the dead. Would one go to such extremes for an act which has no spiritual significance other than an act of profession among men or entrance into an external covenant with no real soteric benefits? It doesn't seem plausible.

Lutheran Two Kingdom Theology is not Escondido Theology

2012-01-06T11:58:00.000-08:00

The blogosphere is full of discussions of two-kingdom theology and neo-Calvinism. Especially with the publication of David VanDrunen's Living in God's Two Kingdoms, and John Frame's recent publication against so-called "Escondido Theology", the Reformed seem to all be talking about views of church and state.

What bothers me, is that once again, the Reformed are talking about "Lutheran" views without actually looking at Lutheran sources. The theologians at Westminster Seminary and California are seen as "Lutheran" (or most often caricatures of these theologians), and thus Lutheran theology is judged on that basis. But are these theologians really Lutheran in regard to this issue of two kingdom theology? It is my contention that they are not.

In modern discussions of two kingdom theology, with such writers as Michael Horton, David VanDrunen, Daryl Hart, and Jason Stellman, there seems to be a conglomeration of Luther's two kingdom approach and American church/state relations. This strict separation between the Christians involvement in the two realms is far from the Lutheran traditions definition of two kingdom theology. Often in the VanDrunen approach, the church and state are separate to such an extent that there is no interaction between the two kingdoms. The public square becomes something of a secular no man's land, wherein one's Christian presuppositions and convictions are not to be discussed. So what is the actual Lutheran approach to the subject?

For Luther, God rules the church, and the world in two different ways. God rules the church through the gospel. This gospel is accepted through the free response of faith (through the work of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace), and brings the forgiveness of sins and spiritual life. The church is not a place of compulsion. However, the state contains both believer and non-believer; those who have accepted the gospel and those who reject it. Since faith is a free response, and only comes through the work of the Spirit, it cannot be forced by the sword. Therefore, the gospel cannot be enforced by the state.

The state began after the fall. When Cain killed his brother, God did not choose to kill Cain but protected him, so that no one would be allowed to murder Cain. Thus began the state wherein the rights of both believer and non-believer are defended. Genesis 9 repeats this principle, as God makes a covenant with all of creation and promising punishment to all who commit murder.

So if the state contains both believer and unbeliever, and God desires to protect even the unrepentant sinner, how does he rule? It can't be through the gospel, because that only applies to Christians. This is why God operates through the law in the state. In Romans thirteen, Paul writes that even a pagan emperor is an instrument of justice. He is placed in power to reward civil obedience, and punish disobedience. This maintains good order, and external righteousness (while never judging the heart.)

For Luther, it can be said even that the state exists primarily for the unbeliever. Believers do not need compulsion to obey laws, because through faith they freely love and serve their neighbors.

So does this mean that Christians should be quietists, and ignore what happens in the state since it only applies to unbelievers? Not at all! God is the king of both the church and the state, and calls Christians to be involved in the civil realm. It is imperative in the command to love one's neighbor that we are involved in the state to such an extent that we promote what benefits others. For example, Christians have a duty to fight abortion, not to bring about the kingdom of God on earth (this is confusing the two realms, mixing law and gospel) but because we love those among us who are unborn. I have heard some Reformed "two kingdom" proponents argue that this issue shouldn't be discussed because it's an issue of the state rather than the church. One couldn't be any farther from Luther's meaning of two kingdom theology!

After all, Luther was greatly concerned about the political issues of his day. He wrote about usury, just war, treatment of the poor, and several other important political issues. He even urged the state to establish Christian schools in Germany.

Lutherans are also not negligent when it comes to Christian interaction with culture. Lutheran theology is thoroughly incarnational, professing that the finite is capable of the infinite. God comes to us in real material, concrete ways through bread, wine, water, and human speech. Thus we relish the material gifts that God gives us. We love art, liturgy, vestments, and music. The Lutheran church has sometimes been called the "church of the musicians." The Reformed church does not have this same artistic tradition due to Calvin's abhorrence of images and instrumentation.

So, having explained the Lutheran interpretation in contrast to the Escondido two kingdom approach, what is different about a Lutheran approach to culture and many of the Reformed transformationalist approaches out there? Well, it seems to come down to one issue: eschatology. For the Lutheran, the kingdom of God will only be established upon the return of Christ. It exists now only in proclamation and in the sacraments. Our work in the culture does not establish God's kingdom on earth, but is motivated by a love for our neighbors because we are already in God's kingdom through faith. This is why I can work with both Christian and non-Christian for the establishment of peace and justice in the world.

For the Reformed transformationalists and neo-Calvinists, God's kingdom comes gradually through a redemption of culture, through the work of the church. The problem I have with this approach is not that it engages Christians in culture and the state, but that it simply isn't consistent with the nature of the Church in this age. 1 Peter describes us as foreigners, and exiles in the world. The fact is Christians will always be in the minority until Christ returns. We will never be able to transform culture and take hold of the majority of the earth. The second problem I have is its inherent synergism. Kingdom building is the work of God alone, as he comes to us in word and sacrament and will consummate upon Christ's return. All we can do is tell of this coming kingdom, and proclaim the forgiveness of sins which it brings.

I hope this brings some greater understanding of what we believe and how the so called "Escondido Theology" is not representative of our tradition. A Lutheran two kingdom approach is a centrist position avoiding both the extreme of political quietism or keeping one's Christian proclamation in the church alone, and using the church as a vehicle to transform culture.

Chemnitz approved of double predestination?

2012-01-05T11:45:00.000-08:00

I was reading through Chemnitz' Loci Theologici, and came across a discussion of Fulgentius of Ruspe's book to Monimus. Fulgentius likely isn't a familiar name, as he is not an oft cited writer. He was a north African bishop in the sixth century who is known primarily for his defense of the Augustinian view of grace against the semi-Pelagians. You can find a one volume translation of some of his works in the Fathers of the Church series by CUA press. I highly recommend it.

On page 328, Chemnitz cites Augustine's affirmation of double predestination and approves of Fulgentius' formulation of the concept. Fulgentius argues that predestination is twofold. First God predestined the elect unconditionally unto salvation. Second God predestines not individuals unto death but the punishment to be given to those who reject the gospel. As Chemnitz writes, "God foreknows the evil intentions and actions of the godless, but he does not predestine them. But he has predestined that the punishment for these sins shall take place with righteous judgment." It is interesting to me that there is precedence in the Lutheran tradition for double predestination. This formulation of double predestination is actually more consistent with the Augustinian tradition than the Reformed are.

The predestinarian tradition does not leave room for a double predestination in the Calvinistic sense of the term. In the late Patristic and medieval period, no one argued for an unconditional predestination unto death. It's easy to read a source which says "double predestination" and assume a later definition of the phrase, but as Chemnitz shows, it is actually consistent with the Lutheran formulation of the concept. The Lutheran tradition is much more Augustinian and catholic than the reformed tradition.

David Scaer on Sanctification

2011-12-14T20:14:00.001-08:00

I happened to run across this article recently, which I think lays out the differences between the Calvinistic and Lutheran approaches to sanctification rather well. For any interested in the topic: click here

Introduction to Patristic theology

2011-11-22T09:31:00.000-08:00

I have been asked quite a few times recently what to read to begin studying the Church fathers. These are a few of the resources that helped me begin to study Patristic theology.

First, I must recommend two essential volumes. One is J.N.D. Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines, and the other is Jeraslov Pelikan's The Christian Tradition vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition. These are really the two standard scholarly introductions to Patristic theology. While I don't always agree, the extensive one volume treatment of such a broad topic remains unsurpassed.

I do not recommend reading the Ancient Christian Commentaries series, nor do I recommend Jurgen's three volume introduction to the fathers. These are commonly recommended resources that I have found less than helpful. Regarding the Ancient Christian Commentary series, I have found that the quotes are selective, and contain no context. A list of Patristic citations often betrays the author's beliefs rather than the father who is being quoted. I also find it somewhat strange that these volumes contain quotes from known heretics such as Pelagius. Jurgen's volumes betray a heavy Roman Catholic bias. The quotes he selects show continuity with later defined Roman Dogmas which are often far from the majority views in the early Christian period.

Rather than reading compilations of Patristic quotes, I would recommend going to the sources themselves. But where should one begin? There are so many volumes out there, it is just about impossible to read them all. I will give you some of my personal favorites, though there is far more out there, and I'm sure others would list different books than I will recommend.

First, I recommend Augustine's Confessions. This is an easy to read (provided you get a modern translation) autobiography that contains numerous great spiritual insights. Most people I have met who have an interest in Patristics began with this book, including myself. Second I recommend reading the apostolic fathers. I would recommend Michael Holmes translation, as a modern English version. This contains the earliest Christian writings. While you may be flat out confused by the Shephard of Hermas, the epistle of I Clement, the Ignatian writings, and the epistle to Diognetus are spiritual gems.

And on to my personal favorites:
Irenaues's On the Apostolic Preaching This is a great introduction to the Christian faith from one of the greatest early Christian writers. http://www.amazon.com/Apostolic-Preaching-Irenaeus-Saint-Bishop/dp/0881411744/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321984147&sr=8-1

Augustine's On the Spirit and the Letter This was one of Luther's favorite writings, as it introduced him to what would be known as the distinction between law and gospel. This can be found in a modern translation in http://www.amazon.com/Answer-Pelagians-Works-Saint-Augustine/dp/1565480929/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1321984376&sr=8-10

Prosper of Aquitaine's The Call of All Nations. This book is quoted in the Augsburg Confession (though attributed to Ambrose) and was often recommended by Luther. It is by far the best book written on the subject of grace and predestination in the first 1500 years of the church. Prosper defends a moderate Augustinianism which defends both the election of grace, and God's universal saving will. http://www.amazon.com/14-St-Prosper-Aquitaine-Christian/dp/0809102536/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321984612&sr=1-1

Ambrose's Patriarchal Treatises, specificall On Jacob and the Happy Life. Ambrose is a brilliant rhetorician, and while often his exegesis is strained, his Christ centered pastoral approach brings out some of the best preaching the church has ever seen. http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Exegetical-Fathers-Church-Paperback/dp/081321355X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321984807&sr=1-2

Finally, so as not to be too overwhelming in my recommendations, I recommend John Chrysostom's Commentary on Galatians. Chrysostom's commentaries follow a grammatical historical approach, much like a modern commentary would. This is a work I have continually come back to for edification and encouragement in my Christian life. This can be found with some of his other excellent commentaries. http://www.amazon.com/NICENE-POST-NICENE-FATHERS-St-Chrysostom-Thessalonians/dp/1602066140/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321985027&sr=1-6

Let me know if this is helpful, or recommend other introductory resources that I may not have come across that you have found useful in Patristic study.

Lutherans and the use of images Part 2

2011-11-09T09:52:00.000-08:00

Having explained what the Lutheran view of images is, I will now attempt to give a brief defense that this is a Biblical understanding.

The main Reformed objection is of course from the second commandment (first for Lutherans). The commandment states:
"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:4)

The main thrust of the command is against worship of images. In the ancient middle east, it was common for religions to venerate statues of false gods. As many other laws given to Israel, this law served to protect the people from Israel from the corruption of the false religions of surrounding nations. It is not opposing using images for any purpose whatsoever.

This is clear from the fact that Israel was actually commanded to make images.

"You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold. Two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth. And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be. And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you. There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel." (Exodus 25:17-22)

If it was acceptable to use images in the worship setting in the Old Testament (the ark was of course the most holy place for Jewish worship), why is it assumed to be wrong in the new?

One may object that images of saints and angels are permissible, but images of God are not. But must this be the case for the incarnate God, who willfully took an image upon himself? Sure, images of God in his glory cannot begin to approach his majesty in the heavens, but how can one argue against an image of a real historical event on this earth? Crucifixes are not meant to give an exact image of what Jesus' face looks like, but to be a visual reminder that God became an actual man, in real history, and truly died a bloody death for the sins of the world.

Lutherans and the use of images Part 1

2011-11-08T10:38:00.000-08:00

One of the things that initially scared me away from Lutheran churches was the crucifix placed in the front of the sanctuary behind the preacher. Doesn't that violate the second commandment? Do Lutherans venerate icons?

This is a common apprehension Reformed Christians have about Lutheran worship. I would look to clear up a few misconceptions.

Lutherans do not venerate icons. At the second council of Nicea in 787, the issue of images was at hand. One side, called iconoclasts, were against the use of images altogether. Churches should not be adorned at all with pictures of Jesus, or the saints. The other position, represented most adequately by John of Damascus, argued that icons of Jesus, Mary, the Angels, and the Saints, should be displayed and churches and homes. One could venerate (in distinction from worship) the icons. When one venerates the icon, he is not venerating the picture, but what it represents.

While the Reformed have traditionally accepted the "iconoclast" position, Lutherans have not whole-heartily adopted the Damascene position on the issue either. There are a couple of reasons for this.

First, we do not venerate the saints. The saints should be commended and remembered for their great faith and example in this life (Hebrews 11 displays this rather well). However, we do not pray, or perform any act we conceive as worship to the saints.

Second, scripture does not imply that icons are a window into the heavenly realms. Believing in sola scriptura, we simply can't hold to this view.

So what do we use images for?

We use them as tools to instruct and remind us of our faith. The crucifix is a constant reminder of the gospel. It is often placed in the sanctuary to remind both the pastor and the congregation that Christ, and his cross are the center of the church's worship life. We use images of saints to remind us of the great faith of those who have come before us, and remind us of the unity of the church in heaven and on earth.

Lutherans have a weak view of sin?

2011-10-29T14:50:00.000-07:00

On a recent episode of the Reformed radio show "Christ the Center", Professor at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, Lane Tipton, discussed the differences between Lutheran and Reformed views of union with Christ and sanctification. According to Tipton, giving justification primacy in the ordo salutis,(as in Lutheranism) necessitates a view of semi-Pelagianism. Only Calvinists can lay claim to Augustine's anthropology. If justification precedes other soteriological benefits, regeneration must occur as a result of justification. If this is true, faith becomes a possibility of the natural man apart from the Spirit's work. Tipton even went on to compare the Lutheran view of sin with that of the New Perspective. Is this really true? Do Lutherans hold a low view of sin, and approach semi-Pelagianism? What do the Lutheran Confessions say on the topic?

Augsburg Confession Article V: "For through the Word and Sacraments, as though through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God in them that hear the gospel."

This is exactly the opposite of what Tipton suggests Lutherans teach. The Holy Spirit is given to create faith, not because of faith.

Augsburg Confession Article XVIII: "Of free will they teach that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, an to work things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received through the word."

Again, the Holy Spirit must precede any good in man. This would include faith.

Small Catechism II:3 "I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth"

Epitome II:19"Therefore, before the conversion of man there are only two efficient causes, namely the Holy Ghost and the Word of God, as the instrument of the Holy Ghost, by which He works conversion. This Word man is to hear; however, it is not of his own powers, but only through the grace and working of the Holy Ghost that he can yield faith to it and accept it."

These quotes could be greatly multiplied. The entire Article II of the formula of Concord is on the subject of free will. The assertions of Dr. Tipton are unfounded. The Reformed do not lay sole claim to Augustinian anthropology. If one is in fact to read Augustine's anti-Pelagian treatises, they are far from "Calvinistic." For Augustine, all grace is routed in baptism.

1 John and assurance of faith

2011-10-21T12:00:00.000-07:00

The question I get asked perhaps more than any other is regarding the first epistle of John. 1 John has often been used by Calvinistic preachers as a test of the genuineness of one's faith. The mode of thought is this,
"am I really a Christian? I am baptized, go to church, partake of the Supper, pray, etc. but none of this matters if I don't have faith. Well how do I know if I have true faith? True faith produces works, therefore I must look at my works. However, I see non-Christians who do seemingly nice things, so I must see if my works are better than theirs by looking at my affections and motivations."
1 John is then the proof that this is a Biblical method of attaining assurance. So how do I as a Lutheran, who is always telling people to look to their baptism, and the work of Christ for assurance interpret this book? Doesn't it point people to their works to gain assurance of true saving faith?

In short-no I don't think so.
First, remember that John begins his epistle by stating that "if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." (1:7-10) Before allowing his readers to assume that Christians are expected to live a sinless life, John reminds his readers that they are simul iustus et peccator. This serves as a corrective for how his later words could be misconstrued.

John does then begin to write about the necessity of works in the Christian life. (yes, works are a necessary result of saving faith) He states, "whoever says 'I know him' but does not keep his commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him." (2:4) I propose that John does not do so to tell Christians to judge their works to gain assurance of saving faith, but to continue in repentance after one is in the faith. It was characteristic of many early gnostic groups to promote licentiousness living. Salvation is attained through knowledge, and through escaping the physical world. Therefore whatever one does with the body is irrelevant. Perpetual unrepentant sin was not a barrier to the soul's salvation. John's emphasis on the physical nature of Christ (his language of seeing and touching Christ, or his insistence on Jesus coming in flesh for example) along with the antinomianism he is fighting is evidence that he is battling early proto-gnostic groups. Thus John is not writing to doubting believers that they might have a "test" for the genuineness of faith, but warning Christians against the early gnostic heresy.

Look for example at the second chapter. In verses 7-11 John tells his readers of the necessity of love in the Christian life. After he does this, he does not then tell his readers "see if you measure up" but something very different. He writes, "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake." He does not say "so that you may know if your sins are forgiven", but "because your sins are forgiven." He then mentions that he is writing to those who "know him", and "have overcome the evil one." This is a use of the indicative and imperative.

John, like the rest of the New Testament authors, assures his readers that through confession of sin and repentance they are forgiven and loved by God. However, he is warning that those who live unrepentant lives, deny the flesh of Christ, and hate their brothers are not of the fold. As Luther's first of the 95 theses stated "the entire life of the Christian is one of repentance." John is warning his readers against falling away from the true faith into this gnostic heresy, adopting licentious living and denying the humanity of Christ which he refers to as the "sin that leads to death." (5:16)

Cling to the promise that those who confess are forgiven, and don't fall fall away from repentance, the church, and the doctrine of the gospel. That in short is the message of 1 John.

Sermon

2011-08-15T10:21:00.001-07:00

Here is the audio of a sermon I preached a couple weeks ago:
http://stjohnswestfield.com/Radio/St%20Johns%20August%2014%20Broadcast.mp3

The Self Evidencing Power of Truth

2011-07-14T11:16:00.001-07:00

This fragment from Justin's lost work "On the Resurrection" is one of the best statements on Christian apologetics that I have ever come across.

"The word of truth is free, and carries its own authority, disdaining to fall under any skilful argument, or to endure the logical scrutiny of its hearers. But it would be believed for its own nobility, and for the confidence due to Him who sends it. Now the word of truth is sent from God; wherefore follow the freedom claimed by the truth is not arrogant. For being sent with authority, it were not fit that it should be required to produce proof of what is said; since neither is there any proof beyond itself, which is God. For every proof is more powerful and trustworthy than that which it proves; since what is disbelieved, until proof is produced, gets credit when such proof is produced, and is recognised as being what it was stated to be. But nothing is either more powerful or more trustworthy than the truth; so that he who requires proof of this is like one who wishes it demonstrated why the things that appear to the senses do appear. For the test of those things which are received through the reason, is sense; but of sense itself there is no test beyond itself. As then we bring those things which reason hunts after, to sense, and by it judge what kind of things they are, whether the things spoken be true or false, and then sit in judgment no longer, giving full credit to its decision; so also we refer all that is said regarding men and the world to the truth, and by it judge whether it be worthless or no. But the utterances of truth we judge by no separate test, giving full credit to itself. And God, the Father of the universe, who is the perfect intelligence, is the truth. And the Word, being His Son, came to us, having put on flesh, revealing both Himself and the Father, giving to us in Himself resurrection from the dead, and eternal life afterwards. And this is Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Lord. He, therefore, is Himself both the faith and the proof of Himself and of all things. Wherefore those who follow Him, and know Him, having faith in Him as their proof, shall rest in Him. But since the adversary does not cease to resist many, and uses many and divers arts to ensnare them, that he may seduce the faithful from their faith, and that he may prevent the faithless from believing, it seems to me necessary that we also, being armed with the invulnerable doctrines of the faith, do battle against him in behalf of the weak."

Irenaeus on Christ as the second Adam

2011-07-07T08:11:00.000-07:00

"After the flesh [Christ] might be the son of David, who was the son of Abraham by a long succession; but according to the spirit Son of God, pre-existing with the Father, begotten before all the creation of the world, and at the end of the times appearing to all the world as man, the Word of God gathering up in Himself all things that are in heaven and that are on earth.So then He united man with God, and established a community of union between God and man; since we could not in any other way participate in incorruption, save by His coming among us. For so long as incorruption was invisible and unrevealed, it helped us not at all: therefore it became visible,that in all respects we might participate in the reception of incorruption. And, because in the original formation of Adam all of us were tied and bound up with death through his disobedience, it was right that through the obedience of Him who was made man for us we should be released from death: and because death reigned over the flesh, it was right that through the flesh it should lose its force and let man go free from its oppression. So the Word was made flesh,that, through that very flesh which sin had ruled and dominated, it should lose its force and be no longer in us. And therefore our Lord took that same original formation as (His) entry into flesh, so that He might draw near and contend on behalf of the fathers, and conquer by Adam that which by Adam had stricken us down."

Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching Ch. 30

Reformed Theology and False Faith

2011-07-01T07:19:00.000-07:00

I have been meaning to address the issue of "false faith" in Reformed theology for some time, but the subject is so immense that I fear that a blog post will not do it justice. This subject seems to come up more than any other (besides baptism) when talking with Reformed Christians. So here is my attempt to at least begin the dialogue.

In Reformed theology, one cannot be truly regenerate and fall away from the faith. However, most of us have known seemingly devoted Christians who have at some point in their life walked away from Christ. So how does our experience make sense of the teaching of perseverance? One must conclude either one of two things.
1. That these people truly were saved and did fall away, hence the Reformed teaching is wrong.
2. These people were never saved in the first place. Some have "false faith", think that they are believers but fall away from the faith. Others have true faith and persevere to the end. This is the conclusion of Reformed theology.

So how does one know if they are truly regenerate or not? For a Lutheran, one can look to his or her baptism, the sacraments, and the proclamation of forgiveness in absolution. These are objective means by which God continually creates new life and brings forgiveness. They are not mere "signs" of God's favor toward us (as has been taught by Reformed theologians because of Augustine's unfortunate use of the term) but are themselves acts of grace confronting our sin.

For the Reformed theologian, one assesses his regeneration by the nature of his changed dispositions. This is not the case with all Reformed theology (look for example at the Lutheran-influenced theologians at Westminster West) but is predominant in revivalist American Reformed Christianity. In this system, one must continually test his election by looking for signs of the Spirit's work in one's heart.

The defense for this idea usually comes from the book of 1 John. John lays out a series of tests which one must compare himself/herself to. If one passes these tests, assurance of salvation is granted. One must have a love of God, a love of one's neighbor, and a love of God's commandments. Even so, aren't there some who have fallen away who seem to have a love for God, neighbor, and the commandments? Surely, these people believed themselves to be saved and had some signs of new life. This is the problem Jonathan Edwards faced in the great awakening. So many conversions were happening. How was one to determine the true from the false? In his book the Religions Affections, Edwards goes beyond these outward signs and asks the reader to examine his/her heart. Are your affections changed? Do you really hate sin? Do you love God for God's sake?

If you have read my recent article in the Issues etc. Journal, then you are aware that these questions plagued me for some time. The constant question on my mind was "how do I know if I am elect?" Rather than pointing to the objective work of Christ, God's presence in the sacraments, or the proclaimed word, I was often pointed inward. After reading Edwards and listening to preachers like Paul Washer, there was one conclusion I could come to: If these men are right, there is no way I am saved. In fact, if these men are right, I don't think anyone is saved. The fact is, the standards are so high that no one who has not yet been glorified can meet them.

The problem stems from the Reformed view of election. When election becomes the primary soteriological motif, the question of salvation becomes "how do I know if I am elect?" One cannot point to the objective work of Christ, because it was only done for the elect. Thus, before I can have assurance that Christ died for me, I must look to my works as evidence of the Spirit. Once I have this assurance, I can look to the cross. Whether or not it is intended, I am ultimately pointed to my works. One is then trapped in the Augustinian plague which denies assurance to anyone. Though I know this is not the intent of most Calvinists, when election becomes so central, and the cross is put in a secondary position, this is inevitable.

How do you know if you are elect? Look to God's electing act now. God is creating new life in you through the word and sacraments. He claimed you at your baptism. He continues to claim you through the Eucharist. When Paul speaks to the Ephesians of their election in Christ, he does not stop to make sure that everyone in his audience has tested their faith for genuineness. He does not say "God chose some of us in him" or "God chose us in him if you have enough fruit". Paul proclaims indiscriminately that God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world! This is because Paul understood that God's electing act was worked out through baptism, and the gathering of the church.

But what about 1 John, Matthew 7, and the other passages which speak of the necessity of works? Here there is a legitimate place for distinguishing between "true faith" and "false faith". The distinction is simple, and much less complicated that it is made out to be. False faith is simply faith without repentance. It is proclaiming the gospel without the law. Some proto-gnostics at the end of the first century began teaching that the body was useless, thus whatever one did with the flesh (sexual immorality, etc.) was of no concern. This is what John seems to be battling in his epistles. True faith in Christ is accompanied by sorrow over sin.

If you look inside yourself for assurance, you are going to be continually disappointed. Even the regenerate heart is not completely cleansed from sin. Instead, look to Christ, the author and finisher of our faith. Look at his completed salvation, and participate in Him through the Eucharist and his proclaimed word.

John Chrysostom's Comments on Psalm 45

2011-06-30T07:42:00.000-07:00

"While the first Adam was filled with countless curses, this person by contrast with him is filled with every blessing. The former heard the words, "You are cursed in your works," and the one after him again, "Cursed is the one who does not adhere to what is written in this book," and "Cursed is the one hanged on a tree." Do you see the number of curses? Christ in becoming a curse freed you from these. As he humbled himself to exalt you, and died to render you immortal, so too he became a curse to fill you with blessing. What could match this blessing, when through a curse you regaled with blessing? Not that he himself stood in need of blessing, of course, but rather that he gives it to you. You see, just as when I say that he was humbled I imply not change but that considerateness of the Incarnation, so to when I say he was blessed I do not imply that he needed blessing but again I demonstrate the considerateness of the Incarnation. It was human nature, therefore, that was blessed. Christ, in fact, raised from the dead dies no more, and is not subject to a curse; rather, even before this he was not subject, but took on the curse so as to free you from it."

Hill, Robert Charles. John Chrysostom's Commentary on the Psalms Volume 1. Brookline: Holy Orthodox Press, 1998. Page 265

Clarifying the issue of equal ultimacy

2011-04-16T19:26:00.000-07:00

I was asked by a reader to discuss the issue of equal ultimacy.

Equal ultimacy is the idea that God predestines men to wrath in the same way that he predestines men to life. There is an exact parallel between election to salvation and reprobation. This position in Calvinist theology is labelled "supralapsarianism." God decrees both salvation and reprobation, and then decrees the fall as the means of bringing this about.

This is distinguished from the "infralapsarianism" in which election and reprobation are described as two separate acts. Election is God's active choice of certain fallen men unto salvation; reprobation is God's passive allowance of the non-elect to remain in their fallen state. In other words, God chooses some for salvation out of the sinful lump of humanity while leaving the rest in their sin.

These two positions are sometimes placed under a logical order (as opposed to a temporal order, since God transcends time) of God's decrees.

The supralapsarian "order of decrees" are as follows:

1. God decrees to glorify Himself in election and reprobation
2. God decrees the fall as a means of bringing about election and reprobation
3. God decrees the death of Christ for the elect

And the infralapsarian view:

1. God decrees the fall
2. In view of the fall, God decrees the salvation of some, while allowing the rest to remain in their sin.
3. God decrees the death of Christ for the elect

This is an important distinction to make, because Lutherans too often characterize all Calvinists as being guilty of equal ultimacy, while infralapsarianism is the predominant view. Infralapsarianism is less problematic as it avoids making God the author of sin. However, both positions are inadequate for a couple of reasons.

First, both positions are based on a theology of glory wherein one is concerned with the eternal decrees of God, rather than God's revelation in Christ--God hidden rather than God revealed--God in Himself rather than God preached. While this may be an interesting intellectual exercise, it leads one far beyond the Biblical material on the issue. I highly doubt that Paul was contemplating the order of God's decrees as he penned the epistle to the Ephesians.

Second, both of these positions place election as the central soteriological motif rather than the cross. The cross becomes merely the means of bringing about predestination--hence limited atonement. In Lutheran (and Pauline) theology, election is God's choice to bring us to the cross. This is why election is always "in Christ." The cross is at the center, and whatever other soteriological benefits are given are in view of this.

Lex Semper Accusat: A Response to TurretinFan

2011-04-09T21:04:00.000-07:00

I was recently pointed to the blog of TurretinFan, the anonymous blogger of Aomin fame, for his recent attacks on proponents of two kingdom theology. There was a bit of a back and forth between himself and R. Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary California. In a recent post, he even claimed that "Escondido Theology" (the theology of Michael Horton, R. Scott Clark, David VanDrunen, Darryl Hart, and others) was a cause for conversions to Roman Catholicism.

What is the problem with these theologians? Well, apparently they are too Lutheran. Regardless of whether or not TurretinFan's interpretation of historic Reformed orthodoxy is correct on the issue of two kingdoms (which for some reason always has the word "radical" attached to it), TurretinFan has been attacking at least the historic Lutheran doctrine which he apparently does not understand. I know that TurretinFan is capable of reading, understanding, and refuting arguments well. I have seen him do so on several occasions. However, when it comes to Lutheranism, TurretinFan has not done his homework. A recent post has made this apparent.

In this post titled "Lex Semper Accusat? Does the Law Always Accuse?", TurretinFan claims that the statement that "the Law always accuses" is "theologically inaccurate." The first argument made by TurretinFan is that Christ was not accused by the law, but fulfilled the law. Disregarding the fact that Christ certainly did fall under the accusation of the law (isn't this the purpose of the cross?), one must ask: did the Lutheran fathers use this statement in such a way as to ignore the fact that Christ did not break the law?
Of course not! The statement Lex Semper Accusat is used in a very specific context. This statement appears in the Lutheran Confessional documents in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession several times. Here is one such example of its use:

"The Law worketh wrath. He does not say that by the Law men merit the remission of sins. For the Law always accuses and terrifies consciences. Therefore it does not justify, because conscience terrified by the Law of God flees from the judgement of God. Therefore they err who trust that by the Law, by their own works, they merit the remission of sins."- Apology IX.38.

Clearly, Melancthon is speaking in the context of fallen man and his justification before God. His statement has no reference to Christ, prelapsarian Adam, a Christian in the glorified state, or any such exception. Using TurretinFan's logic, one would have to call Paul's statement theologically incorrect that "all have sinned" because of the sinlessness of Christ. This however, is beyond the scope of the authors intended meaning.

The second point that TurretinFan makes is that the Law cannot always accuse because it has other functions.
But is this really the point that this statement is making? Do we Lutherans believe in one use of the Law--an accusatory one? Again, I say: of course not! Our Confessions are as explicit as can be on this issue.

"Since the law was given to men for three reasons: first, that thereby outward discipline might be maintained against wild, disobedient men...secondly, that men may be led to the knowledge of their sins; thirdly, that after they are regenerate...they might on this account have a fixed rule according to which they are to regulate and direct their whole life"-Epitome of the Formula of Concord VI:1

So then what does the statement mean? It means that even when the Law is functioning in its other two manners, it is still accusing. When the Christian is looking to the Law as a moral guide for his good works, he still sees the inadequacy of his good deeds and is reminded of the all-sufficiency of his savior. This does not neglect the fact that the Christian does fulfill the Law to an extent, and truly does begin to love the Law as his guide. It is simply saying that he is still simul iustus et peccator.

TurretinFan's "refutation" of the slogan lex semper accusat is based on a misunderstanding of the statement, as well as ignorance of Confessional Lutheran theology. I certainly welcome challenges to Lutheran doctrine, but challenges which are well informed.

To be steeped in history is to cease being Reformed

2011-04-06T14:36:00.000-07:00

Yes-the title of this post was taken from the oft repeated statement of Cardinal Newman after his conversion to Romanism "To be steeped in history is to cease being Protestant." Though I am theologically far removed from the Roman Catholic church, I cannot help but be sympathetic to this sentiment. Though it is not a primary area I have discussed on my blog, a study of historical theology was as influential to my conversion as was my exegetical work.

The question I pose is this: Could the Church have been wrong about so many central elements of Christian theology and practice for 1500 years?

As a Reformed Christian, I would have to answer yes--though I was not willing to admit that the gates of hell had prevailed against the church.
As I began to read through the church fathers and medieval theologians, there were several things I quickly noticed.
First, baptism is always seen as a means of regeneration. From Justin Martyr, to the apocryphal gospels and acts, to Tertullian, to Irenaeus, to Augustine, through the middle ages, there has never been a major theologian who has regarded baptism as a symbol (nor as entrance into an external covenant with no real soteriological benefits). I still have been unable to find a single writer who understood baptism in any other way than regeneration prior to the reformation.
Second, it is always an assumption that a Christian can fall away from grace. It is a consistent theme in the apostolic fathers that the Christian must not quit running the race, or else his salvation will be lost. This again is echoed through out the centuries. Augustine himself, while acknowledging the perseverance of the elect, believed that many who were baptized and regenerate would fall away. Again, I have not found a single writer who taught otherwise.
Third, no one limited saving grace to the elect. Yes, there are elements of what would later be labeled "limited atonement" in the early Prosper of Aquitaine, Fulgentius of Ruspe, and Gottschalk, but none of these theologians denied that non-elect believers had true regeneration, thus saving grace, for a time. Baptismal grace is seen as a universal gift, given to all who are baptized, regardless of their election.
Finally, there is no "regulative principle of worship" in the early or medieval church. From the first century, the church functioned by means of liturgy. The church calender played a pivotal role in spiritual formation through out the second and third centuries. The church functioned under an episcopal system, without any outcry to the contrary. At least in the conservative RPCNA circles I have been a part of, it is seen as sinful to worship in any manner other than that which is directly commanded by scripture-which in this view is a Presbyterian form of government, exclusive Psalmody in worship, and no spoken or chanted liturgy. If this is the case, one must admit that there was no real worship service from 100 AD until Calvin's Geneva.
These are only a few of the issues which I was unable to find in earlier church history; there are several more. If these, and other Reformed beliefs are true- how were they missed for 1500 years? Did everyone get it wrong? Did the Holy Spirit allow his church to fall into such error?
The history of the church is of course not an infallible authority as is the scripture. However, it should, if Christ's promise is true, at least be taken as a reliable guide for Biblical interpretation. If one is to disagree with the tradition of the church, there had better be rock solid exegetical reasons for doing so. In this case-it does not seem that there are.

Justification as a hermeneutical principle

2011-03-06T09:45:00.001-08:00

I was asked to address the issue of justification and hermeneutics. In addition to the differences outlined in the previous post, is there a difference between the Reformed and Lutheran churches on hermeneutics? Does Lutheranism teach that the doctrine of justification itself is a hermeneutical principle, through which all scripture must be viewed?

First I must recommend Robert Preus' article: How is the Lutheran Church to Interpret and use the Old and New Testaments? in his volume "Essays on Scripture" Preus gives an excellent overview of how the Confessions themselves deal with this issue.

When it is said that Justification is a hermeneutical principle, this does not mean that every verse in scripture is directly referring to the imputed righteousness of Christ. Justification is used here in a broad sense, to mean more fully the work of Christ for us. The chief article as Luther defines it in the Smalcald Articles includes Christ's life, death, and resurrection as well as its personal application to his people in justification. To say that justification is a hermeneutical principle is simply to say that Christ himself is a hermeneutical principle. Jesus explains this to the disciples in Luke 24 "And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" 27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."

This does not mean that every verse must be forced to have direct reference to Christ. Nor does it mean, as some have claimed, that every verse is either law or gospel. What it does mean is that Christ's death and resurrection for sinners is at the center of the Biblical narrative as a whole, and no part of this grand story of redemption is isolated from this center.

I will give some examples as to how this principle works itself out. First, it is seen in all of God's promises of blessing. In Genesis, we read of the Patriarchs whom God promises a great seed. We then read of the severe failings of these Patriarchs, though this never hinders God's goodness toward them. Though there is no direct statement in the book of Genesis that the Messiah will come in the flesh, die a bloody death, and rise again, we through a Christological lens understand that this is ultimately the message that God is giving to the Patriarchs. The great seed which is promised to them is Christ himself. These promises are made continually to Noah, Moses, David, etc.

Second, this is seen through certain figures who are "Types" of Christ. Joseph for example is a type of Christ, as he is betrayed by his brothers and is good to them despite their betrayal. David is a type of Christ as the great godly king of Israel. Look at the famous story of David and Goliath. David, the humble shepherd, confronts the giant Goliath representing the enemies and oppressors of God's people: the Philistines. David, on behalf of the nation of Israel as a whole, slays the giant, defeating the enemies of Israel. This is a picture of Christ, the son of David, crushing the head of Satan, the ultimate enemy of God's people. These types permeate the Old Testament.

Third, all of the ceremonial laws of Israel are a picture of the spotless lamb who would lay down his life on behalf of his people. The sacrifices, and scapegoat are a picture of what Christ would accomplish on the cross. The purity laws are a picture of the sinless Son of God. The established offices in Israel: prophet, priest, and king all find their fulfillment in the Messiah. The nation of Israel itself is fulfilled in Jesus who is the true Israel.

Each Biblical book and story points in its own unique way to the culmination of redemptive history when the sinless Son of God laid down his life for the world, conquering sin, death, and the devil, as well as his victorious resurrection from the dead. This is what it means that justification is a hermeneutical principle.

Are there differences between Lutherans and Calvinists on Justification?

2011-03-05T20:51:00.000-08:00

I was asked by a reader of this blog to address the issue of justification. More specifically, I was asked to address the relation between Lutheran and Reformed views of the doctrine. Are they agreed upon this issue?
There certainly are great similarities between the two confessions on the topic. Both understand justification as a forensic term referring to the imputation of righteousness to the believer, and a non-imputation of sin due to one's connection with the death of Christ. It is received by faith alone apart from good works.
This is not the end of the discussion-there are some serious differences.

For one, the Lutheran Confessions do not limit justification to its forensic aspects. Luther states, for example, in the Smalcald Articles Part III, Article XIII.1 "What I have hitherto and constantly taught concerning this I know not how to change in the least, namely, that by faith, as St Peter says, we acquire a new and clean heart, and God will and does account us entirely righteous and holy for the sake of Christ." Here, as well as in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (I can provide several citations if necessary), justification can be used in a forensic manner, or to refer to the initial change of heart in the Christian which is also wrought by faith. Later Lutheran tradition tended to equate justification more-so with the forensic element so as to not confuse justification and sanctification. The Formula of Concord makes a more clear distinction between justification and regeneration.

Lutherans have seen justification as the center of the ordo salutis. It is not merely one aspect of the reception of salvation for the Christian- it is the heart of all of the gifts given by Christ. There has been much debate in the Reformed world, especially in recent years, over this issue. Some have claimed that union with Christ, in contradistinction to Lutheranism, is the central soteriological motif for historic Calvinism. Justification is merely one blessing of many which flows from this union. Lutheranism, in general, has seen union with Christ as a consequent gift to justification. (Solid Declaration Article III:54)From my reading of Luther's 1535 Galatians commentary however, it seems that Luther sees justification as subsequent to union. Even so however, justification is still the central aspect of salvation, not union.

Perhaps more important than these other two distinctives is the sacramental context in which justification is placed in Lutheranism. The faith which justifies is not an immediate direct gift of the Spirit as in Calvinism; it is mediated through word and sacrament. For Lutherans, the statement "baptism justifies" is synonymous with "faith justifies." The reality of one's justification is then played out through partaking weekly of the Eucharist, and receiving Christ's forgiveness through the words of absolution. The Reformed would shy away from these statements, and see sacraments as covenant badges, not means of justification.

More Free Kindle Books

2011-02-12T13:29:00.000-08:00

V.W. Richter- Why Should a Lutheran Not Join a Sectarian Church?
http://www.retroread.com/title/Why-should-a-Lutheran-not-join-any-sectarian-church%3F-by-V-W-Richter-ebook.html

David Henkel- Answer to Mr. Joseph Moore, the Methodist
http://www.retroread.com/title/Answer-to-Mr-Joseph-Moore-the-Methodist-by-David-Henkel-ebook.html

David Henkel- Against the Unitarians
http://www.retroread.com/title/A-treatise-on-the-person-and-incarnation-of-Jesus-Christ-in-which-some-of-the-principal-arguments-of-the-Unitarians-are-examined-by-David-Henkel-ebook.html

Theodore Emanuel Schmauk- How to Teach in Sunday School
http://www.retroread.com/title/How-to-teach-in-Sunday-school-by-Theodore-Emanuel-Schmauk-ebook.html

Lectures on the Augsburg Confession
http://www.retroread.com/title/Lectures-on-the-Augsburg-Confession-by-Theological-Seminary-of-the-General-Synod-of-the-Evangelical-Lutheran-Church-in-the-United-States-ebook.html

W.H. Dau- Reviews of the Work of the Missouri Synod During Three Quarters of a Century
http://www.retroread.com/title/Ebenezer-by-William-Herman-Theodore-Dau-ebook.html

Diedrich Henry Steffens- Dr. Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther
http://www.retroread.com/title/Doctor-Carl-Ferdinand-Wilhelm-Walther-by-Diedrich-Henry-Steffens-ebook.html

Johann Michael Rue- Homiletics
http://www.retroread.com/title/Homiletics-by-Johann-Michael-Reu-ebook.html

Martin Chemnitz- Enchiridion (in German)
http://www.retroread.com/title/Enchiridion-by-Martin-Chemnitz-ebook.html

Thomas Martin Lindsay- A History of the Reformation
http://www.retroread.com/title/A-history-of-the-reformation-by-Thomas-Martin-Lindsay-ebook.html

Henry Clay Vedder- The Reformation in Germany
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-reformation-in-Germany-by-Henry-Clay-Vedder-ebook.html

George Wilson- Philip Melancthon
http://www.retroread.com/title/Philip-Melanchthon-1497-1560-by-George-Wilson-ebook.html

Martin Luther- A Commentary on Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians
http://www.retroread.com/title/A-commentary-on-Saint-Paul-s-Epistle-to-the-Galatians-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Martin Luther- Table Talk
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-table-talk-of-Martin-Luther-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Martin Luther- On the Bondage of the Will
http://www.retroread.com/title/Martin-Luther-on-the-bondage-of-the-will-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Martin Luther- Letters
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-letters-of-Martin-Luther-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Martin Luther- Two Catechisms Explained by Himself
http://www.retroread.com/title/Luther-s-two-catechisms-explained-by-himself-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Martin Luther- House Postil
http://www.retroread.com/title/Dr-Martin-Luther-s-House-Postil-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Martin Luther- Christmas Sermons
http://www.retroread.com/title/Luther-s-Christmas-sermons-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Harold Ulrik Svendrup- Explanation of Luther's Small Catechism
http://www.retroread.com/title/Explanation-of-Luther-s-Small-catechism-by-Harold-Ulrik-Sverdrup-ebook.html

Jan Hus- Letters Written During His Exile and Imprisonment
http://www.retroread.com/title/Letters-of-John-Huss-written-during-his-exile-and-imprisonment-by-Jan-Hus-ebook.html

Bernard of Clairvaux- On the Love of God
http://www.retroread.com/title/Saint-Bernard-on-the-love-of-God-tr-by-M-C-and-C-Patmore-by-Bernard-st-of-Clairvaux-ebook.html

Henry Eyster Jacobs- a Study in Comparative Symbolics
http://www.retroread.com/title/A-study-in-comparative-symbolics-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

Lutheran Commentary Series

The Lutheran Commentary: Matthew 1-15
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Schaeffer-C-F-The-Gospel-according-to-Matthew-I-XV-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary: Matthew 16-28
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Schaeffer-C-F-The-Gospel-according-to-Matthew-XVI-XXVIII-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary: Mark
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Haas-J-A-W-The-Gospel-according-to-Mark-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary: Acts
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Stellhorn-F-W-The-Acts-of-the-Apostles-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary: Romans- 1 Corinthians 6
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Jacobs-H-E-The-Epistles-of-Paul-to-the-Romans-and-1-Corinthians-I-VI-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary- 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-commentary-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary- Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Voigt-A-G-The-Epistle-to-the-Ephesians-Horn-E-T-The-Epistle-to-the-Philippians-Horn-E-T-The-Epistle-to-the-Colossians-Horn-E-T-The-First-Epistle-to-the-Thessalo-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary: Pastoral Epistles, Philemon, and Hebrews
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Wolf-E-J-The-First-Epistle-to-Timothy-Wolf-E-J-The-Second-Epistle-to-Timothy-Wolf-E-J-The-Epistle-to-Titus-Horn-E-T-The-Epistle-to-Philemon-Wolf-E-J-The-Epi-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary- James, I, II Peter, Jude, I, II, III John
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Weidner-R-F-The-General-Epistles-of-James-Peter-John-and-Jude-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary: Revelation of St. John
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Weidner-R-F-The-Revelation-of-St-John-the-Divine-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

Free Lutheran Kindle Books

2011-01-31T14:03:00.000-08:00

I recently purchased a Kindle. My first thought of course was to see if there was any way to find Confessional Lutheran works for free in kindle format. I found this website: RetroRead.com which allows you to convert books in epub format to kindle, and it sends them directly to your kindle. I spent a few hours searching google books and found some great resources. So this is to save you the time in looking for and converting books from googlebooks.

Charles Krauth- The Conservative Reformation and its Theology
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-conservative-reformation-and-its-theology-by-Charles-Porterfield-Krauth-ebook.html

Charles Krauth- Commentary on the Gospel of John
http://www.retroread.com/title/Commentary-on-the-gospel-of-John-by-August-Tholuck-ebook.html

Charles Krauth- Infant Baptism and Infant Salvation in the Calvinistic System
http://www.retroread.com/title/Infant-baptism-and-infant-salvation-in-the-Calvinistic-system-by-Charles-Porterfield-Krauth-ebook.html

Charles Krauth- Chronicle of the Augsburg Confession
http://www.retroread.com/title/A-chronicle-of-the-Augsburg-confession-by-Charles-Porterfield-Krauth-ebook.html

Charles Krauth- Poverty
http://www.retroread.com/title/Poverty-by-Charles-Porterfield-Krauth-ebook.html

Charles Krauth- Baptism
http://www.retroread.com/title/Baptism-by-Charles-Porterfield-Krauth-ebook.html

Adolph Spaeth- Charles Porterfield Krauth (Biography)
http://www.retroread.com/title/Charles-Porterfield-Krauth-by-Adolph-Spaeth-ebook.html

Ambrose Henkel- Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church
http://www.retroread.com/title/Symbolical-books-of-the-Evangelical-Lutheran-Church-by-Ambrose-Henkel-ebook.html

Theodore Schmauk- The Confessional Principle and the Principles of the Lutheran Church
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-confessional-principle-and-the-confessions-of-the-Lutheran-church-by-Theodore-Emanuel-Schmauk-ebook.html

Johann Gerhard- Sacred Meditations
http://www.retroread.com/title/Gerhard-s-sacred-meditations-by-Johann-Gerhard-ebook.html

Martin Luther- Works Volume 1
http://www.retroread.com/title/Works-of-Martin-Luther-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Marie Richard- Philip Jacob Spener and his Work
http://www.retroread.com/title/Philip-Jacob-Spener-and-his-work-by-Marie-E-Richard-ebook.html

John Kohler-Shall we have a bishop? Or, The episcopate for the Lutheran church in America?
http://www.retroread.com/title/Shall-we-have-a-bishop%3F-Or-The-episcopate-for-the-Lutheran-church-in-America-by-John-Kohler-ebook.html

G.H. Gerberding- The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-way-of-salvation-in-the-Lutheran-church-by-George-Henry-Gerberding-ebook.html

G.H. Gerberding- The Lutheran Church in the Country
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-church-in-the-country-by-George-Henry-Gerberding-ebook.html

G.H. Gerberding- The Lutheran Pastor
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-pastor-by-George-Henry-Gerberding-ebook.html

G.H. Gerberding- The Lutheran Catechist
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-catechist-by-George-Henry-Gerberding-ebook.html

G.H. Gerberding- What's Wrong with the World?
http://www.retroread.com/title/What-s-wrong-with-the-world%3F-by-George-Henry-Gerberding-ebook.html

G.H. Gerberding- New Testament Conversions
http://www.retroread.com/title/New-Testament-conversions-by-George-Henry-Gerberding-ebook.html

G.H. Gerberding- the Priesthood of Believers
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-priesthood-of-believers-in-its-relation-to-inner-mission-work-of-Christian-social-service-by-George-Henry-Gerberding-ebook.html

Heinrich Friedrich Ferdinand Shmid- The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-doctrinal-theology-of-the-Evangelical-Lutheran-church-by-Heinrich-Friedrich-Ferdinand-Schmid-ebook.html

A.G. Voigt- Biblical Dogmatics
http://www.retroread.com/title/Biblical-dogmatics-by-A-G-Voigt-ebook.html

Jeurgen Ludwig Neve- A Brief History of the Lutheran Church in America
http://www.retroread.com/title/A-brief-history-of-the-Lutheran-church-in-America-by-Juergen-Ludwig-Neve-ebook.html

Henry Immanuel Smith- Scriptural Character of the Lutheran Doctrine of the Lord's Supper
http://www.retroread.com/title/Scriptural-character-of-the-Lutheran-doctrine-of-the-Lord-s-Supper-by-Henry-Immanuel-Smith-ebook.html

Theodor Haring- The Christian Faith
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Christian-faith-by-Theodor-H%C3%A4ring-ebook.html

Henry Eyster Jacobs- A Summary of the Christian Faith
http://www.retroread.com/title/A-summary-of-the-Christian-faith-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

James William Richard- The Confessional History of the Lutheran Church
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-confessional-history-of-the-Lutheran-church-by-James-William-Richard-ebook.html

Wilhelm Lohe- Liturgy for Christian Congregations of the Lutheran Faith
http://www.retroread.com/title/Liturgy-for-Christian-congregations-of-the-Lutheran-faith-by-Wilhelm-L%C3%B6he-ebook.html

Memoirs of the Lutheran Liturgical Association
http://www.retroread.com/title/Memoirs-of-the-Lutheran-Liturgical-Association-by-Lutheran-Liturgical-Association-ebook.html

Martin Luther- Large Catechism
http://www.retroread.com/title/Luther-s-large-catechism-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Martin Luther- the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Epistles-of-St-Peter-and-St-Jude-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Henry Eyster Jacobs- Martin Luther, the Hero of the Reformation
http://www.retroread.com/title/Martin-Luther-the-hero-of-the-reformation-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

Charles Beard- Martin Luther and the Reformation in Germany until the Close of the Diet of Worms
http://www.retroread.com/title/Martin-Luther-and-the-reformation-in-Germany-until-the-close-of-the-Diet-of-Worms-by-Charles-Beard-ebook.html

An Update

2010-10-04T19:07:00.000-07:00

I know it's been a long time since I have updated, and I figured I should let everyone know what is going on in my life. I stopped posting simply because my area of study went away from the Lutheran/Calvinist or Lutheran/Roman Catholic debates into other realms which would not be as helpful to write blog posts on. I spent a considerable amount of time reading the Neo-Orthodox theology of the early 20th century including Barth, Bultmann, Brunner, Neibuhr, etc. Between this study, working full time and planning a wedding for this December, I simply have not had time to post here. I was recently accepted into the MTh program at the Wittenberg Institute which will lead me into a very different area of study. I will be writing a Masters thesis on the doctrine of justification in the early church fathers, primarily to vindicate Luther's reading of Paul in light of the New Perspective on Paul. I hope to begin writing on here again, though probably not as regularly as I had previously. My focus will most likely shift to Patristic studies at least for the time being. Though I will of course deal with Calvinist or Roman Catholic issues if asked.

Calvinism and the resignation to hell

2010-06-19T21:08:00.000-07:00

A reader of my blog asked me what I thought about a question Calvinists sometimes discuss: would you still love God if He were sending you to hell?
The idea of this question is to cause one to evaluate his or her love for God and its purity. If one says he/she would not love God if they knew He was going to send them to hell for eternity, would it not then mean that the love one has is not truly for God but for His gifts? Thus the Christian who truly loves God for God's sake would love Him as the highest good regardless of His dealings with the individual in question.
So what do I think of this discussion? It is useless, and harmful, only leading the Christian to despair or boasting.
This question is useless simply because it is not addressed in scripture. Scripture nowhere says "love God regardless of His gifts." This is to separate God from His gifts which is impossible. The God who is to be loved is Himself a God of love and mercy. Our motivation for loving God, like all other Christian acts, is Christological. As the apostle John states, "This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers." (1 John 3:16) He states again, "We love because he first loved us." (1 John 4:19) The very basis for our love of God in scripture is that He saved us. To ask whether or not we would love God if it meant resigning ourselves to hell is to say the very opposite and to take Christ out of the equation. Scripture does not contain the abstract command "love God above all else" as an Aristotelian "highest good", but commands this only within the context of our redemption in Christ. A Christless, speculative discussion is not a Christian one.
I say this question is harmful because it will make the Christian doubt or make him proud. It is harmful because the honest Christian must look at his own heart for his assurance. "Do I really love God? Is my love of God sincere? Is it sincere enough?" Since one must love God to be saved, one then wonders if he truly has been regenerated by God's Spirit, and if God indeed truly loves him. This question is actually not new within Calvinism but was often discussed in the middle ages. It appeared commonly within the late medieval German mysticism that Luther was steeped in. This may have in fact been one of the reasons Luther was so often in despair about the state of his soul. This question can do nothing but drive ones assurance inward, and when he looks inside himself, he will see a sinner with impure motives.
If one answers this question in the positive, I submit that he is lying. To say that one would suffer eternal damnation for the sake of Christ's glory out of total love for God is to say that one has actually fulfilled the first commandment. Well here's some news for you: no one has. If you think you have, you need to repent of your pride and ask God to reveal the sin that still lies within your heart.
Ultimately, this question is speculative. Scripture does not ask us to even think about these concepts. When thinking about love of God, don't just focus on God in His eternal glory, but upon the cross of Christ where He revealed His love for us. Only through the lens of the cross can we truly love the God who sits on His throne controlling the universe by His sovereign power, because only through the cross can we approach Him and begin to see His gracious character.

An Overview of the New Perspectives on Paul Part 6: Criticisms

2010-05-17T15:14:00.000-07:00

Criticisms of the New Perspective
Though this perspective has been highly influential, it has not been whole-heartedly accepted through out New Testament scholarship. Many reject the movement altogether, while some accept some aspects as furthering our understanding of Paul within his first century context, at the same time rejecting other aspects of this perspective as exegetically unfounded. Sanders opinion that there was enough unanimity in Judaism to construct a basic soteriology has been hotly contested. Many have still found the so-called “Lutheran” Paul to be exegetically convincing.
When viewing the overwhelming amount of second temple literature, it seems as though Sanders idea of covenantal nomism fits much of the evidence. However, it does not necessarily fit all of it. Sanders admits that 4 Ezra contains a legalistic understanding of salvation where God weighs ones merits against his demerits. This he takes to be one exception to the rule. Richard Bauckham shows that this type of legalism was not foreign to apocalyptic literature. 2 Enoch has a similar picture of a weighing of deeds which will determine one’s final salvation. He also believes that in 2 Baruch, the author does not teach a theology of grace which then leads to good works as Sanders claims, but quite the opposite. “With reference to 2 Baruch, it would be more accurate to say not simply that God bestows mercy on the righteous, but that God has mercy on the righteous because of their good works.” (Justification and Variegate Nomism Volume 1 pg. 182)
It is worthy of note that there are a couple major figures within the period that Sanders does not extensively analyze: Josephus and Philo. Philo, Sanders does discuss to an extent, though not in my opinion as much as is deserved. Sanders simply concludes that Philo must held to covenantal nomism. It is understandable why Sanders would not use Philo as representative of Judaism simply because Philo’s ideas come from Greek philosophy. However it is unlikely that Philo was the alone in his Jewish/Platonic syncretism. In a Hellenized world, as first century Palestine was, there is bound to be some influence of Greek philosophy within ordinary religious life, at least in the minds of some. If this is the case, this type of Judaism does not fit Sanders categories. While Philo did have some idea of a national covenant, the importance lay, not on this covenant, but on the acquisition of virtue.
Josephus is surprisingly absent. Sanders utilizes him for historical purposes but never once seeks to analyze his theology. Josephus does see that there is a special covenant with the Jews. God chose Moses to be the mediator of his covenant rather than Pharaoh. As Spilsbury explains, “this trust gives the Jews privileged access to God’s favor, but only to the extent that they obey the law faithfully.” (ibid pg. 259) This is not to say that Josephus’ depiction of God had nothing to say of grace, or that God required complete perfectionism, but that God’s blessing to a man still did to some extent depend on obedience to the Torah.
These and several other examples prove that Sanders’ treatment of Judaism is lacking. It is not so much that Sanders was completely wrong in his evaluation, but that he went too far than was necessary. Scholarship of the second temple period had often been sloppy and too simplistic. Sanders proves sufficiently that there certainly is more to the picture than mere Pelagianism. That does not mean, however, that this grace centered approach to Judaism was universal. It is not right to speak of a universal “Judaism”, but of “Judaisms” in the second temple period.
Even if it were sufficiently proven that Sanders thesis was correct, would this negate a “Lutheran” interpretation of Paul? I do not think so. A Andrew Das argues that in Judaism, there was a place for forgiveness through the sacrificial system. However, without this system, Judaism became inherently legalistic. Paul, when coming to the realization that Jesus was the messiah, saw that his death negated all other sacrifices as atoning. Therefore, Paul saw only a legalistic system left in Judaism. Das supports his thesis by showing that when the temple was destroyed, this type of legalism predominated such as in 4 Ezra and Josephus. It also seems that the system of covenantal nomism itself does not negate legalism. If one is in the covenant from birth, and must remain in the covenant by works, can this not also become a legalistic system? Who is to say that entrance into the covenant constitutes salvation rather than one’s eschatological vindication? Martin Luther in the 16th century was not fighting against a system which denied grace altogether. The medieval church believed that one was in the church by baptism, thus not by ones own choice, and remained in this state of grace through keeping with penance. In all the effort to separate Paul’s situation from Luther’s, similarities between the two basic soteriological systems have become even more apparent.
The crucial exegetical points argued by Stendhal, Sanders, Dunn, and Wright have been contested by several New Testament scholars of varying backgrounds. Righteousness has been defined as God’s ‘covenant faithfulness’ by New Perspective proponents. Mark Seifrid analyzes the Old Testament background of righteousness, showing that it does not often appear in covenantal contexts. Though the word ‘righteousness’ is used 524 times, and ‘covenant’ 283 times, “in only seven passages do the terms come into any significant semantic contact.”(ibid pg. 423) God’s righteousness cannot be so narrowly defined. It is essentially a creational category. It signifies God’s justice and vindication, not necessarily though possibly connected to covenant. God is often seen as righteous in his acts when dealing with the gentile nations, with whom he had no special covenant. His righteousness vindicates and punishes.
So what does Paul mean when he argues that justification is not by works of the law but by faith? Are these works boundary markers, or legalistic attempts to earn salvation? It seems that Paul is arguing against both conceptions. The law is opposed to the gospel because it requires works, whereas the gospel requires faith. It also opposes the gospel because it was given in some sense to Jews alone while the gospel is universal in scope. Paul makes this contrast clear when he states in Galatians 3:18 that the law does not rest upon faith. Law and faith are contradictory messages. One requires works, whereas the other accepts that one can do no works. Paul does not say here that a distortion of the law does not rest on faith but the law itself. The argument of Romans 4 contrasts one who tries to earn and one who does not work. Clearly the one who does not work is the one who does not try to earn his wages, but accepts the reward as a gift. The definition of law as a mere boundary marker simply does not fit the argument. The gospel is opposed to all kinds of boasting, whether it is in one’s meritorious deeds or in one’s nationality, or in one’s own wisdom. Is it not probable that Paul was arguing against all of these conceptions at once? Anything that puts one’s trust into something that is not God’s vindication in Christ is opposed to the gospel.

A Final Note on the Irresistible Grace Controversy

2010-05-14T14:05:00.000-07:00

Some of you know I had a debate with an LCMS pastor over the issue of irresistible grace. I made the claim that as Lutherans we must believe in the doctrine in some sense, though without denying the universalis gratia. See my post on immutable election to see what point I was trying to argue. I emailed Dr. Robert Kolb amidst this controversy on this issue with this specific question:

Dr. Kolb,
I have been having a conversation with an LCMS pastor on the subject of election. I made the point that Lutherans agree with some of what Calvinists are saying when using the term irresistible grace. What I mean by this is that God's election will always result in the salvation of that individual. One who is elect cannot become non-elect, thus in that sense election is "irresistible", though I realize it is not the best term to use. I also made the point that election is particular and does not extend to everyone as does the universalis gratia. Not everyone is elect.
This pastor seemed to think that I was espousing Calvinistic doctrines when saying this. However, when I read through Pieper, Walther, and Hoenecke on the topic, they all seem to be saying the same thing that I am. Am I being faithful to Lutheran theology by making the points that: 1. election will always necessarily result in final salvation and 2. not all men are elect?

This was Dr. Kolb's response:

Your reading of Pieper, Walther, and Hoenecke is correct, I believe. Under the proclamation of the law, Lutherans clearly believe with Luther in the Smalcald Articles III,4,43-45, that believers can lose the faith and fall from grace. Otherwise, as the Formula of Concord strives to make clear, the distinction of law and gospel disappears, and we fall into either an antinomian arrogance and false security, or despair. But under the teaching of the gospel Lutherans teach that God’s gospel promise in the means of grace is sure because it is God’s promise. What, I think, John Calvin did not grasp, much less his followers, is how Luther understood the doctrine of election only in the context of distinguishing law and gospel in delivering God’s Word to his people, and how God actually is present and working with his saving power in the means of grace. The Calvinists who have become Lutherans – the ones I know, at least – point especially to the second point and the insecurity they had when there was no certain place to look, only to one’s own life, for assurance that God loved them in Christ.
I have gone into this in some detail in my book Bound Choice, Election, and Wittenberg Theological Method (Eerdmans, 2005, I think). That may help some.

This should settle the issue as Dr. Kolb is a competent scholar and has written on the subject.

A Lutheran and Calvinist Dialog about the Atonement

2010-05-13T13:34:00.000-07:00

A Defense of the Omnipresence of Christ's Human Nature

2010-05-11T19:28:00.001-07:00

One of the main bones of contention between the Lutheran and Reformed Churches has been the doctrine of the omnipresence of the human nature of Christ. This doctrine is not isolated for Lutherans and is not merely promoted to support our view of the Lord's Supper as is often claimed. We come to this position because of an overall conception of the incarnation itself which differs from that of the Reformed.
When Christ became incarnate, the human and divine natures were united in one person. These natures were not mixed into one, nor were they completely separated from one another. They interpenetrated one another.
Because of this union of the two natures, the Lutherans talked about a communicatio idiomatum, meaning communicating, or sharing, of attributes. This doctrine states that, due to the unity of the person, the attributes of the divine nature can be attributed to the human nature. For the sake of organization, Lutherans have typically put the communication of attributes into three classes, or genera, though sometimes four.
The first class is the genus idiomaticum. This means that what is attributed to one nature can be attributed to the whole person. Thus one can say "the Son of God died" without having to clarify by saying, "the human nature of Christ died."
The second class is the genus maiestaticum. This is where the real controversy arises. According to this doctrine, the attributes of Christ's divine nature are communicated to his human nature. They are not attributed to the human nature through necessity or nature, but by the free attribution of the divine nature. So what are some of these attributes?
1. The majesty of divinity. Any time scripture talks about majesty, power or authority being given to Christ in time it must be talking about His human nature. If one does not confess this, he is admitting that Christ indeed did not have full power and majesty according to His divine nature before this point.
Some examples in scripture are:
"Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.'" (Matthew 28:18)
"All things have been committed to me by my Father." (Luke 10:22)
"So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs." (Hebrews 1:4)
"You made him a little[a] lower than the angels;
you crowned him with glory and honor
and put everything under his feet."
In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him." (Hebrews 2:7-8)
"And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church" (Ephesians 1:22)
"For he "has put everything under his feet."[a] Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ." (1 Corinthians 15:27)

2. Omniscience There are several times in the New Testament where divine knowledge is attributed to the human nature of Christ.
"He did not need man's testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man." (John 2:25)

3. Omnipresence Here is where the controversy usually arises. Lutherans claim that Christ is omnipresent as a person, thus both natures are omnipresent. The Reformed have historically argues that Jesus is at the right hand of the Father according to His human nature, and omnipresent only according to His divine nature.
Does the Scripture teach the omnipresence of Christ's human nature? The most clear verse on this subject is Ephesians 4:7-10:
"But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. This is why it says:
"When he ascended on high,
he led captives in his train
and gave gifts to men." (What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)"
The text seems clear. Christ descended, ascended, and now fills the whole universe. This cannot be according to His divine nature because it describes a point in time wherein He began to fill all things. His divine nature always filled all things. Ephesians 1:23 also states that He "fills everything in every way." These verses have been interpreted by the Reformed to mean either one of 2 things.
1. The "filling all things" refers to his accomplishment of redemption, or his fulfillment of prophecy. However, the context has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation or Christ's work on the cross. It has to do with cosmology. It describes a place He was from, went, and now is.
2. This refers to his sustaining and ruling the whole universe. This simply is not in the text. Filling the whole universe simply means filling the whole universe. There is not any way around it except to explain away the clear meaning.
Christ's promise in Matthew 28 is that He will always be with His church. The man Jesus standing in front of His disciples said this. Was there any reason for them to think He only meant according to His divine nature? No, of course not. The one speaking was the God-man.
Christ shows that He has power over normal spacial constraints according to His human nature. In John 20:9 Jesus walks through a locked door. Even before the resurrection He vanished from sight. (John 8:59, Luke 4:30)
Is it really taking scripture seriously to say that the "fullness of deity" (Colossians 2:9) dwelt in bodily form if indeed the deity of Christ is mostly separate from the human nature? If the incarnation really means that the second person of the trinity is both God and man, we must say more than that He is only man in one specific location.
To be Biblically consistent and to affirm that the fullness of Christ's deity was and is incarnate, one must confess to communication of omnipresence.
The third class of communication is the genus apotelesmaticum. This doctrine states that all of the functions that Christ performs as prophet, priest, and king are performed by both natures. The entire person accomplishes every part of redemption, not simply one nature.

JustandSinner.com

2010-05-09T15:23:00.000-07:00

I have just finished a website which features my blog, helpful articles on various theological topics, a place to discuss theological and apologetic issues, and a podcast. Hopefully this website will be a helpful resource. Please go to the "Listen" section to hear my first podcast. It is on the subject of justification.

An Overview of the New Perspectives on Paul Part 5: NT Wright

2010-05-09T11:51:00.000-07:00

N.T. Wright
Bishop N.T. Wright, one of the most prominent New Testament scholars of today, did much to bring this “new perspective” to a popular audience. His volume What Saint Paul Really Said in 1997 was a compact treatment of Paul’s beliefs as influenced by expectations of the second temple period. Wright accepts Sanders’ idea of covenantal nomism as generally applicable to the theology of the second temple texts. He believes that as Protestants we have become too stuck in our Protestant traditions and must be open to a fresh look at the Pauline material.
For Wright, Paul is essentially working within a narrative structure. This narrative is the story of God’s dealings with man through Israel, now fulfilled through the coming of Christ. God created Adam as the first of all humanity to live in obedience to himself. Adam rebelled, as did all men after him. This is the beginning of the story. God called out Abraham so that he might be a light to the world and undo the problem that came through the sin in the garden. “The canonical Old Testament frames the entire story of God’s people as the divine answer to the problem of evil: somehow, through his people, God will deal with the problem that has effected his good creation in general and his image-bearing creatures in general.” (Paul in Fresh Perspective pg 109) Israel is chosen out of pure grace, and is given the Torah and temple as a means toward redemption. However, rather than fixing the problem of sin and evil in the world, Israel became a part of the problem.
Wright promotes the idea that when the exile in Babylon ended, and the Israelites were brought back into the land, the majority of Jews still believed themselves in exile. Wright particularly defends this thesis in his 1991 volume the Climax of the Covenant. Israel, after the exile, had not gained all of the land that was expected by the prophets. They were still under foreign oppressors. The real ending of the exile would occur when Israel once again became an autonomous nation, and God directly ruled over them through a Davidic king. This idea was in Paul’s mind when he wrote his epistle to the Galatians. Galatians 3:10 has historically been used to promote the doctrine of penal substitution. The curse Christ paid for was the penalty of breaking God’s perfect law. Wright takes this verse in a different direction by seeing the curse Christ paid for as the exile. Through the death and resurrection of Christ, Israel’s exile has finally come to an end. The kingdom has been inaugurated.
Perhaps Wright’s most controversial contribution to Pauline theology is his attack on the Protestant definition of justification as promoted by Martin Luther. He contends, along with Stendhal and Dunn, that Paul was not fighting against legalism in Galatians and Romans. The ‘justification by works’ Paul writes against is not “individual Jews attempting a kind of proto-Pelagian pulling themselves up by their moral bootstraps”. (What St. Paul Really Said pg 119) Rather it is that Jews excluded gentiles from fellowship within the kingdom. Justification for Paul is a legal term. However, it is not a term about ‘getting in’, but it is a term about ‘who is in’ the covenant. “Justification in Galatians, is the doctrine which insists that all who share faith in Christ belong to the same table, no matter what their racial differences, as together they wait for the final creation.” (ibid pg 122) When God declares one to be justified, he is declaring them to be among his people. It does not involve the imputation of righteousness. “If we use the language of law court, it makes no sense whatever to say the judge imparts, imputes, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either plaintiff or the defendant.” (ibid pg 98)
For Wright, the righteousness of God is his covenant faithfulness. It is not an abstract attribute which all men are required to live up to. It is not something to be imputed to man. It is his faithfulness in dealing with and saving his people. This underlies Wright’s redefinition of justification. It is founded in the Jewish idea of covenant. This is why several Psalmists are able to ask God to deliver them in his righteousness. In this context it certainly means deliverance, not imputation.

A Response to Nick on the Doctrine of Justification

2010-04-29T13:43:00.000-07:00

This is a response to the comments from Nick of "Nick's Catholic Blog" on my post on Roman Catholicism.

I'm not denying Paul could have used other words to espouse the concept of "Christ's Righteousness" - but the burden is on the Protestant to demonstrate that when Paul uses a term like "righteousness" it must be "Christ's Righteousness" as opposed to any other possible meanings of 'righteousness'.
Looking at the 5 passages you cite, only one of them even mentions the term "impute" - Rom 4:3 - and that text is under dispute by us - so to say they 'clearly' make case for imputation is quite a leap. Just taking one of those texts, Phil 3, and reading in it context (3:8-11) I say it's espousing the exact opposite of imputation.

The Apostle Paul first of all makes it clear that there is a righteousness that is given based on faith:
"Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works" (Romans 4:4-6)
This righteousness is likened to a gift which is not earned.
How do I know that this righteousness is the righteousness of Christ? Paul makes this clear in several places:
"God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:21) Note that the righteousness of God is described as the righteousness in him.
He makes the same point in Philippians, "What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith." (Philippians 3:8-9) This righteousness comes from outside of himself, from God and only through being in Christ. I don't understand how you can say imputation is not meant here. This is a righteousness that he claims is not "a righteousness of my own."
This is why Paul can say in passing to the Corinthians, "It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption." (1 Corinthians 1:30) Notice again that this righteousness is in Christ and from God.
If Paul is at all consistent in what he means by the righteousness that saves, he need not say "impute" and "the righteousness of Christ" right next to one another for us to understand his meaning. Putting all the texts together, we can see that:
1. There is an imputed righteousness (Romans 4:6)
2. This righteousness is apart from our own works (Romans 4:5, Philippians 3:9)
3. This righteousness is only found in Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Philippians 3:9)
If we are to discover doctrine, as we do the Trinity and several other Christian teachings, on the basis of the text as a whole rather than on simple proof texts, it is clear that the imputed righteousness of Christ is a Biblical and Pauline concept.

You then mention the locus classicus for your claim: Romans 4:5
The main problem here is that too much weight is put on this passage with too many assumptions supporting it. It's simply dangerous to build one's theology upon a single verse.

So much weight is put upon this passage simply because it is so clear. It is not just a single verse, it is a key passage for understanding the entirety of Paul's argument in this section.

(A) You said "The man who is ungodly is counted as righteous," but the actual phraseology is "justifies the ungodly, faith credited as righteousness". These two phrases are not necessarily identical in meaning.

The "crediting of righteousness" is an explanation of what justification is. This is further shown by the fact that Paul uses justification in Romans 8 as being the opposite of condemnation. Clearly this cannot mean "making one righteous."

(B) You're assuming the term "ungodly" means "unrighteous," but that's not necessarily true. Paul could have simply used the term "unrighteous," negating 'righteous' in this case, but he didn't. The term he used was a negated form of "worshiper", and thus more akin to "non-worshiper" (especially in regards to not worshiping according to Jewish Law standards). The "non-worshiper" (from the Jewish point of view) is none other than the Gentile, and thus Paul would be saying "God justifies the Gentile." This fits with Paul's theme/context (that God is also the God of the Gentiles, and justifies the uncircumcised, 3:27ff). To Judaizer ears, Paul would be uttering blasphemy, God justifying the (second class) Gentiles?...and worst of all Paul calling Abraham a 'non-worshiper' (justified *before* being circumcised 4:9ff)!

This just shows the great lengths one has to go to defend a Roman view of justification in the book of Romans. The ungodly are gentiles? This is an absurd mishandling of the text. The examples Paul uses within this same chapter of justifying the ungodly are Abraham and David, the very representatives of Judaism. What is so offensive here to the Jews is that Paul includes Abraham among the ungodly. What would the whole language of debt and payment in 4:5 have anything to do with being a gentile as opposed to a Jew?

(C) Even if "ungodly" means 'sinner', you'd have to assume "justify" here were a bare declaration. But we both know it's not, and that it includes forgiveness, thus it can be rendered "God forgives the sinner [who genuinely repents]." This would fit perfectly with Romans 4:7-8 and a similar situation of Luke 18:9-14.

Justification is not a "bare declaration." It is a declaration based on the fact that we are in Christ, and thus are given a righteousness from God based on faith. Read the whole argument Paul is making.

(D) The term "justify" ("declare righteous") is not a synonym for "impute righteousness" - 'declare' and 'impute' are not the same. If the passage is rendered "God declares righteous the unrighteous," you have a problem, namely God's honor is at stake, for that is a flat out injustice/contradiction. If you argue the man is truly forgiven and a real righteousness is set to his account, then God isn't really "declaring righteous the unrighteous" anymore, but rather "declaring righteous the righteous".

Paul defines justification as including the imputing of righteousness (Rom 4:6) and the non-imputation of sin (Rom 4:8). Paul is using all three of these concepts synonymously.
God's honor is not at stake because the status of "righteous" is based upon the righteousness of Christ, in whom we are included. The idea that a whole group can bear the guilt or blessings of one individual is common in scripture. For example, we are all sinners because of one man: Adam. Also, the blessings of Israel were often based upon the obedience of the king. In the same way, having a perfectly righteous king, we, as his subjects, receive the blessings he earned.

An Overview of the New Perspectives on Paul Part 4: James Dunn

2010-04-28T16:53:00.000-07:00

James Dunn
James Dunn differs from Sanders in that he claims to be a devout Christian. He is important to the movement because he is the first writer to produce commentaries of Paul’s epistles through this framework. He also formulated the term “the new perspective on Paul.” He essentially agrees with Sanders’ view of second temple Judaism by seeing it as a religion of grace rather than a Pelagian type of legalism. He accepts Stendhal’s criticism which sees the Protestant doctrine of justification as having forced Luther’s own controversy back into the text of Paul. However, agreeing with earlier writers on certain points, he still sees Sanders’ Paul as inadequate. “I am not convinced that we have yet given the proper reading of Paul from the new perspective of first-century Palestinian Judaism opened up so helpfully by Sanders himself.” (The New Perspective on Paul pg.95)
From here, Dunn formulates his own opinions about what Paul is saying in Romans and Galatians. Dunn centers his argument around Galatians 2:16 which is the earliest explicit reference to the doctrine of justification. In this passage, Paul is primarily dealing with the issue of Jew and Gentile fellowship. Justification was apparently seen as something that belonged to Jews but not gentiles since Paul calls them, rhetorically, “sinners.” Paul argues against this notion, showing justification to be valid for both Jews and Gentiles since it is by faith. Dunn does not accept the historical understanding of justification as a term which describes the beginning of a man’s relation toward God. “Justification is rather God’s acknowledgement that one is in the covenant-whether that is an initial acknowledgment, or a repeated action of God (God’s saving acts), or his final vindication of his people.”(pg.97) Dunn sees Paul as working within a Jewish framework. Those whom Paul is countering in Galatia see their Christianity as an extension of Judaism. As such, justification by faith is a Jewish teaching which his readers already understood. Both Judaism and Christianity saw their salvation as based upon God’s gracious initiative.
Dunn, accepting Sanders critique that Paul was not arguing against Jewish legalism writes that “works of the law” in Paul refer to “works related to the covenant [and] works done in obedience to the covenant.”(pg. 98) Thus, when Paul speaks of works of the law he does not refer to good works in general, or even good works as conforming to the Decalogue. These works are primarily those which separate Jews from gentiles which would include the Sabbath, food laws, and other boundary markers that differentiated Jew from gentile. The phrase “works of the law” itself is nationalistic in focus, “the law and the Jewish people are coterminous; the law identifies the Jew as Jew and constitutes the boundary which separates him from the gentiles.”(pg. 118)
Paul does not invalidate the Covenantal Nomistic soteriology of the Judaism of his day. However, he redefines this in light of the resurrected messiah. The question Paul needed to deal with was, “How do we Jewish believers relate our Covenantal Nomism, our works of the law, our obligations under the covenant to our new faith in Jesus as the Christ?”(pg.103) The elect were, in the national covenant, those who had the marks of circumcision, food laws, Sabbath, etc. After Christ has come, Paul sees the elect redefined as those who have faith. The mark or “badge” of those in the covenant was now faith in Christ only.
Like the other writers embracing this new understanding of Paul, Dunn argues that the law/gospel or faith/works contrast as traditionally understood within Protestantism is wrong. “Paul is not arguing here for a concept of faith which is totally passive because it fears to become a ‘work.’” (pg.105) Dunn also argues that there is not a necessary dichotomy between ritual and faith. He is not arguing against ritual as such, but that which excludes gentiles from the covenant. “What he is concerned to exclude here is the racial, not the ritual expression of faith; it is nationalism he denies not activism.”(pg.105) What Paul sees as new about the covenant is not that now an alternative to legalistic works has appeared making salvation a matter of passive faith, but that gentiles are now included within God’s people.

Three Reasons Why I am Not a Roman Catholic

2010-04-24T20:01:00.000-07:00

One poster asked me to give three reasons why I am not a Roman Catholic. Since I try to answer all questions I am asked by my readers, I will briefly explain why I will not join the Roman Church.

1. The denial of Sola Fide
This is the most important reason why I have not and will not ever join the Roman church. As a Lutheran I see it as the center of the Biblical gospel. Trent erred in defining justification as a process and anathematizing its Biblical formulation. Justification is clearly judicial. Paul contrasts "justification" with "condemnation." Justification, being the opposite of condemnation, is clearly a legal term. It means "not guilty" and as Paul in Romans 4, quoting David defines it, the non-imputation of sin, as well as the counting of righteousness. Paul also uses it in the past tense in Romans 5:1 and other places, denying the understanding of justification as a process.

2. Unwritten tradition as a source of authority
I do not see scripture teaching that there is another source of authority which is unwritten and carried on by an infallible magisterium. This is problematic because several of these "traditions" are contradicted by scripture itself. Also, just as clearly, several traditions now claimed by the Roman Church are the opposite of teachings in the fathers. For example, the immaculate conception, now a "dogma of the church" was condemned by Pope Galacius. The Roman Church has not stayed consistent in defining its own infallible tradition. This is why Trent could anathematize Protestants while Vatican II refers to them as separated brethren. This is also why the entire medieval tradition of purgatory as involving an actual period of time can be contradicted by the current Pope. There is simply no consistency.

3. The sacrifice of the mass
Simply put, I believe the doctrine of the re-sacrifice of Christ or "representation of the once for all sacrifice" or however one wants to put it, is a denial of the nature of Christ's atonement. The book of Hebrews makes the point that what is greater about the New Covenant as opposed to the Old is that the propitiatory sacrifice is once for all, and cannot be repeated. The text is clear, and to explain that it is the same sacrifice now as the one on Golgotha is just to skate around the issue and ruin the author's argument.

An Overview of the New Perspectives on Paul Part 3: E.P. Sanders and Paul

2010-04-22T11:02:00.000-07:00

Sanders gave a much fuller treatment of Paul in his 1983 book Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. In this book, like in the previous, Sanders contends that contrary to Protestant ideas Paul did not see the law as impossible to fulfill. The usual proof text for this idea has been Galatians 3:10, “Cursed is the man who does not continue to do all things written in the book of the law.” According to Sanders, Paul, after connecting blessing with faith, looks for a verse in the Old Testament that he can use to connect “curse” with “law.” This happens to be the verse he finds. The focus is not on “all” rather, it is on the fact that the law brings a curse. This reinforces Paul’s main idea that salvation comes by faith in Christ and not the Jewish law. Paul at times upholds the possibility of perfection under the law, but at other times makes it clear that all men in one way or another do sin. Paul never understood that these ideas might be mutually exclusive.
In Galatians 5:3, Paul does make some use of the word “all” in Deuteronomy 27:26. The point that Paul is making is that if one is circumcised, as the Judaizers demanded, he must obey the entirety of the ceremonial law. What Paul sees as wrong with the law as a way to righteousness is not that it is impossible to fulfill, but that it is not the correct kind of righteousness, which is faith in Christ.
Sanders agrees with Stendhal’s reading of Romans in seeing it’s theme as the relation between Jew and Gentile rather than individual salvation. He agrees with most Protestant exegetes in viewing Romans 1:16 as the theme of the rest of the book, however Sanders “would put more emphasis on the second part of the verse (to all who have faith, the Jew first and also the Greek)”(pg 30) While righteousness is an essential aspect, it is essential because it expresses the unity between Jew and Gentile. Sanders evaluates Romans 3-5, which is usually used to defend the “Lutheran” idea that the law leads to boasting because, in a Pelagian sort of fashion, one thinks he can save himself by his own obedience. Sanders believes that this boasting is not connected to any sort of legalism, but to status as a Jew. The law leads to boasting in one’s ethnicity and status as among the covenant people of God. Romans 10:3 had often been used to support the legalistic understanding of Judaism where Paul contrasts a righteousness of “their own” with that “of God.” Sanders sees “their own” righteousness not as something they did to merit salvation, but the righteousness of Israel which excluded gentiles. Sanders sees Paul’s righteousness of “my own” in Philippians 3 in the same way. It was Paul’s righteousness as a zealous Jew who believed himself to be of the covenant people of Israel, separated from Gentiles.
With all this being said, it might seem as though Paul did not have a view of universal sinfulness. To the contrary, Paul does believe in universal sinfulness and does use it in his argument. However, it is only used as a backdrop to explain why righteousness comes through faith to both Jew and Gentile. “Yet it is apparent that the argument is based on the conclusion, rather than the conclusion on the argument.” (pg 35) Paul contradicts himself in Romans 2 and 5. In chapter two he assumes that it is the same law that judges everyone, yet in Romans 5 he sees the law that condemns only the Mosaic Law, as sin was not imputed until the Mosaic Law came. This inconsistency can be explained because Paul’s purpose was not primarily to explain the plight of man, but the solution.
All of this shows that Paul was in a dilemma about the role of the law in salvation history. He attempted to somehow connect the law with sin and the curse, rather than salvation. Though he recognized that in the sense of the Old Testament, Jews would not have been considered sinners, “observant Jews are not in fact sinners by the Biblical standard” (pg 68) He sought to explain the law as serving a pedagogical purpose for the Jewish people. Paul, after explaining that gentiles are imprisoned by stoicheia, beings they worshipped which are not gods, shows that the law did essentially the same thing. This is why in Galatians, he can discuss the “we” and “us” that have been imprisoned, including both Jew and Gentile. All of this shows that Paul rejected his covenantal nomistic past as he did not see righteous, law abiding Jews as among the people of God, but saw them in the same predicament as gentiles.
With all this negativity toward the law in Paul, how do his positive statements about the law fit into his own theology? He sees the law as something that both Jew and Gentile must die to. He does not carefully distinguish the categories of moral, civil, and ceremonial law, as did the medieval scholastics. Christ is the end of the whole law. Paul therefore, sees the law as given purposefully by God, never as a means of salvation, but with a view toward the faith to come. In the end Sanders states, “All Paul’s statements cannot be organized into a logical whole.” (pg 86)
Paul does see Christians as having a duty to fulfill the law. Though he did not “work out a full halakic system,” (pg 95) Paul does give ethical commands in his epistles, which are often connected with Old Testament principles. However, it is not so simple as to say that Paul was urging his gentile converts to adopt a Jewish lifestyle apart from certain rituals of course. Not all the ethical principles Paul adopts are necessarily Jewish, although he does use Old Testament references to defend himself. So which of the Old Testament laws does Paul expect Christians to follow? The distinction between moral and ceremonial law does have some merit in Paul, as he seems to reject those aspects of the law that, “created a social distinction between Jews and other races in the Greco-Roman world.” (pg 102) This again goes back to his central conviction that salvation comes only by faith in Christ through Jew and Gentile alike, thus any barriers between these two people groups must be removed.

An Overview of the New Perspectives on Paul Part 2: E.P. Sanders and Second Temple Judaism

2010-04-21T13:42:00.000-07:00

E.P. Sanders
In 1977, E.P. Sanders published Paul and Palestinian Judaism, which agreed with the central thesis of Stendhal and developed it through looking at sources from second temple Judaism. In this volume, Sanders briefly overviews the different evaluations of second temple Judaism which scholars have promoted in the recent past. In the 19th century, due to the work of F. Weber, it was generally understood that Judaism of the second temple period was a religion of "works righteousness." Jews supposedly believed that God would weigh one's good deeds against his bad to determine the fate of that man. One could gain extra merit through a "treasury of merits" of sorts. Sanders concludes that Weber's evaluation was deeply flawed, though remained somewhat unchallenged in his day. This same view of Judaism was promoted by Bousset, Schurer, and Bultmann. Many Jewish scholars refuted Weber's claims, and Sanders believes successfully, yet their work was not of much effect. Weber's view still was the majority opinion.
Sanders attempts to prove that Weber's view is flawed by evaluating the writings of the second temple period extensively. According to Sanders, there was an overall coherence of a "pattern of religion" in Judaism. “A pattern of religion does not include every theological proposition or every religious concept within a religion. The term ‘pattern’ points toward the question of how one moves from the logical starting point to the logical conclusion of the religion.” (Paul and Palestinian Judaism pg. 17) This can be loosely placed under the rubric of soteriology. Though there were certainly diverging views of Judaism in the second temple period, there was an overall basic soteriology which permeated the majority of second temple literature. Sanders labels this soteriology "covenantal nomism." Covenantal nomism is the idea that the Jews believed themselves to be in the covenant by grace, but maintained their status in the covenant by obedience. In other words, the emphasis was on God's electing grace rather than on strict law-keeping. God chose the nation of Israel to be His own, thus one was in the covenant by God's choice, not by works. The role of law-keeping was one of maintaining status, rather than gaining status. One could lose "salvation" by breaking the commandments, yet one could not gain "salvation" by keeping commandments.
The question naturally comes as to why God elected the nation of Israel. Sanders posits that there were three different answers to this question in second temple literature. One answer was that the covenant was offered to all nations, yet Israel was the only one to accept it. The second opinion was that the nation was chosen because of the merits of the patriarchs. The third was that God elected the nation simply because he chose to; it was a matter of pure grace. The first two answers still put the covenant in the hands of human merit, yet Sanders does not see this as harmful to his thesis. It does not matter how or why the covenant was initiated in the first place. What matters is that those in the covenant in the second temple period were personally initiated apart from what they had done.
In the second part of this book, Sanders evaluates the theology of Paul in light of the pattern he has uncovered in Second Temple literature. Sanders works from the epistles of Paul which he sees as undisputed. These include: Romans, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians, and 1 Thessalonians. In Sander's view, Paul argued from solution to plight. Paul saw Christ as the solution, thus realizing that there must be a problem that man needs to be saved from. First came his conviction of redemption in Christ and then came his view of the law. “Paul’s logic seems to run like this: in Christ God has acted to save the world; therefore the world is in need of salvation; but God also gave the law; if Christ is given for salvation, it must follow that the law must not have been.” (pg 475) Agreeing with Stendhal, Sanders observes that in his description of himself in Philippians 3, Paul calls himself "blameless." Under the law he did not have a deep inward struggle with sin. When Paul preached, he most likely did this the same way. The content of his preaching was not the conviction of sins and then redemption in Christ, but instead began with the message of salvation through Christ.
Salvation in Paul is predominantly seen as a future event which he mistakenly thought to be soon. “It is further to be observed that the verb “save” in Paul is generally future or present but only once past (aorist) tense.” (pg 449) Sanders sees Paul's motifs of salvation as more participationist than juristic. The reformation overemphasized the judicial categories of forgiveness and escape from condemnation, while ignoring the real heart of salvation, which is a mystical participation in Christ. Paul shows this in his argument in his first epistle to the Corinthians when arguing against sexual immorality. It is wrong because it affects one's union with Christ by uniting himself to a prostitute. Sin is not merely the violation of an abstract law. This participationist language is also used in Corinthians in the discussion of the Lord's Supper wherein one participates in the body and blood of Christ.
Unlike many later proponents of the New Perspective, Sanders sees justification as transfer language. It describes one’s entrance into the people of God. However, this is not so much about one's legal status. Paul indeed adopted the earlier Christian view that Christ's death was expiatory and that man was forgiven of his sins. However, when Paul uses this language he is only expressing accepted Christian tradition, not his own point of view. Paul's own thought emphasizes the death of Christ as delivering us from the old aeon and bringing us into the new. His death involves a changing of Lordship and causes us to die not to the penalty of sin, but to the power of sin. “Christ came to provide a new Lordship for those who participate in his death and resurrection.” (pg 499)
For Sanders, Paul did not see the law as something which was impossible to fulfill. As previously mentioned, he said himself that he was blameless under the law. The problem with the law was not that it did not offer righteousness, but that it offered the wrong kind of righteousness. Paul came to the realization that man must be righteous by faith in Christ, thus all other righteousness is excluded, meaning it cannot come by the law. He saw the problem that both Jews and Gentiles were to be “righteoused” by faith, purporting that law could not make one righteous, since it excluded gentiles.
Paul believed, as is evident in Romans 6, that men are under the Lordship of sin. He did not come to this conclusion by any inner struggle, rather by the fact of the lordship of Christ. Since to be saved one must come under the lordship of Christ, he must have previously been under the lordship of something else; that something else is sin. This takes him so far as to overemphasize man's sinfulness in Romans 7 which almost equates the law itself with sin.
Does Paul accept the covenantal nomism pattern which he had received as a Pharisee? Sanders says in some sense yes, and in some ways no. In many ways, his categories were much different. For example, he discusses the new exodus, not in covenantal categories, but instead as the escape from one aeon to another. Paul does accept the basic idea that in the new covenant there is salvation, and those outside of the covenant will not receive salvation. One enters into the new covenant by baptism, through grace, and must keep with repentance to stay within the covenant. This is seen as he often talks about justification by grace in the past tense, but in Romans 2 is able to speak of a future justification by works. However, he differs in his description of personal transgression. Transgression for Paul is not seen as something which will exclude one from the covenant, but as something which affects one's mystical union with Christ. While Paul does sometimes speak in covenantal language, the covenantal nomism category does not fit his emphasis on the new creation. Essentially, while Paul accepts some aspects of Jewish soteriology, it is inconsistent with his participationist categories, “the primary reason for which it is inadequate to depict Paul’s religion as a new covenantal nomism is that the term does not take account of his participationist transfer terms, which are most significant terms for understanding his soteriology.” (pg. 514)

An Overview of the New Perspectives on Paul Part 1: Krister Stendahl

2010-04-20T10:43:00.001-07:00

I want to thank everyone who has been giving me suggestions and encouraging me in my search for a Lutheran church body. I am going to discuss the issue with my pastor this week. I would appreciate your continued prayers. I am going to do a series of posts giving the historical background and brief refutation of the "New Perspective on Paul."

The latter half of the twentieth century saw a major shift in Pauline studies, particularly in Paul’s relation to Judaism and the law. From the 16th century throughout much of the 20th, Martin Luther’s interpretation of Paul was widely accepted by most within Protestantism. While not always agreeing with Luther completely, exegetes had accepted his basic premise that Paul in his epistles to the Galatians and Romans was fighting against Jewish legalism of sorts. Paul’s argument was primarily soteriological. Going back even farther, the entire western church had accepted Paul’s polemics against the Judaizers to be soteriological since Augustine’s controversy with the Pelagians in the 5th century.
The so-called “Lutheran Paul” of the west stressed justification by faith alone as the center of his gospel. This doctrine was ultimately aimed at the comforting of the conscience of the man, who, being struck by the perfection required in God’s Holy law, needed a means of forgiveness. This idea of Paulinism was certainly not universal, as men like Herman Ridderbos found the center of Paul’s thought, not in justification, but in the broader theme of union with Christ. Geerhardus Vos sought to emphasize the narrative aspects of Paul’s thought rather than the mere systematic categories that had often been applied. The “Lutheran Paul” found its ultimate expression in the writings of Rudolph Bultmann. Bultmann, using existentialist philosophy as a backdrop saw Paul as answering the plight of everyman which emphasizes the complete dependence of man upon God. This complete dependence was not rooted in the historical figure of Jesus, but in a universal principle which answers man’s existential plight. Paul spoke unilateral truth, not necessarily grounded within history. Paul distanced himself from the Judaism of his past, seeing it as nothing more than pure legalism. In Judaism, God weighed one’s merits against his demerits in order to determine final salvation. Bultmann emphasized the distinction between the law and the gospel farther than Martin Luther himself would have imagined. Luther saw the law and the gospel as both given by God, present in the old and new testaments, and as good things which both aimed at the salvation of God’s people. The law showed the need for salvation, and the gospel provided it. Other writers saw Paul as much more consistent with historical events and his Jewish past, as even Bultmann’s student Gunther Bornkamm showed the necessity of the historical person of Jesus in Paul’s theology while agreeing with Bultmann on the centrality of the doctrine of justification in Paul’s thought. W.D. Davies showed convincingly that Paul’s theology was largely influenced by Judaism and the break between Paul and Judaism was not as great as many had assumed it to be.

Krister Stendhal
In 1963, Krister Stendhal published an influential article which challenged previous views of Paul and his relation to the law. Stendhal argued that since the reformation we have read Luther’s experience back into the writings of Paul, rather than seeing Paul on his own terms. Our conception of Paul is a product of medieval thought in the western world that would have been completely foreign to those in the period of second temple Judaism. Paul himself did not have a troubled conscience as did Augustine, Luther, or Wesley. He in fact had a “robust conscience.” In Philippians Paul described his former life in Judaism as one of “blamelessness,” not of a failing struggle to obey the law. When Paul talks of the perfect obedience required in the law, it has a more corporate than individual meaning. The nation of Israel of a whole failed to keep the law that was required of them as Paul describes in Romans 2. Paul’s discussions about the failure of the law are not to provoke the conscience of his readers, but are aimed at defining the relationship between Jew and Gentile.
It has been assumed that Paul’s experience on the Damascus road was a conversion to a new way of life. He was a Jew who struggled to obey the whole law, realized he could not, and then converted to faith in Christ. This idea comes from the autobiographical reading of Romans 7. On the contrary, Stendhal believes, “There is not-as we usually think- first a conversion, then a call to apostleship; there is only the call to work among the gentiles.” (“The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West.” In Paul Among the Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays, 78-96. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976.Pg.84-85)
Paul’s break from Judaism was not much of a break at all, but instead it was a new understanding. Paul’s purpose from this point forward was to work out the relation between Jewish Christians and gentile Christians. For Luther, Calvin and other exegetes, chapters 3 and 4 were the central discussion of Paul’s epistle to the Romans. The theme was seen as the righteousness of God expressed in justification. This incidentally led to the discussion of the relationship between Jew and gentile in chapters 9-11. On the contrary, according to Stendhal, the center of Paul’s epistle to the Romans is chapters 9 through 11. The discussion of justification served only as a backdrop for this part of Paul’s argument. The protestant idea of justification has been a non-historical one which sees Paul’s doctrine as solving a universal problem for men of all times, rather then understanding the context of Paul preaching to a Jewish audience of the Messiah. The law Paul speaks of is the Mosaic Law given to Israel, not a set of universal rules to be obeyed by everyone. The so-called “second use of the law” as applied to converting all men, Jew and Gentile alike, to faith in Christ, is a complete misuse of Paul.
Paul certainly does talk of sin in his epistles. When he writes of his own sin, he is not discussing his burdened conscience. Rather, he speaks of the sin of persecuting the church of God which he had now made up for. All of this does not mean that Paul held the view that after baptism man becomes sinless. He accepts that Christians do struggle. However, the focus of his discussion of struggle is not one of despair but of victory over that sin. After his so-called conversion, Paul was not troubled in his conscience as he testifies in Acts 23:1 among other places. He does speak of “weakness” as the thorn in the flesh, but these weaknesses are unconnected to indwelling sin. “But there is no indication that Paul ever thought of this and his other “weaknesses” as sins for which he was responsible.” (ibid pg 91)

Looking for a new direction in the future

2010-04-14T18:40:00.000-07:00

This entry is not primarily theological, but a personal note. I just received word from the LCMS that I will be ineligible for ministry due to the fact that I do not hold to a literal 24 hour view of six day creation. This leaves me unsure of where to go from this point. Most of the other Lutheran bodies are either in agreement with the LCMS on the necessity of this issue, or ordain women and/or deny Biblical inerrancy. I do not believe that ordination of women is a Biblical concept. I also do not want to align myself with a denomination which denies the inerrancy of the Biblical text. Thus, it seems I am left with nothing.
The only other conservative denomination I have found which would allow me to preach so far is the AFLC. However, they have pietistic roots and only hold to the Augsburg Confession and Luther's Small Catechism as confessional documents.
Any help here would be appreciated. I ask for your prayers in this matter as I seek God's guidance which so often works contrary to our expectations.

A Response to James White on 2 Peter 2:1

2010-04-13T16:09:00.000-07:00

"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves." (2 Peter 2:1)

This verse, as claimed by Michael Brown, is saying that these false teachers, according to Peter, deny Jesus Christ who bought them through the cross. This seems to be the obvious meaning of the text. James initially had two responses to this interpretation of the text.

1. The word despotes is not used in reference to Jesus Christ. It is a term referring to the Father. While I admit that this is a common term in reference to the Father in the Septuagint, it is false to assert that this is never a reference to Jesus. There is another reference in the book of Jude, "For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord." (Jude 4) The word translated as "Sovereign" is despoten.
It is worth pointing out that Peter and Jude have almost identical language in many places. They are likely writing against the same group of false teachers. All New Testament scholars agree that either Jude relied heavily on the text of 2 Peter, or 2 Peter relied on Jude.
Not only is this word used in an epistle addressing the same or a similar matter; it is in fact in a parallel statement. They are both writing an introduction to these false teachers who have secretly introduced heresy into the fellowship. Peter refers to those who "deny the Lord who bought them", while Jude refers to those who, "deny Jesus Christ our only sovereign and Lord." If Jude wrote after Peter, which is most likely, he had Peter's epistle in front of him as he used the same term. If Peter was referring to the Father, Jude most likely misread Peter.

2. It is claimed that the term "bought" is a referencing to the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt. Deuteronomy 32:6 refers to God as the one who "bought" them. However, the term used in the Septuagint in this verse is not agorazo, the term used by Peter. There is no direct parallel here. Observe the other instances of this word through out the New Testament:

1 Cor. 6:20 - you have been bought with a price
1 Cor. 7:23 - you were bought with a price
Rev. 5:9 - Thou . . . didst purchase. . . men from every tribe, tongue and people
Rev. 14:3 - who had been purchased from the earth
Rev. 14:4 - These have been purchased from among men

These verses refer to the atonement, not to deliverance from the Exodus. The argument that James makes regarding this, is that all the other times the word is used in reference to the atonement, there is a price included. This argument does not hold water. It would not be necessary for Peter to include "for a price" for his readers to understand his meaning. They would have automatically thought of the redemption bought by Christ. Here are three reasons why:
1. Peter's audience was not exclusively Jewish. Thus, the Jews redemption from Egypt would not have been on their mind.
2. Exodus language was now used in early Christian tradition to refer to the death of Christ and the age of the church. Peter for examples refers to Christians as exiles, priests, etc. Paul uses the crossing of the Red Sea as a symbol of redemption bought by Christ.
3. The heresy that these men brought does not seem to be "denying the Father" but denying Jesus. This is why Peter has to remind his readers that what he told them about Christ was not a "cleverly devised myth." (1:16) They apparently denied the majesty of Christ. (1:17) He also needs to defend the fact that Christ is actually coming back in chapter 3, thus they also denied his return.

There is simply no reason to assume that Peter was making a reference to the Exodus here. It can only be read into the text because of a preexisting theological system. We all come to the text with presuppositions James, even you.

Lutherans and immutable election

2010-04-10T11:26:00.000-07:00

I made the comment that Lutherans in some sense agree that there is such a thing as "irresistible grace." What I mean by this is that election will result in one's actual salvation. Thus in some sense, God will "irresistibly" save his elect. This is a poor term to use because of its Calvinistic connotations, meaning that saving grace is given only for the elect. Someone challenged me on this stating that my words, "God will infallibly convert and preserve His elect in the faith" were Calvinistic. I put together some quotes from the Confessions and American theologians to show that election is particular, immutable, and cannot be lost.

SD Article XI. 8. "God's eternal election does not just foresee and foreknow the salvation of the elect. From God's gracious will and pleasure in Christ Jesus, election is a cause that gains, works, helps, and promotes our salvation and what belongs to it. Our salvation is so founded on it that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18), as is written in John 10:28, "no one will snatch [My sheep] out of my hand." And again, "and as many as were appointed unto eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48)

SD Article XI. 22. "Finally, He will eternally save and glorify in life those whom He has elected, called, and justified."

Early Missouri and Wisconsin synod theologians were very clear on this as well:

Pieper, Christian Dogmatics Vol. III pg. 479, "The elect are only those actually saved, for Scripture teaches that without fail all elect enter eternal life."

Hoenecke, Evangelical Lutheran Dogmatics Vol. III pg. 52, "The immutability of election has clear proof in Matthew 25:34, 24:24; John 10:28, Daniel 12:2; and Romans 8:29,30. Our Confession expresses the Scripture doctrine very clearly and plainly. And when our confession says that God 'ordained it [salvation] in his eternal purpose, which cannot fall or be overthrown,' then it is asserted very definitely and clearly that no elect person finally remains in impenitence and unbelief and thus is lost."

None of this is to say that God does not truly give grace and offer salvation universally. However, God has not elected all men unto salvation. As Walther even says, "He gives everybody enough grace to enable him to be saved, but he does not give everybody the same amount." God's grace alone the cause of man's election. In The Theology of American Lutheranism pg. 178

Some try to say that because grace is given to all men through the gospel, whoever resists God's grace less than the other would then be saved. Walther replies to this idea, "If my non-resistance were the real and ultimate ground, then I would be my only savior." ibid. 188

The Lutheran Confessions, and the Confessional theologians during the American predestinarian controversy agreed that election is infallible, thus irresistible. An elect man cannot simply choose to be non elect.

The Historicity of Luke's Nativity Narrative

2010-04-08T16:15:00.000-07:00

I have been having an interesting, thought provoking discussion in my comment box in an old post. I am posting it here because several of you may be interested in this discussion. Feel free to add any thoughts, disagreements, etc.

Dustin said...
I wonder if you're notified about comments on articles this old. Anyway, one of my biggest problems with the idea of Matthean priority is that Luke seems entirely unaware of Matthew's nativity story. Luke has no mention of Herod being alive during Jesus' birth, no slaughter of the innocents, no Magi, and no flight to Egypt. In addition, Luke places it during the governorship of Quirinius, which was in 6 AD, long after Herod's death (though his later comment that Jesus was "about 30" in Luke 3 may contradict this, indicating some confusion on his part). I find it really odd that if Luke had Matthew as a source, he seemed to completely ignore Matthew's nativity and give a new account that he specifically dates to a later period. I find it more likely that he was unaware of Matthew's Gospel, or at least this part of it.

April 7, 2010 4:22 PM

Jordan Cooper said...
I don't think Luke needed to use the nativity story which was present in Matthew for him to have been aware of it. Matthew used these elements of the story for the purpose of showing Jesus as the "new Moses." Thus, he included the slaughter, paralleling the slaughter of children during the infancy of Moses. He included the flight to Egypt to show Jesus as paralleling the Israelite's captivity and wandering before entering the land of Palestine.
The primary purpose of Luke, unlike Matthew, was not to point to Christ as the fulfillment of God's covenantal dealings with Israel. Thus, he did not need to include these details. Luke worked from several sources including Matthew, Mark, possibly the gospel according to the Hebrews and maybe other early documents. He could not have included everything.
Regarding Luke's dating, it is not clear that Luke is indeed talking about the time period when Quirinius was governor. He uses the term "hegemon" (a general term for a ruler) as opposed to "legatus" (governor)to refer to Quirinius. Thus, though he was in charge of the census, he was not necessarily governor at this time.

April 7, 2010 7:59 PM

Dustin said...
Well part of the problem with the census is that it simply doesn't really make any sense before 6 AD, and we have no record of one happening before then. Before 6, Judea was a client kingdom, not a province. To my knowledge, Rome never took a census of a client kingdom. It wouldn't really make much sense to do so, since a major point of having it be a client kingdom was so that it would handle its own affairs itself.

In addition, we have no record whatsoever that I am aware of of Quirinius governing Syria in any sense before 6 AD. Josephus also made no mention of such a census despite making a big deal out of the census of 6 AD. This either means that the Jews didn't care about the first census, which would be weird given their reaction to this later one, or Josephus for some reason decided that such a thing was irrelevant for some reason, which is also very odd considering the content of his works.

Finally, Luke clearly thought that his audience to be familiar with whatever census he was referring to. We don't have any record of any pre-6 AD census, which indicates to me that any such event was much more obscure. Why refer to an obscure event in such a way that would be easy to mistake for a slightly later and much more famous event? This would be an unusually poorly put passage for Luke if this were the case. Luke also gives indication in Acts 5:37 that he expected his audience to only think of one census when someone referred to "the census," and that's the one of 6 AD.

As far as I can tell, the main reason that people think there was an earlier census comes from the idea that Luke and Matthew had to have agreed about the date. If one doesn't assume that from the outset, what evidence is there of any earlier census?

April 8, 2010 3:19 PM

Jordan Cooper said...
Justin Martyr does mention Quirinius as having been procurator, an office different from governor. Where he got this information from is uncertain. Even without this reference however, just because no other source mentioned Quirinius as procurator does not mean that he never was. It is bad historiography to assume that because something cannot be verified in another source, it must be false. Much of what Josephus said is not in other sources from the time. Does that mean we cannot believe these parts of what Josephus says? No, of course not. The standards for applying historical scrutiny are always harsher upon the New Testament documents than other historical sources. Just because they are religious does not mean they are not reliable history. All history has an agenda behind it. Josephus clearly does.
Luke does mention that this is the first census under Quirinius. Thus, he assumes that there were two different census taken under Quirinius. Perhaps his role in the first led to his being elected governor. If Josephus mentioned a census calling it the "first census", it would probably be assumed that there was a second. Why not with Luke?
Luke mentioning the other census as "the census" in the book of Acts points to the fact that this was the most obvious of the two. This was most likely because it stirred the Jews up, hence its being recorded in Josephus unlike the first.
The fact that Luke refers to it as "the census" only helps point out that he is talking about something different in Luke. This is why he qualifies himself by calling it "the first."
It was not a poor choice of Luke to mention this census just because there was a more famous later census. His readers most likely knew of both. This is why, to avoid confusion, he mentions it being the first. You ask what evidence there is for being an earlier census. My answer is the book of Luke.
You are right that I assume Matthew and Luke agree on the date. I come to the text with the presupposition that it is free from error. I openly admit that. You also come to historical texts with certain presuppositions. For example, you presuppose that reading historical documents can show you actual past events, you presuppose that a text can err, you presuppose that what you perceive on the page you read corresponds to what is actually there. None of us are free from presuppositions. Mine include the inerrancy of the Biblical text.

April 8, 2010 4:15 PM

A Response to James White on 1 John 2:2

2010-04-08T14:45:00.000-07:00

Last week James White had a radio debate with Arminian Pentecostal scholar Dr. Michael Brown over the subject of Calvinism. Through out most of the debate, I found myself cheering on Dr. White. However, when Dr. Brown presented a couple of texts, 1 John 2:2 "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." and 2 Peter 2:1 "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves."
Dr. Brown brought up the point that the term world never means "the elect" in the many times John uses the word through out this epistle. While I don't think Dr. White was saying that world means specifically "the elect" Dr. Brown made a good argument. Through out the epistle, the word "world" means either the sin of the present age, the present evil age itself, or the people belonging to this evil age. Thus, why, in this one place would John mean "all ethnicities" or "many people through out all time?"
When presented with this argument, Dr. White said that the definition of the word "world" was irrelevant for his argument. This is because the term propitiation means the turning away of wrath, thus it must refer only to specific people, or else God has no wrath toward anyone and ultimately everyone will be saved.
I was disappointed that Dr. White did not deal with the term "world." I do not believe it is irrelevant to the argument, and I would like to hear how he, in the context, would interpret this term as meaning only some people of all ethnicities. In the text, "world" is contrasted with "us." Thus, the "world" must be different from the "us." So who is John writing to? One argument says to Jews. Thus, John would be saying that Christ died not only for the sins of Jews, but for the sins of gentiles. However, there is no evidence in the text that John was writing to only Jews. This is why it is considered one of the "catholic epistles." David Wells argues that "world" means "Christians of all times." However, I see no evidence that kosmos could have this type of meaning. If this is really a catholic epistle, the "us" must refer to all believers, thus "world" must refer to unbelievers.
As for Dr. White's argument for the term propitiation; I do not believe that it would necessitate universalism. Can one have Christ as their propitiator and yet be under the wrath of God? I would argue yes, and that Dr. White believes this as well. I would like to ask Dr. White, before the Spirit created saving faith in his heart, was he under the wrath and curse of God? Unless he believed in eternal justification, which he does not, he must admit that he was at one time under God's wrath. Was God's wrath against him propitiated? If he is one of the elect, then he must answer in the affirmative. I would ask Dr. White, how can Christ propitiate the wrath of God for you if you were at some point still under the wrath of God? Is this just because you did not have faith? But isn't unbelief one of the sins that Christ died for?
My point is, even Dr. White must admit that the redemption accomplished by Christ must be applied through faith before it benefits the one for whom it was paid. Thus, in the same way, Christ propitiated the wrath of God for the sins of all men. However, the benefit of that must be received by faith. Thus, if one does not have Spirit created faith, he does not benefit from the work of Christ, though it may have been given for him.
Think about the sacrifices of the old covenant. The sacrifices were given for the nation as a whole. However, only those who drew near would benefit from its blessings. It was objectively given for the entire nation, however, it had to be received subjectively for one to receive the benefits. Now, with the death and resurrection of Christ, the objective work he performed on earth is given for all people of all nations objectively. However, as in the old covenant, one must draw near to God through faith to receive its benefits.

For those of you who don't know

2010-04-06T16:08:00.000-07:00

I was on Issues etc. today discussing Calvinism and Lutheranism. Check it out:

http://issuesetc.org/podcast/462040610H1S2.mp3

What exactly is the Lutheran view of baptism?

2010-04-02T16:12:00.001-07:00

I have been asked to give a brief overview of the Lutheran doctrine of baptism. I have done many posts on the topic but none which includes a comprehensive explanation of the Lutheran view. I will attempt to do so succinctly if possible.

The best place to go for the Lutheran view of baptism is Martin Luther himself. His Small Catechism gives a brief yet profound explanation:

What is Baptism?
Baptism is not just plain water, but it is the water included in God's command and combined with God's word.

Which is that word of God?
Christ our Lord says in the last chapter of Matthew: "Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

What benefits does Baptism give?
It works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.

Which are these words and promises of God?
Christ our Lord says in the last chapter of Mark: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

How can water do such great things?
Certainly not just water, but the word of God in and with the water does these things, along with the faith which trusts this word of God in the water. For without God's word the water is plain water and no Baptism. But with the word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a life giving water, rich in grace, and a washing of the new birth in the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul says in Titus chapter three:
"He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying." (Titus 3:5-8)

What does such baptizing with water indicate?
It indicates that the Old Adam in us should by daily contrition and repentance be drowned and die with all sins and evil desires, and that a new man should daily emerge and arise to live before God in righteousness and purity forever.

Where is this written?
St. Paul writes in Romans chapter six: "We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." (Romans 6:4)

What we believe about baptism:

Baptism is essentially a means by which He has chosen to bring us His Spirit and the forgiveness of sins. God often uses things which seem ordinary to do miraculous works. He speaks to us through a book. He came to us in human flesh. He even spoke through an ass! God often hides Himself in ordinary elements as He reveals Himself. This is the same with the water of baptism.
We believe in baptismal regeneration. This means that the Spirit has chosen to work through baptismal water in the same way that He works through His word. Reformed Christians often say that the preached word is a means of regeneration but baptism is not. We believe that both are means which God uses to bring His promise to us. Baptism is the gospel in visible form, thus it gives all of the benefits of the gospel.
We believe in infant baptism. Since infants cannot understand the word, God uses baptism as a means to regenerate them and bring them into the faith. Through it, God gives faith. If faith is truly a gift of God and not a human work, God can certainly do this for an infant. He can also do it through whatever means He has chosen.
We believe that baptism is a form of the gospel, not a form of the law. Baptism is an act performed by Christ, through the hands of the administer of the sacrament. It is His gift of life and salvation. It is not a work we do. It is not something we do to profess our faith, or to profess that we will raise our children in the faith. It is a gift of grace through the promise of the gospel.

What we do not believe:

We do not believe that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. Since God works through both word and sacrament, the word is sufficient to regenerate and save. However, if one refuses to get baptized, this is evidence that he was never saved since he is denying what Christ has commanded.
We do not believe the Roman Catholic view of baptism. The Roman Catholic church denies that faith is necessarily given at baptism. They also deny that sin remains after baptism.
We do not believe that everyone who was ever baptized will be saved. If one rejects God's offer through baptism, or does not continue in the faith given at baptism, his baptism becomes a means of judgement rather than salvation.
This does not mean that we deny justification by faith alone because we believe baptism saves. The issue is that baptism and faith are not separate things. Baptism gives and strengthens faith. Baptism also delivers the promise which faith clings to.

These are the main points of the Lutheran view of baptism and how it differs from both the Reformed and Roman Catholic teachings on the subject.

This is just really cool

2010-04-02T16:08:00.001-07:00

A Review of "Longing to Know" by Dr. Esther Meek

2010-03-29T14:39:00.001-07:00

Dr. Esther Meek in her book "Longing to Know" has sought to formulate a Christian epistemology devoid of any foundationalist presuppositions. I read this book when trying to figure out exactly how a Christian "knows." How do I explain to an unbeliever why and how I believe? How do I know that I can trust God's word and Christ's death on the cross?
In this book, Dr. Meek argues that knowing God is like knowing one's auto mechanic. One hears of the auto mechanic. One hears that this auto mechanic is reliable. One then brings their car to this auto mechanic and sees that his work is reliable. Whether or not one sees this auto mechanic, he has no reason to doubt this mechanic's existence or his faithfulness to his vocation.
Dr. Meek sees all knowing as relational. To know is to be in a subjective process with the object of knowledge. Knowledge is not "justified belief." One follows a series of "clues" and comes to the conclusion that he can have trust, and confidence in truth. This is like a "magic eye" puzzle wherein one puts the clues together and eventually comes to see the whole picture. This is the same with our knowledge of God. Knowledge is a skill which needs to be practiced. There is however, no certainty. Certainty is not possible, nor should it be sought for. For one to assume that he can be certain is to assume that his knowledge is inerrant. Doubt is good and necessary.
I have several problems with the epistemology Dr. Meek espouses in this volume. While several of the ideas she proposes are relevant to every day knowing, they are inadequate when coming to the subject of God.
Dr. Meek assumes, first of all, that man is an active subject when it comes to the knowledge of God. However, I would argue that man's pure passivity in justification and conversion is applicable to man's knowledge as well. This is why old dogmaticians used the term "illumination" as one of the steps of the ordo salutis. Man does not know God because he has "put the clues together" or had an epistemic experience, but because God, as the active subject, has freely illumined the mind of man, the passive subject.
Dr. Meek seems to have adopted something similar to the I-Thou epistemology of Martin Buber. Knowledge is personal and existential. It comes through an experience between two subjects. This is in opposition to the I-it relationship which has been promoted in modernism wherein man is an active subject who knows an abstract object. While I do affirm that there certainly is a relational aspect to our knowledge of God, it is not the whole picture. There is an objective gospel, objective doctrine which is the object of faith. Perhaps this could be described as an I-it-thou relationship, wherein one has a relational knowledge of God which comes through objective means, namely, the gospel (which includes certain doctrinal propositions) as delivered through word and sacrament.
The problem with the illustration of the auto mechanic is that the analogy does not completely work. Man is not born with a mind with hatred and utter blindness to the truth of the auto mechanic. However, this is his natural state with God.
The main problem with the epistemology espoused by Dr. Meek is its starting point. The subject is ultimately the starting point of his own knowledge of the divine. However, if the word of God is the ultimate source of truth it should be our starting point. The starting assumption should be that God's word is infallible and inerrant truth. Truth, as from a personal being contained in a book, should approach us. We cannot attempt to approach it. We should be that which is acted upon by truth. We cannot try to reach truth through our perceived truthfulness and reliability of God. His truthfulness and reliability should reach us and penetrate our minds and hearts.
If it is an infallible God working knowledge within us, there is no problem in our having certainty. The certainty then does not lie in our own epistemic efforts, but in the truth itself.
Ultimately, the book gives a good explanation of how knowledge of ordinary life works, however, it is inadequate to explain our knowledge of God. It is essentially an epistemology of glory, wherein our knowledge of God depends upon our own experience and perception of truth. We should adapt an epistemology of the cross, wherein we must admit our inadequacy to know at all and become passive receivers of the revelation which is in the person of Christ.

1 Peter and Baptism

2010-03-29T11:21:00.000-07:00

"For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him." - 1 Peter 3:18-22

This is one of the clearest texts showing that baptism does indeed save men. When dealing with this passage, I have heard several Reformed interpreters tell me that "this passage is just hard to understand" so that we should not base a doctrine off of it. However, the passage is clear to me.
Peter states directly that "baptism now saves you." These words should bear their obvious meaning. To make it even more clear, Peter gives an analogy from the old Testament. Noah was saved from God's wrath on mankind through water. In the same way, the Christian is saved from God's wrath through water. For those who say that baptism simply symbolizes our being saved I ask, did the water which Noah's ark floated on merely symbolize his salvation? No. Clearly, Noah, through the water, was actually saved. If the flood was a type of baptism, then was the type greater than its fulfillment? Was the water of the flood salvation from God's wrath yet baptism a mere symbol? This is not the way typology works. The fulfillment is always greater than the type. The water saved Noah from God's wrath, however, baptism is greater because it saves men from God's eternal eschatological wrath.
The argument most commonly used against the seemingly obvious meaning of the passage says that because Peter qualifies his statement by saying, "not the removal of dirt from the body", he must not refer to water baptism since water baptism does indeed remove dirt from the body. However, this is to miss the point of Peter's argument. The reason he uses the flood as an example is because water is what saved Noah. Would Peter be saying "God saved Noah through water which symbolizes your salvation through baptism, but not water baptism, baptism by the Spirit." This ruins the analogy. The point Peter is making here is that what saves us in our baptism is not the cleansing of the body, but the fact that through it our conscience is cleansed and we are united to the resurrection of Christ.
To say that what Peter means here is that though Noah was saved through water, we are saved by the resurrection of Christ which is symbolized by baptism destroys the argument.
If we are going to stick to the clear text of scripture it must be admitted that baptism does actually save the believer.

Christ's command to baptize infants

2010-03-25T18:01:00.000-07:00

The most common argument against paedo-baptism is rather simple. The Bible does not directly command it. An explicit command to baptize infants is certainly not necessary to affirm the doctrine, as I think it is a clear implication of all of the statements about baptism in the New Testament when read together. However, I do see an explicit command in the New Testament to baptize infants. This comes from the famous story of Christ blessing children. Many have declined to use this in defense of infant baptism because they see it as a general principle about children or being childlike, and not a direct reference to the sacrament. Even Edmund Schlink denies that this passage should be used. However, I believe there are many implications in these texts of baptism.

"Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." And he laid his hands on them and went away." - Matthew 19:13-15

" And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them." - Mark 10:13-15

"Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." - Luke 18:15-17

In the Matthew and Mark accounts, the word Paidia is used. This can refer to either infants or small children. However, Luke makes it clear by his use of the word Brefe That infants are in mind. The children being "brought" in Matthew 19 may also point to this. This story is important enough for all three synoptic gospels to include it. Thus, it should not be passed over lightly. But what does this story mean?

Option 1: It shows that all Christians should have child-like faith
This is a common interpretation of this story. Jesus is using this as an illustration. He is using infants to show us that we should have the same humble and trusting attitude in our relationship with God. While this is certainly in the text, the words of Jesus using this as an illustration are not even used in Matthew's account. Thus, this cannot be the primary purpose of this story.

Option 2: It teaches that all children will be saved
This has been a common defense for the idea that God will save all infants. Because he states that the kingdom of God belongs to them, Jesus is showing that all who die in infancy will inherit the kingdom of God. Whether or not this is true, it is clearly not the point of this passage. This text speaks of children being brought to Jesus, something which could be hindered. This clearly has nothing to do with the death of infants unless Jesus is saying "do not hinder the infants from dying. Let them die so that they can come to me." This is simply nonsensical.

Option 3: It teaches that children can be brought to Jesus and enter the kingdom
I see this as the most plausible option. Here is why:

In the beginning of the gospels lies the story of John the Baptist. John was appointed by God to preach the kingdom of God which was approaching. How does one prepare to enter this coming kingdom? Through baptism and repentance. The first time in the New Testament the kingdom of God is mentioned is in Matthew 3 in the context of John baptizing. Why would one assume that Matthew was not referring to baptism when referencing entrance into the kingdom of God in chapter 18 if entrance into the kingdom in chapter 3 is referring to the sacrament? Kingdom and baptism are linked.

There are two other references to baptismal terminology in this story as well.

1. the language of "not hindering"
Early baptismal liturgies often contained the question to the believer, "is there anything hindering you from being baptized?" This may point to the fact that these accounts are using language from baptismal liturgy. The question of course is, did this baptismal liturgy exist yet when the gospels were written? I believe it did. View this statement from the book of Acts:

"And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?" - Acts 8:36

The same word koluo is used as in the synoptic accounts. The similarity of the language leads me to believe that this was most likely already a part of the churches liturgy.

2. the laying on of hands
More importantly, Jesus lays his hands on the children to bless them. In the early church, laying on of hands and baptism were connected.
"On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them" - Acts 19:5-6
The author of Hebrews even associates the laying on of hands with one of the elementary doctrines of the faith. "Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment" - Hebrews 6:1-2 Most likely, washings and the laying on of hands are referring to baptismal practices.

We must remember that the gospels were written to the developing church. They were not mere biographies of Jesus. This church was growing rapidly and baptisms were being performed every day. Many of the readers would have been newly baptized. Hearing this story of Jesus blessing children, laying his hands on them, telling parents not to hinder there children from coming to him, would certainly bring baptism to mind.

If this passage does not refer to baptism, what is it talking about? How can parents "bring their infants to Jesus" if not by baptism? How else can one be embraced by Christ himself and enter into the kingdom of heaven? Is this merely a narrative about how Jesus liked kids?

That this passage refers to baptism is clear when all the options are considered. This text is not necessary for a belief in infant baptism, but it is the only Biblical command which most likely refers directly to infant baptism.

Hebrews and limited atonement

2010-03-20T14:46:00.001-07:00

The book of Hebrews has been posed the most difficulty when dealing with the "L" and "P" in TULIP. The several warning passages, in Hebrews 6 and other places, have seemed to indicate that a true Christian can fall away. When examining the book of Hebrews, I have found that these passages, read in context, do teach that a believer can fall away. I also believe that they teach that Christ is the propitiation and mediator for all men without distinction. I will explain why I think Hebrews teaches both of these points.

First, view all of the falling away passages within the book:

"Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?" (Hebrews 2:1-3)

"Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end." (Hebrews 3:12-14)

"Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it." (Hebrews 4:1)

"Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience." (Hebrews 4:11)

"For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned." (Hebrews 6:4-8)

"Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10:23-31)

"See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no "root of bitterness" springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears." (Hebrews 12:16-17)

These passages are scattered through out the book. In fact, the book is structured around this concept. The author is warning these believers not to fall away. These are most likely Jews considering reverting to Judaism to escape persecution. To counter this, the author seeks to explain, in detail, how the New Covenant is superior to the old. How the reformed have typically dealt with these passages is to say that those who "fall away" are not truly believers. They are external members of the church. They were never regenerated, justified, saved, and Christ never died for these people.
However, to say that Christ was never the advocate for those who fall away is to destroy the argument of the book. He is urging them to remain within the faith precisely because Christ is their mediator. The argument essentially is "Christ is a better sacrifice than those of the old covenant; He is a better priest than those of the old covenant." The premise of the argument assumes that Christ is their mediator. How can they relapse into a worse mediator/priest/sacrifice if they never had a better one in the first place? It makes no sense.

Observe the following passages:

"Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need." (Hebrews 4:14-16)
The author is assuming, without qualification, that Christ is the high priest of himself and all of his readers. He argues that because Christ is our high priest, let us not fall away from Him.

"We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 6:19-20)

"For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens." (Hebrews 7:26)

"Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven" (Hebrews 8:1)

"For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf." (Hebrews 9:24)

"And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Hebrews 10:10)

Observe the following section of Hebrews chapter 10:

"Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near." (Hebrews 10:19-25)

This section is important for my thesis because it is part of a larger argument. He first reminds these believers of the confidence they can have with Christ as their mediator. He then tells these people to continue encouraging each other and not stop meeting together for worship. He then explains why they should do this:

"For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth,there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again,"The Lord will judge his people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." " (Hebrews 10:26-31)

These two statements are directed toward the same group of people, the "we". He speaks of judgement for those who have been sanctified by the blood of Christ, have Christ as their high priest, are members of the new covenant, and had the Spirit of grace. The parallel the author makes is clear: those who were members of the old covenant who disobeyed were punished, therefore those who are members of the new covenant who disobey will be punished more. This is clearly not an "external membership" as some Presbyterians argue. It is clear that Christ Himself is the advocate, sacrifice, and mediator of these people. How can one "profane the blood" which was never given for him in the first place?

"and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven." (Hebrews 12:24-15)

The author states that it is possible to reject "him who is speaking." Who is speaking? He states that it is "Jesus...and...the sprinkled blood". One can reject the sprinkled blood of Christ which was indeed given for him.

The book of Hebrews in its structure and argument is clear: the blood of Christ was given for all, and those whom he died for will perish without Spirit given and sustained faith in the gospel.

Baptismal regeneration and reformed theology

2010-03-19T12:01:00.000-07:00

I have been very frustrated trying to find Reformed arguments against the Lutheran view of baptismal regeneration. This is one of the reasons I joined Lutheranism; the arguments for baptismal regeneration were very convincing and I could find no Reformed argument against them. I just recently picked up John Murray's book on baptism which I have been told is the best book from a reformed perspective on the subject. John Murray is certainly a competent scholar, and I learned much from his Redemption Accomplished and Applied, as well as his Romans commentary. However, when he addresses the issue of the efficacy of baptism in the last chapter of his book, he has a footnote stating that he will not address the issue of baptismal regeneration. He points the reader to Charles Hodge's systematic theology Volume III.
I read Hodge on this issue a couple years ago, and recently read it again. Hodge gives a very brief overview of the Lutheran view. He then refutes baptismal regeneration. However, when reading this section, I found that I agree with most of what he says. He only argues against the ex opera operato view of the Roman Catholic church. He does not even address the Lutheran view in his opposing arguments. I suppose that one could attribute this to mere ignorance of the Lutheran position, however, he clearly acknowledges its existence earlier in the volume.
So what is it? Why can the Reformed not even address the Lutheran view? It is as if our theological opinions are not even given a second glance. For the Calvinist, one is either a Calvinist or Arminian, believes in a Roman Catholic view of baptism or a symbolic one, holds to transubstantiation or denies the presence of Christ's human nature. This is why after 500 years leading Reformed theologians claim that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, the local presence of the human nature of Christ in all places, the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation, synergism, etc. I have found that even in Reformed treatments of the Theology of Paul, the statements in his epistles on baptism are not even addressed. If they are addressed, the issue of baptismal regeneration is not.

If you are Reformed and reading this blog; there are other theological stances. Being a monergist does not mean you must be a five point Calvinist. Believing in Sola Fide does not mean that the sacraments are not efficacious.

1 Timothy 2:4

2010-03-16T14:35:00.000-07:00

One of the clearest expressions of the universal grace of God comes from the book if 1 Timothy.

"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men (pantas anthropous) to be saved (sothenai)and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all (panton) men—the testimony given in its proper time" (1 Timothy 2:3-6)

The controversy is over what the term "all men" means in this passage. Many interpreters see this as a statement that God wants every single person to be saved, and that Christ was given as a ransom for every single person.
The Calvinistic interpreters however, have interpreted this to mean simply "all kinds of men". The Calvinistic interpretation has some supporting from the previous verse which states, "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness." This shows that he is referring to all kinds of men including regular citizens as well as those in authority.
While this interpretation is understandable, it would seem to necessitate that prayers should only be made for the elect. The "everyone" whom we should pray for, is linked to the "all men" whom God desires to be saved. Thus if the "all men" are only the elect among differing kinds of men, then the "everyone" for whom we must pray are only the elect among all kinds of men.
The meaning of this passage seems to be that because Christ died for every man, including those in authority, we should pray for every man, including those in authority.

There is much more evidence to support this view when one observes the rest of the epistle to Timothy. How does Timothy use the term "all" (pas) through out his epistle? There is another passage very similar in the book of Timothy which should be taken into careful consideration.
"This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe. " (I Timothy 4:9-10)
Paul, once again, uses the concept of salvation (the word used is soter)with the concept of "all men" (panton anthropon).
Clearly in 4:10, the "all men" are distinct from those who are believers. Believers are merely one section of the group "all men". This has often troubled interpreters because it has sounded universalistic. Does this verse mean that every individual will be saved? Well, to explain what Paul means by Christ being the savior of all men we must go to a point within the same writing where the same idea is being discussed. This brings us back to chapter 2:4-6. Here we see that Christ is the savior of "all men" in that he 1. desires them to be saved, and 2. gives Himself as a ransom for them.
To be a consistent exegete, it must be admitted that "all men" in I Timothy 2:4-6 cannot simply refer to "all kinds of men". Unless there is sufficient reason to think otherwise, we must assume that Paul uses the same word in the same way when it appears in a short epistle within the same context (the context being salvation, both instances using words with a sozo root).

Are there non-regenerate believers?

2010-03-14T21:25:00.000-07:00

The reformed when debating a Lutheran view of apostasy argue that the "falling away" passages refer to those who only had the appearance of being regenerate. They were never true Christians in the first place. Examine the characteristics of these false Christians.

They can:

be enlightened (Hebrews 6:4)
taste the heavenly gift (Hebrews 6:4)
share the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 6:4)
taste the goodness of God's word (Hebrews 6:5)
receive eschatological blessings (Hebrews 6:5)
repent (Hebrews 6:6)
understand the truth (James 5:9)
receive grace (Galatians 5:4)
be in fellowship with Christ (Galatians 5:4)
receive the gospel (Matthew 13:20)
have joy in the truth (Matthew 13:20)
have been bought by the Lord (2 Peter 2:1)
escape the evils of the world (2 Peter 2:20)
know Jesus Christ (2 Peter 2:20)

Compare this with what is said in scripture about unbelievers:

they have darkened hearts (Romans 1:21)
their thinking is futile (Romans 1:21)
they have no understanding (Romans 3:11)
they do not seek God (Romans 3:11)
they do no good (Romans 3:12)
they are hostile to God (Romans 8:7)
they cannot submit to God's law (Romans 8:7)
they cannot please God (Romans 8:8)
their minds are defiled (Titus 1:16)
they are slaves to sin (Romans 6:6)
they hate the light (John 3:20)
they are alienated from Christ (Colossians 1:21)
they cannot understand the gospel (I Corinthians 2:14)
they are blinded from seeing Christ (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)
they cannot receive the Spirit (John 14:16)
they are unable to come to Christ (John 6:44)

Is it possible that these descriptions can all apply to the same group of people? Can these blessings of the first list be applied to those in the second? This would mean that men can receive the word with joy but be unable to understand the word, share in the Spirit but not be able to receive the Spirit, have no understanding and blinded minds but understand the truth, taste the goodness of God's word yet be unable to understand His word, be alienated from Christ yet be in fellowship with him, be enlightened but have no understanding, be in slavery to sin yet repent and escape the evils of the world, receive grace but not salvation, and know Christ but are unable to come to Him.
The conclusion is unavoidable; these verses cannot be referring to the same group of people. Those who fall away have truly been saved and have been severed from Christ.

Progressive sanctification

2010-02-23T13:09:00.000-08:00

Most of the time the Christian life is split up into two categories: justification and sanctification. It often is explained so that justification is the beginning of the Christian life wherein one is declared righteous for Christ's sake, and sanctification is now the Christian life in which we try to follow God's law and gradually get "better". Though I believe the justification/sanctification distinction to be a valid and Biblical one, I worry that this explanation has separated the Christian life from our justification.
I would like to posit that sanctification should not be seen as a process of the Christian gradually becoming better, but of God's work in raising the new justified man and destroying the old Adam. Sanctification in scripture is often described as an objective event as is justification. "But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God." (1 Corinthians 6:11) In the same way, we are described as already being participants in the resurrection. "Since then you have been raised with Christ..." (Colossians 3:1)In this way, the life of the Christian is one in which he is both totally sinner and totally righteous. According to his old nature man is still totally sinner, but according to his new nature he is totally righteous. This best explains the conflict described in Galatians 5:17, "For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want."
Notice how Paul describes his struggle with sin in Romans 7 (yes I believe this is Paul's Christian life but that will be a discussion for another time). "As it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living within me." (Romans 7:17) Paul, as a new justified regenerated man is claiming that this sin is not his own, but belonging to his sinful nature. This is why the Christian life can be described as a gradual resurrection (Romans 8:11)
This way of looking at sanctification puts a closer connection between the indicative and the imperative. It is not that the indicative is merely a background for the imperative, but the imperative is the working out of the indicative. The change in the Christian life is the eschatological reality of the resurrected justified man breaking in to the present. It is the age of the second Adam breaking in to the age of the first. As Christians, we are in a struggle with the old Adamic reality clinging to us, and the new justified man living in Christ.
Put to death the old Adam and let the eschatological reality of a man righteous in Christ shine forth.

Matthew 23:37

2010-01-27T12:26:00.000-08:00

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

This has often been a verse used to argue against a Calvinistic understanding of limited atonement and reprobation. Jesus here seems to be saying that he wanted to gather these men to themselves though they, through their own disobedience, rejected his offer.
Unfortunately, this argument has been weakened by Dave Hunt and the like. Arminians have often misquoted this verse saying, "how often I would have gathered you together". This would change the meaning of the verse so that Jesus is telling those whom he is speaking to that he wanted to gather them together.
However, despite this verse being often misquoted, I still think it can be used to argue for a universal saving will in God. Jesus is here talking to the leaders of Jerusalem rather than Jerusalem itself. He is saying that he wanted to gather the people of Jerusalem together, but their corrupt leaders would not allow him.
James White and others have argued that because Jesus is talking to the leaders rather than the people of Jerusalem themselves, this verse cannot be used to support a universal saving will in God. I, however, disagree. The fact still remains that Christ wept because these people were not saved, and longed for them to be saved. The fact that he is talking to their leaders rather than the people themselves makes no difference.
There is a clear instance in this verse of Christ stating that he longed to save those who were not saved, and even wept at their lack of salvation. Though God has from eternity elected specific men unto salvation, he has a will to truly offer salvation to all.

Practical implications of limited atonement

2010-01-27T00:05:00.000-08:00

I at one time believed in the Calvinistic doctrine of limited atonement. This doctrine states that Christ died solely for his elect. Christ offers the gospel to all yet did not actually die for all. I have struggled through this doctrine for many years now. Despite the fact that this doctrine is exegetically unfounded, it has many negative practical implications.
First of all, with this doctrine one can never be sure if Christ actually died for him. I, for example, have doubted my election at times. How do I know if I am elect? And if I am not elect then Christ did not die for me! Ultimately then, the doctrine pushes me into looking at the eternal decree of God for my assurance. How can I tell if I am among the elect? The answer usually given is that I know by my faith. However, there is true and false faith, and I must test myself to see whether or not my faith is real faith. According to a reformed exegesis of Hebrews chapter 6, a false faith can still cause one to repent, taste the heavenly gift and share in the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, I must look at the quality of my works and see if they are Spirit wrought. My assurance is in my inner transformation, not in the gospel. There is simply no way around it; I ultimately never know if Christ actually died for me except for the amount and quality of my good works. I know that when I look inward, as when reading Jonathan Edwards' Religious Affections, I see my sin and simply doubt my faith.
A Calvinist will object that they believe in a "free offer of the gospel" because they are not hyper Calvinists. Thus, I can trust in this universal offer. However, I must ask: Is this really a universal offer? How can God offer something he has not actually paid for? Can he really tell me I can accept the death of Christ while it in fact has never been paid for me?
The other hard issue to deal with is in Evangelism. As a Calvinist I could not freely offer the death of Christ to unbelievers. I would make my way around it by saying "believe on Christ's death because he has died for believers". While this is true I could never look at an unbeliever and say "trust in Christ's work accomplished on your behalf!" If I were to see my brother in despair I cannot look them in the eyes and say "do not despair! His righteousness is yours! He has fulfilled the law and its curse on your behalf!" However, as an adherent of the Book of Concord I can proclaim to all men "believe upon Christ who has paid the penalty for your sin!"

1 John 2:2 and limited atonement

2010-01-26T12:47:00.000-08:00

1 John 2:2 is one of the foundational texts which speaks against a Calvinistic understanding of the atonement. "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." The reformed position is that Christ's death was only for the elect, with the possible exception of common grace being bought through the cross.
So how does the Calvinist respond to a text like this? It is not as though reformed commentators have ignored this verse, but they attempt to fit it into their theology. First they ask, "what does world mean?" One discovers that "world" can have multiple meanings. We do this today even. For example we talk about "the world, the flesh and the devil." We also talk about the world as all ethnicities. We could speak of the world as the planet earth itself. In the same way, the Biblical writers used kosmos in several different ways.
I do agree with reformed commentators in this. Words certainly can have multiple meanings. However, we must look at the context of the passage, how the author uses this word himself, and take the most obvious meaning of the text unless there is substantial evidence to interpret it differently from the plain meaning. So what could the author here mean when he says that Christ died for the sins of the whole world? Reformed will take this text, as well as several others and state that "the whole world" refers to people of all nations, though only the elect of all nations, rather than simply Jews. They go to a similar instance in John's gospel. In John 3:16, Jesus is talking to a Jew explaining that salvation is for the whole world, not simply for the Jews. Regardless of whether or not I agree with this interpretation of John 3:16, it is an understandable interpretation in context. However, John 2:2 is a different text, spoken to a different audience and does not have the same meaning.
Yes, Jesus when speaking to ethnocentric Jews talked about the universality of salvation its' primary implication is that salvation is for all nations (though this certainly does not preclude the possibility that this universality refers to every individual in these nations as there is no implication in the context that he only means the elect of these nations).
However, there is no reason to believe that 1 John is written to ethnocentric Jews. This epistle is among the last to be written in the New Testament. At the end of the first century, surely the problem of Jew-Gentile relations had been dealt with. After all, the council of Jerusalem was 40 years before this and Paul's epistles had been widely circulated for some time now. Thus, one is hard pressed to find this meaning in the text. The only other meaning of the text must be that he died for all men. The other meanings of kosmos would make no sense in this passage. John is certainly not saying that he died for the sins of the earth or the soil.
In this same chapter, John uses the word kosmos several times. "Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever." (1 John 1:15-17) John uses the term "world" in this epistle to refer to sinful humanity and the corruption of the present age. Thus, what John seems to be saying in the beginning of this epistle is "Christ died not only for our sins (the sins of believers) but also for the sins of the world (unbelieving mankind)." Who is the "our" being spoken of here? This is a catholic epistle, not written to specifically Jewish believers or even one specific church, thus the "our" must refer to Christians in general. Therefor, the "world" is someone other than the "us" being referred to. Thus, if the "us" is the church, the "world" must be those outside of the church.

If one is to take the most obvious meaning of this text, he must admit that Christ died for every man. We must not force our preconceived theological views upon God's word. Let God speak for himself.

Can Calvinists really be concidered Augustinian?

2009-12-17T12:15:00.000-08:00

Calvinists often claim that their theology is not something which arose through the writings of John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli. To support this thesis, they usually cite St. Augustine, the doctor of grace. Here are five reasons why I do not believe Calvinists are truly Augustinian in their soteriology. Though they can certainly cite him as an influence, the theology of Concord is much closer to that of Augustine and his early predecessors.

1. Augustine saw baptismal regeneration as essential for his soteriology. In some ways, baptism is the foundation of Augustine's theology. Read for example, his treatise On the Forgiveness of Sins and Baptism. His entire defense of original sin was through its remedy in baptism. Within his anti-Pelagian writings, Augustine constantly refers back to baptism as a primary means God uses to give his free grace, and free man's will. There is no immediate operation of the Spirit in Augustine. The Spirit works through word and Sacrament. The Lutheran church from the beginning held to baptism as the means which God uses to give grace and overcome our Adamic state.

2. Augustine denied the "P" of Tulip. In his treatise On the Perseverance of the Saints, Augustine defends the perseverance of the elect, but defends at length that those who are truly regenerated and saved can fall away from the faith. This both Luther and the Lutheran Confessions confessed.

3. Augustine did not believe in limited atonement- at least not in the Calvinistic sense of the term. Yes, there are times when he talks about the particularity of the death of Christ. However, it would not do justice to Augustine to say that he only talked of particular grace. He believed that God gave true grace to non-elect men. His discussions of baptism and the means of grace make it clear that there is universal grace. This is more than mere common grace which only restricts the wicked actions of men and gives some outward blessings men do not deserve. None elect men are truly forgiven through baptism, though they will eventually reject it.

4. The Augustinian definition of double predestination, at least as explained by later writers, is not Calvinistic. Augustine himself did not focus much on the double aspect of predestination and explain what the predestination of the reprobate means. However, the later Augustinian tradition as developed by Prosper of Aquitaine, Fulgentius of Ruspe, and ultimately the Council of Orange, when defining double predestination always made the point that when men are predestined unto death, they are only predestined based upon foreseen future demerits. This goes against not only a supralapsarian view, but also an infralapsarian view which would argue that the reprobate were predestined in view of Adam's sin but not necessarily their own. The Augustinian tradition would thus argue that is man is saved it is unconditional, though if he is damned it is conditional.

5. Augustine started his discussions of predestination from Biblical anthropology and the greatness of God's grace to fallen sinners. Calvinism has often, though not always, discussed predestination under the realm of God's sovereignty. This is secondary for Augustine, and for the Lutheran Confessions.

Rereading Pieper Volume I. Part 2

2009-12-14T11:56:00.000-08:00

It is interesting that Lutheran dogmaticians use different categories for classifying the attributes of God than do the reformed. The reformed typically discuss the communicable and incommunicable attributes of God. Pieper however classifies them as positive and negative attributes. Those attributes which are positive things which we have in part such as love, holiness, justice etc. Negative attributes are those attributes of God which are known negatively, or as opposed to our own attributes. These would include omnipresence, omniscience, etc. Pieper is correct in saying that how one classifies these attributes is not particularly important. Theologians are free to use different categories to discuss biblical truths.
Pieper then discusses the doctrine of creation. He opposes the doctrine of Augustine and other fathers who claim that the six days are a mere literary device to describe God's creation. He argues that those Christians who subscribe to evolutionary theories are putting the truths of science over God's word. Here is where I think Pieper goes too far. Science can find legitimate truths. When science finds something which disagrees with scripture, either the result of science is wrong, or one's interpretation of scripture is wrong. Pieper does not seem to be able to admit that perhaps his interpretation of scripture is wrong. He goes so far as to argue for geocentrism in a footnote. (pg. 473) I do not buy into evolutionary theory, however, I do not have a problem seeing the days as a literary device. The problem is never with scripture but with our interpretation of it. We must admit our interpretation as fallible.
Pieper's section on divine providence admits that God's providence extends over all things that happen. He deals with the problem of God's sovereignty over sin in a particularly good way. He states that God is sovereign over man's sinful actions so far as they are actions, but not so far as they are sin. This protects God from causing sin, but preserves his sovereignty. Pieper at this point leaves it to mystery.

Rereading Pieper Volume I.

2009-12-13T10:58:00.000-08:00

When I first read through F. Piper's Christian Dogmatics, I was a Calvinist. By the time I had finished volume III, I was convinced that there was simply no exegetical foundation for many core Presbyterian beliefs, primarily in reference to the two natures of Christ and the sacraments. These volumes were one of the most important factors in my decision to join Lutheranism. I decided to reread them now as a convinced Lutheran. I am going to put up reviews of each of the three volumes, as I have no noticed several things I both agree and disagree with as a Confessional Lutheran within his Dogmatics.

Pieper spends a considerably large portion of the first volume on Prolegomena. The main point he gets across is that scripture itself is the sole authority of all theology. He argues against 19th century liberalism, which was prominent during his writing. Neither reason nor experience is above scripture. He sees both the reformed and Roman churches as flawed in similar ways. The Roman church places it's own tradition and magisterium above scripture. The reformed church, though they profess sola scriptura, too often make doctrinal formulations based upon logical deduction. For example; some men are saved and not others. Those that are saved are only converted by God's own choosing, therefore, those who are damned are only damned due to God's own choosing. When first reading this, it made me think about two books in particular which have been staples of Reformed theology for years: John Owen's the Death of Death, and Jonathan Edwards' the Freedom of the Will. Ultimately, much of Reformed theology, specifically the doctrine of limited atonement is not based upon clear exegesis but logical argumentation. When I was reading through Hodge's systematics (at the same time I read Pieper) I noticed that his whole argument against the Lutheran doctrine of the communication of attributes of Christ's divine to his human nature, was based on the fact that he had decided that to be human means to be present in one place at one time.
The next section in the book is on Holy Scripture. Here he defends the older orthodox theologians who had been attacked so often by 19th century liberalism. He spends much of his time defending the fact that Luther also taught Biblical inerrancy. Pieper discusses the Homoleugomena, Antileugomena distinction taught by the Lutheran fathers. This distinction comes Eusebius. The books of the New Testament are categorized by acceptance in the early church. Some books have been universally recognized: the 13 epistles of Paul, the four gospels, Acts, 1 John and 1 Peter. There was doubt in some areas about: 2, 3 John, Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelation. The first books listed are primary. All doctrine should be decided chiefly by books about which there is no doubt. The Antileugomena have been accepted as inspired by most in the Lutheran church (though there have been times when one has doubted one of these books), however they take a secondary place in establishing doctrine. I think that this distinction is valid, however, it seems that because God has led his church with these specific books for most of the 2000 years of church history, it would be acceptable to get rid of this distinction. It can be confusing and unhelpful.
The next section of volume I is on the doctrine of God. He begins this section by discussing the natural knowledge of God. He believes that man knows the existence of God a priori, through the conscience, and a posteriori, through creation. This knowledge however is never a saving knowledge which comes only through the gospel. Pieper then moves on to discuss the trinity. He defends the Nicene and Athanasian creeds. All who deny this are heretics. It is refreshing to read Pieper's blatant refusal to claim those who deny the trinity as Christians. In our day of relativism, barely anyone is willing to affirm that knowing even an essential truth like the Trinity is necessary for salvation. This is one of the highlights of the Dogmatics. Peiper's theology is thoroughly trinitarian. He defines concisely and clearly the false explanations of, and denials of the trinity which have arisen through out history and refutes them with scripture.
One thing which I found particularly interesting is the Pieper denies Augustine's explanation of the trinity. Augustine explains the trinity by describing the Father as love. The Father, as love, must have an object of love, thus the Son is eternally begotten as that object. The love itself between the two persons is the Holy Spirit. This always seemed too speculative to me, though I love Augustine. I agree with Pieper that this is not clearly taught in scripture. He also denies Melancthon's idea that God the father, when reflecting upon Himself creates in reality what he is reflecting upon. This is how the son is eternally begotten.
Pieper also has a very good section on the trinity in the Old Testament. He says, contrary to modern theology, that one can produce the doctrine of the trinity from the Old Testament, particularly in reference to the angel of the Lord and the Spirit at creation.

Luther on the atonement

2009-12-11T08:31:00.000-08:00

I have heard it argued by some reformed Christians, including Timothy George, that Luther taught limited atonement. Clearly, in his later writings he teaches a universal atonement. However, in his lectures on Romans in 1515 he seems to teach that the atonement was only for the elect. While I had previously thought this was the only time Luther made such a statement, I have found something in an early sermon which teaches something similar. In an exposition of Hebrews chapter 1 Luther states that Christ "has poured out his love for us and made purification for our sins. The apostle says "our," "our sins;" not his own sin, not the sins of unbelievers. Purification is not for, and cannot profit, him who does not believe." (Complete Sermons of Martin Luther volume 3.1 pg. 180) Unfortunately, this sermon does not have a date in the volume, though it his clear in his discussion of the two natures of Christ that he has not yet engaged the issue of the communication of attributes of the divine to the human nature. Thus, it is one of his earlier sermons. It seems that Luther did hold to a limited atonement at the beginning of his reformational career. He did eventually abandon this and clearly teach a universal atonement while still retaining the doctrine of predestination.
With this in mind, I am curious as to the reasons Luther abandoned this older teaching. I wonder if the writing of St. Prosper "The Call of All Nations" had an influence in changing his view, since it is a work he refers to several times in his writings and letters. Prosper himself taught limited atonement and abandoned it for the paradox that God predestines specific men unto salvation yet also gives universal grace to all mankind. Luther would not have known this as he thought the work to have been written by Ambrose, however.
Has anybody else run across these kinds of quotes in Luther's older works, or know when this sermon was written?

Patristic Soteriology: Mathetes

2009-12-03T13:00:00.000-08:00

The other apostolic father, probably much later than the others, who is perhaps even more clear then Clement is the author of The Epistle to Diognetus. Sadly, the author of this epistle is unknown. He simply refers to himself as “Mathetes” meaning “a disciple.” The author was said to have known the apostle Paul. Like the other writings of the apostolic fathers, Mathetes does not write this letter as a doctrinal treatise. It is rather, an apologetic tract defending Christianity against it’s pagan attackers. When answering the question of why Jesus came so late in history, Mathetes gives the following answer:
"This was not that he at all delighted in our sins, but that he simply endured them; nor that he approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that he sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached it’s height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting his own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great longsuffering and bore with us, he himself took on him the burden of our iniquities, he gave his son as a ransom for us, the righteous one for the unrighteous, the incorruptible one for the corruptible, the immortal one for the mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than his righteousness? By what other thing was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hidden in a single righteous One, that the righteousness of one should justify the many transgressors."

When one first reads this, he may think it came directly from the pen of Martin Luther or John Calvin. The imputational language in this epistle is obvious. Let us examine the flow of the author’s thought. First of all he makes it clear that all mankind was unable by their own works to be justified. By his wickedness, mankind has merited punishment and death. What makes us able to now enter the kingdom of God is His kindness and power. This kindness and power was revealed at one specific point in history. This point in history was when the Son of God “took upon Himself the burden of our iniquities.” Taking upon the burden of our iniquities refers to the non imputation of sin. This is why earlier in the paragraph he refers to God’s not “remember[ing] our iniquities against us.” Not remembering is clearly not transformational. The author is not here saying that through the death of the Son of God we now are no longer transgressors in an actualized sense. It is not that we no longer sin. Rather, he must be referring to a judicial act of pardon. In the author’s mind, what is the ground of our being pardoned? The answer is clear, “His righteousness.” His righteousness covers our sins. This language refers to imputation, not infusion. He then uses justification as a synonymous term for His righteousness covering our sins. Let us observe the parallel.
Problem Solution
Our sins Covered by His righteousness
Wicked and ungodly Justified by the only Son of God
Being justified is being covered by righteousness, not having righteousness infused. The line “Oh sweet exchange!” implies that the covering of righteousness includes not only the forgiving of sin but also the giving of righteousness. When something is exchanged, something is received on both sides. He shows this by two following statements. “the wickedness of many should be hidden in a single righteous One, that the righteousness of one should justify the many transgressors.” Wickedness is forgiven by it’s being “hidden in the righteous one.” However, for the author that is not the complete solution. Justification is linked with “the righteousness of one.” One may object that his righteousness justifies us in a transformative rather than forensic sense. This however, breaks down the parallel. If one were to admit that his righteousness given to us actually makes us righteous rather than declaring us righteous, in the same way our wickedness, if the author’s analogy is consistent, must also make Christ a sinner . This would put one in a theological mess. The obvious parallel in this text is as follows:
Christ Us
Righteousness of one Justify the many transgressors
Hidden in the righteous One The wickedness of many

Whoever this man known as “Mathetes” is, his description of Christ’s redemption would have been enough to make the Lutheran fathers proud.

the Council of Orange

2009-12-02T12:22:00.000-08:00

In light of the decrees from the Pope I just posted, view some of the Canons of the Council of Orange held in 529 against Semi-Pelagianism:

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism-if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.

CANON 22. Concerning those things that belong to man. No man has anything of his own but untruth and sin. But if a man has any truth or righteousness, it from that fountain for which we must thirst in this desert, so that we may be refreshed from it as by drops of water and not faint on the way.

CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed.

CANON 24. Concerning the branches of the vine. The branches on the vine do not give life to the vine, but receive life from it; thus the vine is related to its branches in such a way that it supplies them with what they need to live, and does not take this from them. Thus it is to the advantage of the disciples, not Christ, both to have Christ abiding in them and to abide in Christ. For if the vine is cut down another can shoot up from the live root; but one who is cut off from the vine cannot live without the root (John 15:5ff).

CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love God. It is wholly a gift of God to love God. He who loves, even though he is not loved, allowed himself to be loved. We are loved, even when we displease him, so that we might have means to please him. For the Spirit, whom we love with the Father and the Son, has poured into our hearts the love of the Father and the Son (Rom. 5:5).

Rome's Condemnation of Augustine

2009-12-02T11:46:00.000-08:00

The Roman Church has claimed Augustine as one of the primary teachers of the faith. Protestants, both Reformed and Lutheran, have claimed that their teachings on grace are essentially the same as those of Augustine. How can these two opposing churches both claim Augustine as a primary source of theology?
It seems that Rome, though giving lip service to Augustine, has essentially condemned him through the condemnation of Hus and the excommunication of the Jansenists. Jansenism was a movement within French Roman Catholicism in the 17th century which sought to bring Augustine's teachings of grace back to the church. Several Papal bulls condemned the movement. The most famous of these bulls is titled Unigenitus. The following are statements condemned by the Pope:

1. What else remains for the soul that has lost God and His grace except sin and the consequences of sin, a proud poverty and a slothful indigence, that is, a general impotence for labor, for prayer, and for every good work?

2. The grace of Jesus Christ, which is the efficacious principle of every kind of good, is necessary for every good work; without it, not only is nothing done, but nothing can be done.

3. In vain, O Lord, do You command, if You do not give what you command.

4. Thus, O Lord, all things are possible to him for whom You make all things possible by effecting those same things in him.

5. When God does not soften a heart by the interior unction of His grace, exterior exhortations and graces are of no service except to harden it the more.

6. The difference between the Judaic dispensation and the Christian is this, that in the former God demanded flight from sin and a fulfillment of the Law by the sinner, leaving him in his own weakness; but in the latter. God gives the sinner what He commands, by purifying him with His grace.

26. No graces are granted except through faith.

27. Faith is the first grace and the source of all others.

30. All whom God wishes to save through Christ. are infallibly saved.

38. Without the grace of the Liberator, the sinner is not free except to do evil.

39. The will, which grace does not anticipate, has no light except for straying, no eagerness except to put itself in danger, no strength except to wound itself, and is capable of all evil and incapable of all good.

40. Without grace we can love nothing except to our own condemnation.

41. All knowledge of God, even natural knowledge, even in the pagan
philosophers, cannot come except from God; and without grace knowledge produces nothing but presumption, vanity, and opposition to God Himself, instead of the affections of adoration, gratitude, and love.

42. The grace of Christ alone renders a man fit for the sacrifice of faith; without this there is nothing but impurity, nothing but unworthiness.

48. What else can we be except darkness, except aberration, and except sin, without the light of faith, without Christ, and without charity?

49. As there is no sin without love of ourselves, so there is no good work without love of God.

59. The prayer of the impious is a new sin; and what God grants to them is a new judgment against them.

76. There is nothing more spacious than the Church of God; because all the elect and the just of all ages comprise it.

79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture.

80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.

84. To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ.

97. Too often it happens that those members, who are united to the Church more holily and more strictly, are looked down upon, and treated as if they were unworthy of being in the Church, or as if they were separated from Her; but, "the just man liveth by faith" [Rom. 1:17], and not by the opinion of men.

Falling away from grace Part 2

2009-11-19T10:22:00.000-08:00

Another text which is helpful in this discussion is 2 Peter 2:18-22. "For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. 19They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: 'The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.'" I suppose one could argue that this is about people who are never truly regenerate but merely being part of the Christian community and giving a false profession. This is, however, not the obvious intent of the passage. They have escaped the defilements of the world and have known Jesus Christ. There is no where in the New Testament where these things would be claimed about an unbeliever. Knowledge of Christ implies saving knowledge. Some other passages which may be cited are, "You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved." (Matthew 10:22), "And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up." (Galatians 6:9), "My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins." (James 5:19-20), "Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2), and finally, "Because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved" (Matthew 24:12-13)

So how does one deal with these and other passages that teach that a true Christian can lose faith and be lost eternally? Does this fit with a monergistic view of salvation or must we adopt a Wesleyan doctrine wherein man is responsible for his own perseverance? Observe what Pieper states about the Scriptural doctrine of perseverance. "What Scripture teaches on final perseverance may be summarized in these two statements: 1. He that perseveres in faith does so only through God's gracious preservation; the believer's perseverance is a work of divine grace and omnipotence. 2. He that falls away from faith does so through his own fault; the cause of apostasy in every case is rejection of God's Word and resistance to the operation of the Holy Spirit in the Word. This doctrine the Christian Church must maintain and defend on two fronts: against Calvinism and against synergism." (Dogmatics Volume III pg. 89)
Scripture does clearly teach that it is God who preserves man in faith. Observe a few statements which make this point clear, "Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen." (Jude 24-25)
"He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?" (Romans 8:32)"And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." (Philippians 1:6) "But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me." (1 Corinthians 15:10)
It is clear that scripture teaches two things: 1. Man can fall away from the faith, and when he falls away it is blamed upon his own unbelief, not on God's decree. 2. God preserves man monergistically in faith. Sanctification is wholly His work. We must necessarily hold to both since the scripture teaches both. There is one more set of texts left to look at, those used to defend perseverance which reference election.
Romans 8 is a classic defense of the doctrine of perseverance. "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." This is often called the "golden chain of salvation." This is an unbroken chain. All whom God foreknew end up finally glorified. There is no possibility here of a foreknown, elect, justified man falling away and failing to be glorified. This does not, however, support the doctrine that man cannot fall away from faith. It shows that those whom God elects will not fail to be glorified. The Lutheran confessions are clear on this point. This does not imply however, anything about other men being regenerate and falling away. 1 John 2:19 can be explained in the same way.

Thus we now see three things clearly taught in scripture.
1. God sanctifies man monergistically, through the means of word and sacrament.
2. Some men can and will fall away from the faith through neglecting word and sacrament, and willingly disregarding repentance and faith.
3. All of God's elect will be infallibly saved.

Thus if man perseveres it is entirely God's work. However, if a man falls away, it is entirely his own fault.
If perseverance is merely an outcome of election, as many Calvinists including James White have explained it, then we agree. However, that does not mean that no others can be truly regenerate and then fall away

Falling away from grace Part 1

2009-11-17T13:12:00.001-08:00

The biggest stumbling block for many Reformed Christians in Lutheran theology is the idea that a believer can fall away from faith and lose salvation. It seems, by the account of some, to deny that salvation is all God's work and not ours.
First let me outline the Lutheran view of perseverance. God and God alone initiates regeneration and gives man faith. Man is completely passive in conversion. He merely receives what God gives. God sanctifies man, continually causing him to grow in his hatred for sin and love of righteousness. God does this through means. These means are word and sacrament. These elements must be present or faith will not be sustained. Man does not "cooperate with God" in sanctification. It is wholly the Spirits work. He can however, reject the gift of faith, especially if he avoids the God-given means of sanctification; namely, word and sacrament. This is not the Wesleyan idea, wherein one must continually be afraid of doing enough good works, or doing a bad deed which will cause him to lose his salvation. We are not in the constant process of going in-and-out of grace. However, man can fall away from grace if he has embraced the way of the flesh as opposed to that of the Spirit and lost faith.
This idea is shown by the falling away passages shown through out the New Testament. Even in the great chapter of assurance, Romans 8, there is a hint of this. "The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children then heirs- heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ provided we suffer with Him in order that we also may be glorified with him." (Romans 8:16-17) There is a conditionality in this text. Our faith must be sustained through suffering or we will not be glorified. Our glorification is conditional upon our suffering.
In the book of Colossians, Paul gives great assurance to his readers through the work of Christ. However, at the end of this discussion he makes an interesting statement. "And you, who were once alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister." (Colossians 1:21-23)
We shall only be presented before him as holy and blameless if we stay in the faith. The clear implication of this passage is that some may indeed shift from the hope of the gospel. It does not do justice to the text to make this simply hypothetical.
Hymenaeus and Alexander seem to be another example of those who have fallen away from faith. "By rejecting this, they have made a shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme." (1 Timothy 1:19-20) Paul later describes others who will fall away from the faith, "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith..." (1 Timothy 4:1)
Hymenaeus and Alexander are clearly away from the faith as Paul accuses them of blasphemy. He does however hold out hope that God may bring them back.
Jesus in his parable of the sower seems to assume that man can fall away from grace. "And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy. But these have no root; they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away. And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature. As for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patience." (Luke 8:13-15) The problem is not that those on the rock or among the thorns do not have faith, it is that their faith is not enduring as are those in good soil. Jesus admits that they believe, though this faith will not last until the end.
Hebrews has been the book that presents the most problems for the Calvinistic position on perseverance. The purpose of the book is that the author is encouraging Jews who have been converted not to fall back into Judaism. The assumption is that falling away is possible. I will just quote a few passages to make my point.
"Take care brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called 'today' that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end." (Hebrews 3:13-14) To fall away from the living God is to assume that one was once in a relationship with the living God. He encourages those in the church to encourage one another so that they may not fall away. Notice that there is conditionality in final salvation similar to that found in Colossians. The condition is that one's faith and trust remain. This theme continues, "For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt." (Hebrews 6:4-6) These people described can fall away to such a point where they will not ever be brought back to repentance. They clearly are christian individuals because they have "shared in the Holy Spirit." There is no Biblical precedence for seeing unbelievers having shared in the Holy Spirit. Finally, Hebrews 10 repeats the same point, "For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries." (Hebrews 10:26) These are believers who have "received the knowledge of the truth." Later, the author states that they have been sanctified by the blood of the covenant.

Patristic Soteriology: Clement of Rome

2009-11-16T10:17:00.000-08:00

One apostolic father who I believe does give us a clear understanding of his soteriology is Clement of Rome. Being written probably around 98 AD, his letter to the Corinthians gives us one of the earliest interpretations of New Testament theology. As Polycarp does, Clement often uses the term “elect” for believers. “…that the number of God’s elect might be saved with mercy and a good conscience.” His theology is greatly focused on the work of Christ, “Let us look steadfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious that blood is to God, which, having been shed for our salvation, has set the grace of repentance toward the whole world.” While a complete theology of the atonement is not found here, certainly it’s importance for our salvation is. In a discussion of the story of Rahab, Clement states that, “on account of her faith and hospitality, Rahab was saved.” This may seem that faith and works are both necessary for salvation, however, it is not clear that Clement here is talking about eternal salvation, rather that Rahab was saved from the slaughter at Jericho. The only time Clement in his letter speaks directly about justification is just about as clear as Paul himself that it is received by faith alone.
"All these, therefore were highly honored and made great, not for their own sake, or for their works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of his will. And we too, being called by his will in Jesus Christ, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men."
Notice that in Clement’s treatment of works he does not refer to those which are only outwardly good, as he includes holiness of heart as well. Any interpretation of Paul which would limit “works” to either only the ceremonial aspects of the Jewish law or of Jewish boundary markers is excluded. The next statement Clement makes after his treatment of justification is crucial to a correct interpretation of his words as well. Whenever the doctrine of justification by faith alone is taught, the question comes up, “why should we do good works?” As Paul answers this question in Romans 6 , so also does Clement. “What shall we do brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us!” If Clement did not mean by his above statement that justification was indeed by faith alone but faith and works, he most likely would not answer this objection. No one would have raised it. And if he did answer this objection he would have answered it very differently. Would he not have said, “You misunderstand me! We are justified by faith but works also justify!” His reply is very different. Why should we not cease from the practice of love? “For the Creator and Lord of all Himself rejoices in His works.”
There is one final evidence from Clements epistle that he anticipates the future reformation teaching of grace. “For it is written ‘Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not impute to him, and in whose mouth there is no guile.’ This blessedness cometh upon those who have been chosen by God through Jesus Christ our Lord; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” For Clement, all blessings of God are because of His will, His choosing, and His grace alone.

The Prelapsarian State and Grace

2009-11-13T10:17:00.000-08:00

Many faithful Lutherans have argued that Adam was saved by grace through faith just as we are before the fall. While I commend this attempt to exalt the grace of God through out all of redemptive history; I think this notion of grace before the fall is mistaken.
If one admits that Adam was in need of grace before the fall, it admits the Roman Catholic doctrine that original righteousness was a super added gift. The fall then becomes merely the loss of a gift rather than a positive fall into sin. Man was righteous because he was a created being by a good God. To say that his righteousness needs to be added is to say that God's creation within itself is imperfect thus is in need of something else. This is to adopt a Manichean view of creation. Thus is is wrong to say that grace was given to Adam for righteousness.
This also obscures the legal definition of grace which is necessary for the gospel. Grace is the unmerited favor of God on behalf of the sinner. It is not something which is infused into the soul. Thus grace is God's disposition of love toward the unworthy sinner. This makes grace into either the mere kindness of God or something which changes a man inwardly (which it does but only as an effect of legal justification).
If grace is necessary for unfallen man then there is inherently something wrong with the creation. Salvation then becomes ontological. There is something wrong with man as creation and thus he needs to be fixed. This is the root of all mystical theology as well as the existential theology of Tillich and Bultmann. Traces of this idea are also found in Barth. However, creation as creation is good! It does not need to be subsumed into God, become one with God or become it's own God. It is good because it bears the marks of a Holy God. It is good as distinct from the creator because it recognizes the Creators superiority and otherness and submits itself to him.
Finally, to deny that Adam could merit anything in the garden is to deny that the second Adam could merit anything in his place. We can never speak of merit in the postlapsarian state; however, this does not negate merit in the garden. Adam could do good works and obtain blessing. His breaking of God's commandments would cause death and exile from the garden. This is essential to hold to because it means Christ as the second Adam could obtain an even greater blessing for us through obedience.
The objections I have heard from this are threefold; first, it is claimed that this makes God unloving and just like the Gods of any other pagan creation story. Secondly, it is said that this idea is wrong because it is found in the Reformed Confessions. Thirdly, I have heard that there is no basis in historical Lutheran writing for saying that Adam could gain merit in the garden.
Objection 1: God is certainly not unloving toward Adam and Eve in the garden. He is loving and kind toward them. He does not put them directly into a situation of chaos and warfare as do other gods. He has created them in righteousness that they are able to perfectly obey and love their creator. The differences between this and the God of the Enuma Elish should be obvious. We can certainly speak of Yahweh being good to Adam, and loving. We can even say that Yahweh gave man blessings he was by no means obligated to. This however, cannot be called grace because grace always refers to the kind disposition of God toward sinful man.
Objection 2: Yes, this does parallel the reformed idea of the Covenant of works in the garden. However, just because it is reformed does not mean that it is wrong. Lutherans for example have often used Calvin's three-fold distinction of the offices of Christ. Secondly, we do not need to call it a covenant of works as do the reformed and adopt their entire system. It may be proper to call it a covenant as in Hosea 6:7, though it is not necessary to do so. Covenant in Biblical terms usually refers to the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and New Covenant. In many ways, the reformed definition of the covenant of works was to defend the Lutheran idea of the active obedience of Christ. It is worthy to note that the Calvinists with greater respect for Lutheranism and the law-gospel distinction have fought for this doctrine, while those who mix law and gospel have argued against it.
Objection 3: Lutheran theology does not speak as explicitly in these terms; however, I believe the doctrine of Christ's active obedience as the second Adam necessitates it. Adam must have been able to gain merit so that Christ as the second Adam could gain what Adam did not. Also, Luther himself believed that it was possible to speak of merit in the prelapsarian state, "Yes, if we were devoid of sin, as was Adam before the fall, we would have no need of Christ; we might come before God in our own merits." (Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume III.2 page 285).
For Luther, the reason we cannot merit salvation is not because there is something wrong with our being creaturely, but because in Adam all have died. Thus, the law is impossible to fulfill.
Reach to Christ, the only perfect law-keeper who obeyed the law Adam disobeyed on our behalf.

Another thought on the atonement

2009-11-10T22:40:00.000-08:00

Every student of scripture knows that Hebrews 6 is one of those few very difficult passages of the New Testament to interpret. The author, whoever it may be, of this book writes "Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits. For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance" (Hebrews 6:1-6)
Affirming the Calvinistic doctrine of Perseverance, the reformed interpreter often views this passage as referring to unbelievers. These are Jews who entered into the Christian community, yet have not truly been regenerated, who are leaving the church to go back to Judaism under persecution. Thus, they are non-elect people. They were never truly saved in the first place.
My question is not about the issue of apostasy in this passage, which certainly is hard to deal with, but with what the author says at the end of this discussion, "they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt." If this passage is dealing with unbelievers, it is implying that Christ has already died once for them. How does one who takes this interpretation deal with that?
This is by no means a definitive argument against limited atonement; I am simply pointing out that certain interpretations of the apostasy idea of the passage necessitate a universal atonement. Many do of course take the hypothetical view of the passage which avoids the problem altogether.

Some thoughts on Limited Atonement

2009-11-10T21:58:00.000-08:00

I have come up with a few thoughts on the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement. I think about this topic often as I used to be a Calvinist, and most of my closest Christian brothers are Calvinists. I gave up the doctrine primarily because I could not defend it exegetically but only by way of inference. A doctrine should not be arrived at however simply because it seems to be the most logical way to formulate a system. I have recently discovered, however, that even this rational argument does not support the typical Calvinist doctrine. Let me explain.
A typical conversation of mine with a Calvinist goes like this:

Calvinist: So you believe in the doctrine of election?
Myself: Yes. It is clearly taught in Ephesians 1, John 6:44, etc.
Calvinist: Do you believe election is based upon foreseen faith?
Myself: No it is a wholly monergistic act.
Calvinist: Well then we agree! You must believe in limited atonement!
Myself: No. I said I believe in election. One does not necessitate the other.
Calvinist: Do you believe that Christ died for every persons sins?
Myself: Yes, as scripture teaches.
Calvinist: Do you believe that he paid for all of their sins?
Myself: Yes.
Calvinist: Do you believe that unbelief is a sin?
Myself: It is the chief sin.
Calvinist: Then Christ surely died for it.
Myself: I would heartily affirm that.
Calvinist: So you believe that Christ died for all sins, including the sin of unbelief, yet man can still be under God's wrath?
Myself: Such is the teaching of Scripture.
Calvinist: If God truly paid for all man's sins and has fulfilled the law in there place you believe God can still hold them guilty? You are then denying the sufficiency of the atonement!
Myself: God does not make this work effectual in the individual unless he has faith.
Calvinist: But unbelief is a sin for which Christ died so it cannot be refused by unbelief.
(At this point, the Calvinist appears to have won the argument)
Myself: Now let me ask you a question.
Calvinist: Go ahead.
Myself: Before an elect man has repented and believed, is he justified?
Calvinist: No, he is justified through faith.
Myself: But Christ died for every sin of this man including unbelief. Am I correct?
Calvinist: As one of God's elect, yes.
Myself: So are you saying that the elect man for whom Christ died for every sin including unbelief is at some point under the wrath and condemnation of God?
Calvinist: Yes, until the Spirit works faith in that man.
Myself: Then you have conceited my point. A man can be under the wrath and condemnation of God though Christ has died for all sins of that man including unbelief.

The problem is not that the Calvinist's argument is logically flawed. The problem is that it necessarily leads to a doctrine of eternal justification which is far beyond where most Calvinists wish to go.
Even though we may not be sure how these ideas go together, let us accept the clear teaching of scripture on these points.

Patristic Soteriology: Ignatius

2009-11-09T20:14:00.000-08:00

Ignatius of Antioch similar to Polycarp, does not write enough to show a definitive soteriology. The only extant works from this father are six epistles to different churches, and one to Polycarp. By piecing together certain of his statements, however, it may be possible to construct a (though somewhat deficient) theology of grace in his thought. In his address to his epistle to the Ephesians, Ignatius states the following:
"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fullness of God the Father, and predestined before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the passion by the will of God the Father and of our Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour"

Ignatius here speaks in a way that most later fathers do not. His wording is Pauline. The similarities in Ephesians chapter one are obvious. One is elected and predestined before the beginning of time. I admit, it is not possible from this statement to know whether or not Ignatius believed in a monergistic predestination (I.e. the Reformed and Lutheran Confessions) or a predestination based upon God’s foreseeing of one’s faith (I.e. Arminianism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy). One thing to notice in Ignatius, here, as well as in other parts of his letters is that God is always pre-eminent in discussions of salvation. One is predestined by God the Father. One is united to God and elected by both God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Another statement in this epistle has the propensity to be misused if understood to be about justification. “For though I am bound for his name, I am not yet perfect in Jesus.” This of course does not have to be referring to justification and is most likely not. Not being “perfect” probably either refers to complete sanctification, or glorification.
In his epistle to the Magnesians, Ignatius states, “For were he to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be.” While this statement does not directly speak of justification, it does show that Ignatius saw our works as unable to gain reward on their own. A statement in Ignatius’ letter to the Trallians may point to fuller Pauline understanding of justification. “By believing in his death, ye may escape from death.” This shows the pre-eminence of faith in his thought, however in and of itself does not prove that faith alone in Christ’s death saves a man. This emphasis on faith is shown later in the same letter. “His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess true life” A similar statement occurs in his epistle to the Philadelphians,
"Let us also love the prophets, because they too have proclaimed the Gospel, and placed their hope in Him, and waited for Him; in whom also believing, they were saved, through union to Jesus Christ, being holy men, worthy of love and admiration, having had witness borne to them by Jesus Christ, and being reckoned along with [us] in the gospel of our common hope."
In his discussion of the use of the prophets, the reason he gives for their being saved is their faith. Their faith was effective “through union to Jesus Christ.” This echoes Paul’s constant theme of union with Christ. One may argue that their “being holy men” was also part of their salvation. This is a possible reading of Ignatius but not the only one. He may be using the idea of being “holy men” as a demonstration of one’s faith. He may also be using salvation as a far broader term than justification. Either the way, the pre-eminent instrument of salvation is one’s faith and union with Christ. We are left unsure exactly what Ignatius means.
The only explicit statement about justification in Ignatius’ writings is in his epistle to the Philadelphians. “His cross, His death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity; by which I desire through your prayers to be justified.” The cause of justification is not one’s works or even one’s faith. Rather, it is the death and resurrection of Christ. Here, Ignatius is thoroughly Pauline. Ignatius has one final statement in his writings which may help explain his doctrine of salvation. “As persons who are perfect, ye should also aim at those things which are perfect.” In the context, Ignatius is trying to motivate the Smyrneans to perform good works. The motivation for doing these works is that these Christians are perfect. This is a use of the indicative and imperative. What does it mean that these people “are perfect?” It could mean that they are already counted worthy of eternal life, already justified.
There is one statement in Ignatius’ epistle to Polycarp which may point to works-based salvation. “Let your works be the charge assigned to you that you may receive a worthy recompense.” What is this worthy recompense? It may not be an issue of justification. It may be an issue of eternal rewards that God graciously gives to those who perform good works. These rewards would not be rewards that determine one’s ultimate salvation.
Similar to Polycarp, Ignatius is at times obviously Pauline, yet he does not give enough information for us to completely understand his thought. The purpose of his letters are to fight (non soteriological) heresies, and to exhort believers. Thus he did not go into detail about justification, election and the atonement.

Patristic Soteriology: Polycarp

2009-11-05T10:35:00.000-08:00

The charge is a common one toward Protestants: “No one taught justification by faith alone before Martin Luther!” Often protestants concede to this as historical fact and have no way to rebut it. I will be arguing that the Protestant understanding of justification was not a theological novum, but was the logical outcome, and further definition of what earlier writers had taught. These ideas are seen, at least in seed form in the writings of the Apostolic fathers.
First, it must be remarked that the patristics did not have a consistent and thorough understanding of the doctrine of justification. As with other doctrines, the fathers differed from one another in their understanding of justification. They also, sometimes, are inconsistent within their own writings in their use of the term. This is due to the fact that the battles fought before the time of Augustine were not primarily soteriological. The big issues were first, apologetic, and secondly, Christological. Unfortunately this pushed the soteriology of the New Testament in the background. This does not mean, however, that the fathers had no thoughts on soteriology. One thing to remember is that if one looks at the patristics, thinking that they will find definitions of justification in the church fathers identical with those of the Formula of Concord and The Westminster Confession of Faith, he will be very disappointed. People often go either one of two very wrong directions. Some ignore the fathers altogether as if no one understood the work of Christ until the protestant reformation, while others try and twist the fathers so that they all believed in later Protestant theology. The patristics were not protestants, nor were they tridentine Catholics. They fought very different battles than those of the 16th century.
Let us begin examining the writings of the apostolic fathers. It is difficult to obtain concrete statements about doctrine from these fathers because that was not their primary goal in their writings. Therefore, we must examine statements made mostly in passing about their doctrine. T. F. Torrence, in his book The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers comes to the conclusion that by this time, Pauline thought had been replaced in large by a theology of “works.” I would like to argue against that point as I do not think the Pauline emphasis on grace has ever been completely ignored in the church.
Polycarp says virtually nothing concrete soteriologicaly in his one extant letter to the Philippians. Therefore we must examine a few ambiguous statements if we wish to construct a possible soteriology of Polycarp. The first thing to notice is his use of the term “elect” when referring to the church. While we can not determine exactly what he means by this term, it is an essentially Pauline term, not used much by the later apologists of the 2nd century. He writes at the beginning of his letter, “By grace ye are saved, not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.” This is of course an illusion to Ephesians chapter 2. After this positive assessment of God’s grace which saves us not by our works, he seems to say something quite contrary to this in a few different places. “But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise us up also, if we do his will, and walk in his commandments, and love what he loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness, covetousness, love of money, evil speaking, false witness, etc.” It seems here that our being raised is conditioned upon our obedience. A similar statement comes later, “If we please Him in this present world, we shall receive also the future word, according as he has promised to us that he will raise us again from the dead, and that if we live worthily of him, we shall also reign with him, provided only we believe.” Again, our being raised seems conditioned upon our living worthily. However, here an emphasis on faith is also present. A curious statement comes later which may point toward a more Pauline understanding of righteousness. “Let us then continually persevere in our hope, and the earnest of our righteousness, which is Jesus Christ, who bore our sins in his own body on the tree.” Polycarp here connects righteousness, not to ourselves but to Christ Himself and His salvific work on the cross. Of course the question that comes to mind now is, what does Polycarp mean that Christ is the earnest of our righteousness? Is it that he is our righteousness in an imputational sense? Or is he our righteousness in that he set a good example for us to follow? Immediately after this statement, he urges us to imitate the life of Christ in his patience. It seems that Jesus Christ being the earnest of our righteousness is the motive for our obedience in Polycarp’s mind. After describing his work on the cross for us he goes on to say “Let us then be imitators of him…” (p.35) It may be a case of a use of the indicative and imperative. In other words, Polycarp may be saying, “because Christ has become our righteousness and has paid for our sins upon the cross, go and imitate him.” This would be a consistently Pauline way of speaking. It may possibly also be saying that our imitation defines what the righteousness of Christ is. This would mean that Polycarp sees righteousness either as something infused or something to be imitated. The idea of Christ being our righteousness in an imputational sense, and of imitation flowing from that state of “being in the right” seems more likely, however, not conclusively. I say this because righteousness is immediately connected with Christ’s person and work, not primarily with our work.
All in all, Polycarp does not help us much in understanding early Christian teaching concerning justification and righteousness. His statements about good works may be saying that they earn our righteousness, or they may simply be saying that without good works no one will be vindicated on the last day (not that our works earn anything, rather that they are fruits of our faith.) The purpose of this letter we must remember is the exhortation of believers. They may already understand the doctrine of justification by faith, which is why Polycarp only includes two brief allusions to it. That is also why Polycarp may not be that careful in his wording about good works and the resurrection. Perhaps he did not need to be. I am not here saying that Polycarp did have a complete understanding of Pauline soteriology, however, I am saying that it is one possible reading of the text. The evidence is not great enough for us to concede exactly what he did believe.

Luther on the third use of the law

2009-11-02T20:48:00.000-08:00

For those who deny that Luther had any "third use of the law" look at this text from his sermon on Matthew 22:34-46 from 1533:

"We dare not neglect the catechism's teaching of the God-given Ten Commandments as an insignificant doctrine, but must diligently use it in teaching people how they must live this earthly life. Of course, showing them how to be saved takes an entire different doctrine than the Ten Commandments, namely the doctrine of Christ, which our Lord presents a little later. But you must use the Ten Commandments to teach people how they must live in this life."

More nonsense from Timothy George

2009-10-29T19:32:00.000-07:00

As many of you know I am sure, Timothy George recently had a "dialog" with Frank Beckwith over the differences among Roman Catholics and Evangelicals at Wheaton College. In this discussion, George basically said that these old debates over imputation and infusion are not really very important. The gospel was defined as the death and resurrection of Jesus. Thus, Evangelicals and Papists teach the same gospel. While this certainly is a valid description of the gospel, certain understandings of these ideas can render it false. For example a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness would agree that Jesus lived, died, and rose again from the dead. However, the polytheism of Mormonism, and the subordinationism of the Watchtower society destroy the message. In the same way, a denial of Sola Fide makes the death and resurrection of Jesus of no effect. Once something is added to this for justification, it becomes a false gospel. I am sure the Judaisers would have agreed with George on this point, yet Paul still calls them anathema. Well George came out with a statement recently in Christianity Today that James White put on his blog that reinforces these ideas.
"The gaping divide between evangelicals and Catholics is ecclesiology and authority, not justification and salvation, as important as that debate remains," George said. "There is enough commonality that evangelicals and Catholics with a living faith can recognize one another as brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ with a common Lord and common grace that brought them together. The hard issues are questions related to the church, such as the Petrine office [the papacy] and the Eucharist. Those discussions will occupy us for the next 100 years."
So the gospel is not the dividing line between Romanism and Evangelicalism? What did this Luther guy waste his time for! It's a good thing that George has seen past the wisdom of all reformers both Lutheran and Calvinist and found the truth!
Timothy George... do not call yourself an evangelical. You have abandoned what we have fought for the past 500 years. In fact, you gave up any right to be called an evangelical or "Reformed" the moment you signed ECT.
Paul stated that those who preached another gospel are anathema. Paul then defends the gospel by defending the doctrine of justification by faith apart from works. Thus, if one wants to take Paul's words seriously, Sola Fide is the center of the gospel itself. Any attempt to drift from it puts one under not Luther or Calvin's but Paul's anathema.

I do not agree with this position...

2009-10-28T11:29:00.001-07:00

But I was required to write a defense of Arminianism from the perspective of one of the Remonstrants from the time of Dort. I was surprised at how well my defense came out (not that any defense of synergism can truly be exegetically valid). I thought some might find it interesting to read a monergist attempt to defend Arminian theology.

"The men who call themselves “Calvinists” have introduced five points in response to our proposals of a more Biblical reformed theology. They claim that they have both St. Augustine and the father of our own church John Calvin on their side. This may be, however, Calvin is not an infallible interpreter of scripture. Calvin was great because he pointed us back to scripture, not because he formulated the perfect system of interpreting it. Therefore I claim that we are the true heirs of Calvin, not because we agree with all of his decisions, but because we test all things by scripture.
The first point that the so-called Calvinists have put up against up is total depravity. They claim that man has been so corrupted by the fall that he has the utter inability to obey God. Man cannot even come to faith and repentance in this state. We agree that in Adam all men have been corrupted in both will and intellect. We reject all Pelagian error which says that man can achieve salvation by his own power. However, God has not left our will in a state of total despair. Our will has been healed to such an extent that we have the ability to respond or reject the free gift of salvation. This is implied through out scripture in passages which command us to believe. As Joshua said to the Israelites before his death, “choose this day who you will serve” (Joshua 24:15). Would God offer salvation merely to tease us? It is as if he is holding a gift above our heads. He asks us to receive it but it is held to high that we cannot even reach it. Thus God is saying, “Choose salvation! It is free! Yet you cannot because I have not given you freedom of choice.” Man cannot be held accountable for a decision he cannot help but make. If we ought to do something, then we can do that thing.
The second point they put against us is unconditional election. This doctrine says that God elects man apart from any choice he makes. He also predestines man apart from evil. This makes God to be a tyrant who simply waves his hand declaring arbitrarily that one man is saved and another one damned. This is not the picture of the merciful loving God of scripture. How is election viewed in the New Testament? “For those he foreknew he also predestined.”(Romans 8:29) A similar statement comes from the apostle Peter, “To those who are elect exiles…according to the foreknowledge of God the father”(1 Peter 1:1). Notice that in these passages, predestination is not founded within God’s eternal decree but within his foreknowledge. God has knowledge of future events. Thus He sees who will accept his free offer and who will not. Thus, on this basis he chooses one man over another. Why one is elect and another reprobate is not to be found in God, but in man.
The third point is to us the most offensive to all true religion. This is the doctrine of limited atonement. According to these men, Christ came into the world not to die for all men alike, but for a select few. This doctrine is so absurd, so utterly foreign to all forms of Christianity whether Reformed, Romanist, or Lutheran that it hardly needs to be refuted. A few selections from Holy Scripture will suffice to refute this doctrine of demons. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”(2 Peter 3:9) “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2) These passages among others teach the exact opposite of the articles of the so-called Calvinists! There is not one sentence in scripture that defends this doctrine. There is not even a sentence in Augustine of Calvin which teaches what the perverters of their doctrine have proposed. This takes away all comfort in the Christian life. How can I have assurance if I never know if Christ indeed truly died for me! This then drives me back to the despair that we once had under the yolk of Rome.
The next point has been labeled “irresistible grace”. This horrible doctrine teaches that man does not freely come to Christ in faith in order to be regenerated and saved. Rather, God forces whom he will to come to faith and does not allow the repentance of others. God offers this grace, rather forces this grace, only upon a select few and gives no grace to the majority of mankind. Thus God creates men only to damn them! That men cannot resist the Holy Spirit is refuted by the words of the first martyr of the Christian church, “You stiff necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 7:51) Thus grace is by no means irresistible. That all men have the freedom to accept or reject grace is proven through the words of Peter, “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out”. (Acts 3:19) Would the apostle ask men to make the choice to repent if they had no choice in the matter? God does not act in such an illogical way.
Now we come to the final point which is argued against us. This is the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Arminius himself, whose theology is nearly impeccable, was unsure of this doctrine. He allowed for the possibility of a Christian falling away but admitted that his opponents defended themselves well on this particular point. After much more thorough study of scripture, it has become clear that this doctrine is not in accordance with the teaching of the apostles. Several places in the New Testament state that a man may fall from grace. When Paul proclaims salvation through Christ to the Colossians, he puts a condition upon it, “if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard”. (Colossians 2:23) Though God’s grace preserves us, it requires our cooperation. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews speaks of those who have “tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit” (Hebrews 6:4) being able to fall away from grace. Nowhere in scripture is an unbeliever said to share in the Spirit. These and several other verses are sufficient to prove our point.
Thus, tested by both the words of scripture and human reason, our position is superior. We are simply trying to continue the Reformation in constantly looking to the word of God for all truth. The reformation is not about treating its founders as infallible, but taking their exegesis and theology as a guide to future theological study whose only authority is the word of God. Even Martin Luther’s successor Melancthon came to disagree with his teacher on some of these points. Thus, rather than reverting back to Rome as some claim, we are going further into the word of God and away from our traditions."

Some thoughts on Bernard

2009-10-26T22:23:00.000-07:00

It has often been stated by theologians as well as historians that Bernard of Clairvaux was the last “father of the church.” This may seem inappropriate since the Patristic age is usually seen to end around the time of Gregory (600 A.D.). However, the description does offer an accurate depiction of Bernard’s place among later medieval theology. In many ways, Bernard was among the last theologians of the period to deal primarily with Biblical exegesis, though most often in an allegorical manner. He did not give in to all of the subtleties of scholastic theology which was dominated by the thoughts of Aristotle. His writings show a man with simple faith in Christ, trying to encourage others in the love of God and neighbor.
Bernard not only was referred to as a church father, but has been seen by some as a forefather of the reformation. Luther himself quotes Bernard more than any other writer, save Augustine. Bernard perhaps understood the writings of St. Paul better than any other medieval theologian. He shares many affinities with Luther’s Theology of the Cross. Rather than the focus on good works and piety found in many theologians of the day, Bernard focused on the person and work of Christ himself. He was nicknamed doctor passionis. For Bernard, Christ was not seen primarily as judge, but as advocate. Bernard’s sermons contain several statements with this emphasis. “[Christ] gave himself to merit for us, He retains Himself to be our reward, He offers Himself as the food of saintly souls, He gives Himself as the price of redemption of those in captivity.”
Another reason why Luther admired Bernard so highly was that he did not give in to the scholasticism which had just begun to emerge in France. Scholastic theology was to dominate the middle ages until the humanists began looking at Biblical texts in their original language and context. Scholasticism dealt with all possible theological issues, whether important to the Christian faith or not. The old tale says that there was a debate among these theologians about how many angels could dance upon the head of a pin. Bernard was an opponent of scholasticism, specifically the thought of the controversial Peter Abelard. Rather than using Greek secular philosophy, Bernard states, “While I am in this life this more sublime philosophy will be mine-to know… Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.”
Bernard anticipated the doctrines of sola gratia and sola fide as would be explained by the Reformers. Bernard, following his great teacher Augustine, taught that grace comes prior to conversion. Man, apart from grace does not, and will not decide to follow Christ. “The cause of loving God is God…It is He who gives the occasion, it is He who creates the affection, He who consummates the desire.” The historical theologian Adolf Von Harnack called Bernard Augustine Redivivus, meaning the second Augustine. His view of the provenience of God’s grace is in line with Augustine’s view in his anti-Pelagian writings. Though Bernard does not go the extreme as does Augustine by discussing double predestination, he does attribute all of salvation to God’s eternal election.
"His seed is the eternal predestination by which God has loved his elect… These I have regarded as those who have never sinned, as it were, because although they are seen to have sinned in some things in time, they do not appear to have done so in eternity, because the charity of their father covers a multitude of sins. And He calls them blessed whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered."

Notice that their not having sinned is not attributed to an inward change which God but to God’s forgiveness. Bernard outlines this position in his book On Grace and Free Choice. Though Luther read and quoted this book in his early debates with Eck, Calvin disagrees with many of his conclusions in the Institutes.
Perhaps most importantly for Luther and the reformers, Bernard of Clairvaux anticipated the doctrine of justification by faith alone in several of his sermons. While the majority of scholastic teachers in his day saw the saving righteousness of God as something infused into the believer making him inwardly righteous, Bernard sees it as a gift of forgiveness and mercy. “It suffices me for attaining to all righteousness, to have Him alone propitious toward me against Whom alone I have sinned… Not to sin is the righteousness of God: man’s righteousness is God’s forgiveness.” When Bernard speaks of merit it is most often connected to God’s gift and not to man’s good works. “He gave Himself to merit for us.” Perhaps the most clear statement of this doctrine comes from his sermon SC22, “Therefore the person who through sorrow for sin hungers and thirsts for righteousness, let him trust in the One who changes the sinner into a just person (Rom 4:5), and judged righteous in terms of faith alone (et solam iustificatus per fidem), that person will have peace with God.”
Bernard speaks frequently about the insufficiency of our own merits. “In order to merit, it is enough to know that our merits do not suffice for us.” He makes it clear that he does not hold to a doctrine of penance which puts man’s righteousness in his own hands. “Your sins are very great and beyond number. Never will you be able to make satisfaction for them, so many and so great are they, not even if you strip the very skin from your body.” Being a preacher, he uses his pastoral spirit to comfort his hearers with these doctrines.
"Why are you fearful, ye of little faith? Because He is unwilling to forgive sins? He nailed them to the cross together with his own hands. Because you are delicate and accustomed to a life of ease? But He knoweth our frame. [He remembereth that we are dust.] Because you have grown accustomed to evil and are bound by the fetters of habitual sin? But the Lord looseth them that are fettered. Are you, perhaps, fearful lest, angered by the greatness and number of your sins He will be slow to extend a helping hand? But where sin abounded, grace did more abound."

In at least two more ways Bernard shared theology with the Reformers. Bernard held that baptism was necessary to salvation; however, it was not absolutely necessary. He held, like Luther that though baptism regenerates, it was possible for God to save without it. Though we should not presume that unbaptized infants are with Christ, it is a possibility. More significantly, he seems to hold to something similar to the law/gospel distinction, though he may not speak in those terms. This passage shows a personal experience which demonstrates this principle. “How often has prayer taken me on the brink of despair, and restored me to the state of soul of one exulting in joy and confident forgiveness.” God causes his people to be struck by the law, put into despair, so that he may restore them again through the gospel, offering them forgiveness.
Bernard’s legacy does not end here. Most often he is not remembered as the last church father, the first medieval mystic, or the great theologian of the cross, but as the preacher of the Crusades. The success of the first Crusade had given Christians power over the holy land. Western presence dominated three primary cities: Jerusalem, Edessa, and Antioch. However, after a few decades of attacks, the kingdom of Edessa fell to Muslim forces in 1144. The western world now had a dilemma. Should the church support another crusade to retake Edessa?
The Pope at this time was one of Bernard’s own students, Bernard of Pisa, renamed Pope Eugenius III. Though Bernard did not at first support his friend’s accession to the papal throne, he supported and guided him when he was placed into the Holy See. He wrote a guidebook for the papacy titled “Book of Considerations.” Bernard believed that if the corruptions in the church were to be fixed, they would come from within the Papacy.
Eugenius III called for a second crusade in 1146 to regain Edessa and protect the Holy Land. Enthusiasm was greatly diminished from the first crusade. Thus Eugenius needed a way of exciting the masses to join the crusade. He called upon Bernard who then became the preacher of the second crusade. The question that one must ask at this point is, how does Bernard’s focus on love and grace coincide with his support of a crusade? Can one preach both the love of God and the death of pagans? Perhaps Bernard contradicts himself, or perhaps these two ideas are compatible. The best way to gain an answer to this question is to look at Bernard’s writings themselves.
In a letter written by Bernard to support the crusade, he blames the Muslims victory on the sins of the church. “For our sins, the enemies of Cross have raised blaspheming heads, ravaging with the edge of the sword the land of promise.” Bernard believes that there is some special significance to the church in the nation of Israel. Just as it was in the time of the prophets, the ownership of Israel was directly related to the obedience of God’s people.
Since the Muslims are attacking, this must in Bernard’s mind be a test sent by God. He could of course regain the land by the mere word of his mouth but he wants to make his people choose to serve him by volunteering for the crusade. He first shows the people their sinfulness, then offers them forgiveness. However, unlike many of his sermons, he does not present forgiveness as a free gift in Christ. He sees forgiveness as obtained through the act of crusading. “He wills to be held a debtor, that he may give pay to those that fight for him, pardon of sins, and everlasting glory.” This may seem to have affinities with the doctrine of forgiveness of sins through indulgences as was taught by John Tetsel. However, Bernard does clearly teach that to receive the forgiveness offered through service to God in military orders, one must be truly sorry for his sin. It is not a mere ex opera operato formula.
Much of Bernard’s motivation in preaching in favor of the crusades was his peculiar eschatology. Bernard believed that he was living near the end times. Due to his exegesis of Romans 11, he believed that there was a soon to come conversion of the majority of living Israelites. Bernard believed in a view which might today be classified as postmillennial. Before Christ was to return on earth, the majority of humanity would be converted to Christianity. Paganism would be nearly destroyed. This would explain why Bernard supported the killing of Pagans, and their expulsion from the holy land. It was not due primarily to his view of warfare in general, but of eschatology. Bernard’s eschatology seems to have been largely influenced by the Sibylline Oracles. These were prophecies of a Christian origin written between the 2nd and 5th century AD. In these prophecies, there was to be a leader, claiming to be Roman, who would eliminate paganism from the earth. This leader’s name was to begin with a “C”. He saw the fulfillment of this prophecy in Conrad III of Germany. These ideas caused Bernard, while supporting the violence of crusading, to defend the life of Jews. He vehemently protested the violence which had occurred against Jews by earlier crusaders. This is because Bernard believed the time of their conversion to be soon. “If the Jews be utterly trampled down, how shall the promised salvation or conversion profit them in the end?”
Another motivation behind Bernard’s support, perhaps the most important, was his ecclesiology. Bernard saw the state as having two main purposes. The state was to execute justice in civil matters, and also to protect the true faith of the church. Thus doctrinal purity, though primarily defended by the church, was to be promoted by the state. Bernard was also living in a time when the Papacy was gaining both ecclesiastical and political power. During the first crusade, there was not special appeal made to the churches coercive power as justification for war. However, in Bernard, as well as other writers of this period, this is used as an acceptable argument. The church has the power to command and control warfare. This is why Bernard could focus much of his preaching on individual salvation rather than on the capture of Jerusalem which was the primary motivation for the earlier crusade.
Bernard had an extremely high view of clergy and what they were able to do and command of laity. He held to the traditional medieval notion that Christians who had taken monastic vows were of a higher order than the ordinary Christian. This is why Bernard supported the Knights Templar but did not give as much respect to lay Christians who volunteered. He referred to them as malitia (meaning malice) as opposed to militia. This is relevant to the current discussion because his high view of Church authority led to a high view of the Papacy. As was the case with many other church men, Bernard believed that reformation must begin with the office of the bishop of Rome. Thus, the Pope was to be obeyed at all costs. The cloistered monk who spent most of his life in silent seclusion, writing, meditating and preparing sermons most likely would not tour Europe preaching Crusade without a direct call from the church. It is my contention that because Bernard saw the Papacy as Christ’s human instrument to the church on earth, he saw obedience to the Pope as obedience to Christ himself. Bernard preached for the crusades to because he was commanded to by the successor of Peter. This is not to say that Bernard held to a fully developed doctrine of Papal infallibility as has been taught by Rome since the first Vatican council of 1870. However, Papal authority had grown in the minds of Christians since the reign of Gregory.
Does Bernard contradict himself? Yes and no. It was stated by B.B. Warfield that the reformation was the victory of Augustine’s doctrine of grace over Augustine’s doctrine of the church. In the same way one could say the reformation saw the victory of Bernard’s doctrine of grace over his doctrine of the church. Bernard was neither a Protestant, nor a Tridentine Catholic. It is anachronistic to suppose that Bernard must be one or the other. The driving motivation behind most of his life was love for Christ and a desire to please him. Thus, loving the scriptures, Bernard focused on the same message as did God’s inspired writers, the cross. However, loving the church, Bernard felt the need to obey her head by taking up the role of Crusade preaching. In this way Bernard was not contradicting himself; he saw all of his actions as ultimately aimed at the glory of his savior.
However, there is a contradiction in Bernard’s statements of justification. In most of his sermons, Bernard speaks of God’s forgiveness being bestowed on all who are truly sorry for their sin. One realizes his lost state and humbles himself so that God may restore him through grace. He does not speak of satisfaction for sin other than the cross. However, in his crusading sermons and letters, he speaks of forgiveness given through the act of crusading. He seems to give crusading an almost sacramental character. As God gives grace through baptism and the Eucharist, so he gives it through volunteering and fighting. However, Bernard need not be consistent. He did not live in the era that Luther, Chemnits, and Calvin lived in when discussions of justification were central. Bernard was simply a man who loved Christ, tried to glorify him and made several mistakes.

Lutheranism and Covenant Theology

2009-09-24T21:36:00.000-07:00

Lutherans have often criticized the Reformed covenantal hermeneutical principle. Lutheranism sees the law/gospel distinction as the fundamental principle of Biblical hermeneutics. This seems to exclude the theme of covenant as being basic to the understanding of the Old and New Testaments. The Lutheran theologian has often seen two covenants; one being that of the Old Testament, and the other being that of the New. However, this seems to promote too dramatic a split between God’s revelation in the Old Testament and that of the New. Rather than denying that covenantal principle, the Lutheran can more accurately divide law and gospel by seeing a greater continuity between both testaments through the distinction between what the Reformed have called the “covenant of works” and the “covenant of grace.”

Perhaps the biggest obstacle is in the prelapsarian covenant of works. This idea states that before the fall, God placed Adam as the federal representative of mankind able to eat of the tree of life by his obedience or the tree of the knowledge of good and evil by his disobedience. To many, this seems to promote a salvation apart from grace, thus overthrows the central principle of sola fide. However, grace is a term used for unmerited favor in the postlapsarian state. Though one may be motivated by trying to see a fuller use of the grace of God it ultimately removes it from its soteriological context. Adam did not sin, thus did not need to be justified by faith. He was created in righteousness, and need not earn it but maintain it. Adam is not in the same state as fallen mankind, and one not treat him as such unless one wants to fall into a Pelagian error. This does not mean that God need reward man for his obedience to his creational function. However, in the arrangement God graciously chose to do so. However, this needs to be distinguished from the grace given to ungodly sinful humanity.

Was this arrangement made in the garden a covenant? There has been much debate in Reformed circles of the nature of covenant and how this relates to the Adamic state. In Lutheran Dogmatics, using the law/gospel distinction rather than a strict covenantal distinction, this need not be important. What we do see, however, is that Adam could have earned life by his obedience. Essentially, Adam was living under law. This protects against any kind of Pelagian or semi-Pelagian system which tries to equate the state of man now with that of man in the garden. It is worthy to note that in Roman Catholic theology Adam was in a state of grace before the fall. Rather than being essentially righteous and falling into a state of total depravity, Adam was given, sanctifying grace which was lost in the fall. Thus the fall was simply a negation of a gift, not a true fall into a depraved state.
After the fall, any kind of law could not bring man unto salvation. He had lost his essential righteousness and could not earn life through his obedience whether this would be through congruous or condign merit. Only Adam could earn life by obedience even if graciously rewarded.

This idea of Adam under law, rather than grace, is helpful not only because it guards against Pelagianism, but because it helps explain Paul’s Adam Christology. Christ was created as the second representative of mankind. He was in the state of Adam. Christ was offered life through his obedience as was Adam. This is a pure state of law, not grace. Christ was not righteous by his faith alone or by grace, but by works. Thus Christ fulfilled the law that Adam failed to keep and therefore earned the righteousness that Adam failed to. This righteousness is then imputed to his sheep.

The reformed distinction between a “covenant of works” and a “covenant of grace” is used to describe the difference between the Abrahamic and Mosaic administrations. The covenant of grace was that given to mankind after the fall of Adam. He would redeem men unconditionally by the future obedience of Christ. This was expressed through the Abrahamic covenant. God granted Abraham, unconditionally, the promise of a future land, and seed. This was pure gospel, with no hint of law. God would bring Christ through the seed of Abraham, and bring the true sons of Abraham by faith into the New Jerusalem. Thus it is right to call the Abrahamic administration one of grace or of gospel rather than a covenant which contains both principles within it.
The Mosaic covenant on the other hand was a covenant of works. Through Moses, God gave the law. This law was not given primarily to show the Israelites how to live in the Promised Land, but to show them that they could not earn the Promised Land through their obedience to the Torah. Recently, a group of Lutheran scholars composed a book of essays, taken from the Concordia Symposium, on the Law of God in Holy Scripture. Several of the essays in this book argue that the law was given in view of God’s already gracious redemption of his people. Though the dogmatic third use of the law is present within the Mosaic legislation, it is not primary. The view promoted is fundamentally an abandonment of Luther’s insistence of the primacy of the pedagogical use of the law. To support the idea that the law’s purpose is primarily to condemn one must see the Mosaic administration as a covenant of works. It is, in contrast to the Abrahamic promise, primarily law and not gospel.

Aspects of the gospel given to Abraham do appear in the Mosaic Law, such as the priesthood and sacrificial system. These were types of Christ who would come as the fulfillment of both covenants. These, however should be seen as gradual fulfillment of the unconditional promise given to Abraham. That the Mosaic administration is primarily of law or works rather than gospel or grace, is evident by the mere fact that through disobedience of it’s stipulations Israel was removed from their land. This shows the conditional nature of God’s promise to Moses. Israel would gain the land if they obeyed Torah. This is directly opposed to the promise of Abraham which is given with no conditions.

The covenant of works, or administration of law, given to Moses is essentially a republication of what happened in the garden. People in the land are offered life through obedience as was Adam. However, in contrast to Adam, the Israelites were not able to keep the law unto life because they have been born in original sin. Thus the law given to Israel was not meant to bring life but to show them that they could not gain it through their obedience. Its goal was condemnation.

This seems to be the way Paul himself understands the law gospel contrast. He contrasts the covenant of Moses with that of Abraham. “This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.”(Galatians 3:17-18 ESV) Thus the distinction in Reformed theology between the covenant of grace and the covenant of works is parallel to Paul’s distinction between the law and the promise. The law gospel contrast should be understood, not only in dogmatic categories, but also in redemptive historical categories.

Though many in the Reformed tradition have rejected this covenant of grace and covenant of works distinction because, they claim it is too Lutheran, many in the reformed church use these categories to uphold Luther’s distinction between law and gospel. Though the Lutheran church need not speak in the same covenantal categories as the reformed, we can gain a better redemptive historical understanding of our basic hermeneutical principle through the bicovenantal reformed community. Men like Meredith Kline, Michael Horton, and Jeong Koo Jeon, have done much to defend the distinction without which scripture is a closed book.

The Lutheran Response part 2

2009-05-05T15:50:00.001-07:00

The reformed argue that when scripture declares that Christ is seated at the right hand of the father he must be present nowhere else according to his human nature. It was argued by Chemnits, Luther, Melancthon and others that this statement was one of status rather than locality. Christ’s being seated at God’s right hand is a statement of his authority. Does God have a literal body on a throne he sits on with Christ sitting beside Him? This is an absurd thought.
Now that it is has been shown that scripture allows for and in fact teaches the omnipresence of the whole Christ, the question to be asked is if he is specially present within the supper. The words of institution are some of the most debated words of the New Testament. When Jesus says “this is my body”, what does he mean? Luther’s one time pupil, Andreas Carlstadt argued that when Jesus said these words he was pointing to his literal body, not to the bread. This interpretation was foolish and abandoned quickly. The reformed and Anabaptists tried to argue that these words of Jesus were merely symbolic. Which word in the phrase “this is my body” is a symbol? It was argued by some that the word body was symbolic. However, this would deny that the following phrase “broken for you” referred to his actual bodily crucifixion. This interpretation had also been largely abandoned.
The majority Reformed position on Jesus words were that Jesus was using the word “is” to mean “represent.” Jesus was saying to the disciples, “this represents my body.” Lutheran theologians argued that there was no reason to take these words in a non-literal fashion. Did Jesus ever use this type of language symbolically in other circumstances? It was argued that when Jesus says things such as “I am the vine” he is using a similar figure of speech. Is Jesus literally a vine? No, of course he is not. However, that does not mean that these two statements are parallel. Note than in the second saying, it is not the word “is” that is symbolic. Rather it is the word “vine.” Jesus really is the vine. The question is, what does vine mean? No statement of Jesus in the gospels necessitates a symbolic understanding of the word is. Even if it could be argued that it is a possibility that the word could be used in such a way as to mean represents, the burden of proof would lay on the Reformed side. It needs to be shown that the word need not be used in its usual sense.
It is also argued against the Lutheran doctrine that if Jesus means that the bread literally is his body, then it would support a doctrine of transubstantiation rather than sacramental union. For the Lutheran doctrine to be true, Jesus must have meant “my body is in, with and under this bread.” However, it is not the case that for Jesus to admit that his body is present, it would deny that the bread is also present. It is a common figure of speech to, for example, hold a glass filled with water and say “this is water.” It would not be in any way denying the fact that the glass was present as well. No one would argue that it must mean that I was stating my entire glass was transubstantiated into water. The argument simply does not account for the way speech works.
There is one other passage which is widely debated between both theological positions. This is 1 Corinthians 10:16, “Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?” It is clear in this verse that through the wine, we are participating in his actual blood, and through the bread, his body. It has been urged by some, including Zwingli, that the body refers not to God’s actual body but to the church. This interpretation makes some sense, however what about the previous statement about participating in the blood of Christ? Zwingli argued that this also was a reference to the church since the church was identified by and covered by the blood of Christ. However, there is no reference in the New Testament or early church writings which calls the church “the blood of Christ.”
Calvin saw that Zwingli was flawed. This is why he believed in an actual participation of his body and blood. However, Calvin was already committed to the idea that Christ’s human nature could not be omnipresent. Thus, he developed a new formula which involved the Spirit causing the soul to ascend to heaven. Lutheran theologians argued against this proposition in three ways. First of all, the Bible simply does not mention any such action. The Spirit is not ever spoken of as being an instrument in bringing us Christ through the supper. If it is not exegetically supportable, it should not be accepted. Secondly, the idea of us ascending to God is contrary to the message of the New Testament. The gospel is about Christ descending to save us. Thus, the supper as a visible form of the gospel, unless otherwise stated in Scripture, should be seen to work the same way. Thirdly, this idea is based upon the assumption that Christ cannot be present in his human nature in more than one place. This has already been shown to be unproven.
The final attack of the Lutheran dogmatists against the Calvinistic theory of the Eucharist is that the Calvinists believe that Christ is present only by faith. There is no presence of Christ for the unbeliever. Much of the argument came from John 6:63 which says, “the Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing.” How can Jesus’ life giving bread be given to those who are in the flesh? For this verse to have any bearing upon the discussion, it must be shown that this chapter is about the Eucharist. If this chapter is shown to be about the Eucharist, it contains several statements which prove the Lutheran doctrine of the presence of Christ’s human nature. “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians point to the fact that unbelievers do partake of Christ’s body and blood, but rather than unto life, unto judgement. “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.” Paul sees those who partake unworthily of sinning against the actual body and blood of the Lord, not of a symbol. This offense was so serious that God killed members of the congregation for doing so.
Calvin’s position, as a compromise corrected several of the errors in Zwingli’s exegesis. However, he still held to assumptions that controlled his reading of the crucial passages of the text, not allowing them to speak for themselves. Luther was justified in not accepting Zwingli’s hand of fellowship. Perhaps if the meeting had been with Calvin the results would have been different.

The Lutheran Response to Calvin

2009-05-05T15:47:00.001-07:00

After Calvin published his Institutes as well as his several treatises on the Lord ’s Supper, many Lutherans quickly rose up to begin writing in defense of the doctrine which they held so sacred. This time however, they were not writing against someone who gave barely any importance to the sacrament but one who fought for its sacredness.
The two main exegetical issues in this debate were the words of institution and the issue of whether or not Christ’s human body was communicated omnipresence. First of all, some issues needed to be cleared up in regards to common misunderstandings of the Lutheran view of the Eucharist. First of all, the charge was often brought and continues to be against the Lutheran church that they teach “consubstantiation.” The word in itself is not necessarily problematic, and a few Lutheran dogmatists have used it. However, along with the word comes great misunderstanding. There was an older position in the medieval church which was called “consubstantiation” or “impanation” to where the physical body of Jesus was implanted within the elements of bread and wine. The problem with this is that it explains too much. The Lutheran church has never tried to explain how the whole Jesus is present in bread and wine, but that he is. The words “in, with, and under” commonly used in Lutheran theology are simply ways to try to get across the idea that somehow Jesus is there when the recipient receives the Eucharist.
Another important thing that needs to be discussed is that the Lutheran church does not believe in the necessary or local omnipresence of the body of Christ. Christ in his human nature is not omnipresent in and of itself, for that would destroy his humanity. However, due to the unified person of Christ, the attributes of the divine nature are communicated to the human nature. It is by gift, not by nature. Also, Christ’s body is not locally present in all places. In other words, there are different modes of presence. The body of Christ was on earth before the ascension in a local manner which is different from the manner in which he was present afterwards. As Jesus himself testifies, “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” The Lutheran divines saw this statement as showing that Jesus, while he would not be present in the same manner he was with the disciples, would be present with his church for all time. The question now to be asked is if this is only according to his divine nature that he is present or according to both natures. Exegetically the second option is preferable.
If the divine nature is present everywhere, while the human nature is present only at the right hand of the Father, then most of the person of Jesus is without his human nature. This means that only a small part of his divinity had become incarnate. It was the Lutheran contention that if Jesus was truly incarnate, it was all of Jesus, thus wherever he is, there is both his human and divine nature. Is this taught anywhere directly in scripture? Observe Paul’s statement in Ephesians 4, “He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe” This speaks of Christ’s ascension to fill the whole universe. If this were merely about his divine nature, then one would have to admit that Paul believes Christ to have been omnipresent in his divine nature only after the incarnation. Since this destroys his deity, it is untenable. Thus, Paul must be referring to Christ in his human nature. The reformed position must force its own theology into the text. When Matthew wrote that Jesus was to be with the church always, is there any evidence that he was thinking of the divinity of Christ apart from his humanity? It is nowhere in the text.
This is further proven by the fact that Christ is said many times in scripture to gain attributes of deity in time. As God of course, he already had these attributes. Thus, they must have been given in time to his human nature. For example in Philippians 2, Paul speaks of Christ gaining a name that is above every name by his death on the cross, not by nature. He was exalted because of his obedience. Jesus in John 3:35 is said to have been given all things by the father. Parallel expressions are found in Matthew 11:27, and Luke 10:22. If he has truly been given all things then he is according to his whole person omnipotent. This cannot refer to his divine nature unless one resorts to subordinationism. As American Lutheran theologian Charles Krauth says, “Christ, then, has received according to one nature, to wit, the human, what He intrinsically possessed in the other, to wit, in the divine, or, as it has been expressed, Whatever Christ has in the one nature by essence, He partakes of in the other by grace- and this is the doctrine of our Church.” Jesus is seen in the gospels to disappear at times, and even to walk through walls. These are attributes, not of humanity but of deity. They must have been communicated to the human nature. Jesus confessed before his disciples, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”. The man Jesus said this to his disciples. There is no reason to believe this refers to his divine nature alone. This interpretation is not a new one with the emergence of Protestantism but was taught by several highly esteemed fathers of the church. Athanasius says, “Whatever the scripture declares that Christ had received in time, it affirms with reference to his humanity, not with reference to his deity.” The book of Concord contains an appendix with several quotes of Patristic sources showing this to be a historic teaching.

Calvin on the Eucharist

2009-05-05T15:44:00.000-07:00

After Zwingli’s death, John Calvin became the leader of the Reformed branch of the reformation. Calvin greatly admired Luther and looked at him much more highly than he did Zwingli. In his reply to Sadoletto, Calvin even referred to himself as a Lutheran. This being the case, Calvin tried to make a compromise between the Zwinglian and Lutheran positions of the Lord’s Supper. Calvin sent letters to Luther by means of his friend and Luther’s pupil Philip Melancthon. However, fearing that Luther had become too grumpy in his old age for debate, Melancthon refused to give these letters to his teacher.
Calvin outlines his position in his most famous work, the Institutes of the Christian Religion. He refutes the doctrine of Transubstantiation as did theologians of every branch of the Reformation because it promoted a resacrifice of Jesus and was based not on exegesis, but on Aristotelian logic. In the beginning of his discussion, Calvin wishes to take the focus off of the issue of the presence of Christ in the supper to focus on what he sees as its prime purpose. “It is not the chief function of the Sacrament simply and without higher consideration to extend to us the body of Christ. Rather, it is to seal and confirm that promise by which he testifies that his flesh is blood indeed and his food is drink that leads us to eternal life.” For the Lutheran reformers, he testifies to his promise by giving us his body. They are not two separate purposes but one.
Calvin then tries to explain how he believes that Christ is both present bodily in heaven, and we can be partakers of his body and blood.
"Even though it seems unbelievable that Christ’s flesh, separated from us by such great distance, penetrates to us, so that it becomes our food, let us remember how far the secret power of the Holy Spirit towers above all our senses, and how foolish it is to wish to measure his immeasurableness by our measure."

Calvin introduces a third element into this discussion which was not before present; the role of the Spirit. For Calvin, we truly partake of Christ, but do so not because his whole person is present to us, but because the Spirit causes it to happen mysteriously. The Spirit causes our soul to ascend to heaven to partake of the whole person of Christ. It is important to remember that we are actually partaking in Christ. “For why should the Lord put in your hand the symbol of his body except to assure you of a true participation in it?”
Calvin denies the doctrine proposed by Luther that the attribute of omnipresence is communicated to the human nature of Christ by the divine.
"For as we do not doubt that Christ’s body is limited by the general characteristics common to all human bodies, and is contained in heaven (where it was once for all received) until Christ return in judgment [Acts 3:21], so we deem it utterly unlawful to draw it back under these corruptible elements or to imagine it be present everywhere."

For Calvin, Christ at the ascension was seated at the right hand of the father, and would remain there until he returned. Thus we should not expect his body to be anywhere else. If the human nature were to be in more than one place at a time it would simply cease to be truly human. He fears that the Lutheran doctrine intermingles the two natures too much that it is in danger of supporting monophysitism. As Luther believed the reformed separated the natures too much, Calvin believed they emphasized the unity of his person to a dangerous extent.
Calvin believed Christ’s words of institution to be symbolic. When saying “this is my body” Christ was saying that it was his body, not in a literal sense but in a sacramental sense. “Christ’s words are not subject to the common rule and ought not to be tested by grammar.” Calvin supports this figurative view of the words of institution by pointing to other places in the Bible where figurative language is used. For example, Paul says that the rock the Israelites drank from “was Christ.” He also points to the common anthropomorphisms in the Old Testament.
Calvin goes on to argue why he believes the human nature of Christ to be in heaven and their alone. He points to the passages in which Christ tells the disciples he is to depart from this world. He claims that the Lutherans make Christ’s human body into a phantom in a docetic manner. Calvin argues that in the supper, Christ does not come down to us to feast; rather we are lifted up to him.
The final disagreement which Calvin has with Luther and his followers is the presence of Christ in the supper for unbelievers. Luther believed that Christ was present for the believing for their salvation, and the unbelieving for their condemnation. Calvin denied this saying, “all those who are devoid of Christ’s Spirit can no more eat Christ’s flesh than drink wine that has no taste.”

Zwingli on the Lord's Supper

2009-05-05T15:39:00.000-07:00

In the eyes of Martin Luther, the most essential division between himself and the group of reformers in Zurich under Ulrich Zwingli was in the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Luther, coming from a monastic background held on to much that he was taught within the Roman church. However, Zwingli, coming from more of a humanistic background, largely abandoned accepted church practice and doctrine, including their sacramental emphasis. Luther’s reformation was from within the church, while Zwingli was much quicker to abandon Rome. Zwingli held to a symbolic view of the supper. The bread and wine simply represented Christ’s body and blood. For Luther, Christ’s body and blood were truly communicated to the recipient.
The issues that divided the Reformed and Lutheran church from the beginning were not merely about the presence of Christ within the Eucharist. For Luther, Zwingli’s denial of the communicatio idiomatum (the communication of attributes) was a profound Christological error. Ancient Chalcedonian Christology had emphasized not only the separation of the two natures but also the unity of the person of Christ. Since Zwingli denied that an action performed by one nature could be attributed to the other, Luther accused him of Nestorianism. The old Nestorian heresy denied that Mary was to be called theotokos. (Mother of God) This was because technically speaking, Mary was the mother of the human nature of Christ, not the divine. Patristic divines saw this as making Christ into two separate persons, one human and one divine. At the council of Ephesus, led by Cyril of Alexandria, this was declared a damnable heresy.
Essentially Zwingli held to the same idea in Luther’s mind. Luther believed that the human nature of Christ had communicated omnipresence, thus could be present in the Lord’s Supper. Zwingli denied this saying that the finite was not capable of the infinite. The Lutheran divines saw this as a dangerous principle because taken to its logical conclusion; the human nature of Jesus would be incapable of the infinite God, thus denying the incarnation. For Luther, Zwingli’s doctrine was not arrived at through Biblical exegesis but by fallen human reason.
At the Colloquy of Marburg, these issues were debated by Luther and his supporters and Zwingli with his supporters. They came to an agreement on almost all other theological issues. When it came to the issue of the supper, the debate became heated. After hours of intense discussion, Luther began banging his fist on the table and yelling, “Hoc est corpus mayem!” (This is my body.) For Luther, these words of Christ were decisive. After the colloquy had ended unsuccessfully, Zwingli reached out to shake Luther’s hand. Luther refused. This one act signified that there would not be a union between the two parties. The issue of the Lord’s Supper was too essential to be compromised on.

A Defense of Infant Baptism

2008-12-11T11:07:00.001-08:00

Circumcision in the Old Testament was a sign of the Mosaic Covenant. Paul tells us in Romans 4:11 that circumcision was "a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith" when speaking of Abraham. What were Abraham's instructions for future circumcision? One might assume with an individualistic culture such as our own that Abraham would only then circumcise those who subsequently made a profession of faith. However, Abraham was to circumcise all of his descendants. Isaac was commanded to circumcise both Jacob and Esau, though we read in Romans 9 that God already had decreed the salvation of Jacob, and knew that Esau would fall away. The sign was to be applied to those of faith and their children.
Paul writes in Colossians 2:11,12 "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." Baptism is now the sign of initiation into the people of God. It has replaced circumcision. Now the question that must be asked is, has this household principle changed? Who receives this sign? It must be assumed that if this had changed the authors of the New Testament should have made it clear to their readers or they would inevitably give the sign to their children.
There are many times when baptism occurs when the baptism is for a believer and his household. Some examples of this are: 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 and Acts 11:14. Paul and Luke here are extending the same practice which already happened in circumcision. The phrase used here for household is "Oikos." This phrase denotes in Greek, an entire family including children, and may indeed be pointing specifically to children and infants. This same phraseology is used in the Old Testament when discussing whole households which include children: Gen 7:1, 45:11, 1 Sam 25:6, 2 Kings 8:1 and several other places. Early church uses of the word denote a similar meaning such as in Hermas and Ignatius, both early 2nd century writers.
Proselyte baptism was practiced within Judaism at the time of the New Testament. This was baptism given to gentiles who converted to the Jewish faith. It is clear that it existed before the New Testament through the discussions of Shammai and Hillel. They were Rabbis who lived shortly before the life of Christ. Thus when John began baptizing, he was using a right already instituted but gave it new meaning. In proselyte baptisms, if a parent converted to the Jewish faith, their children would also receive baptism. There is no reason to believe that this changed.
Jesus himself says, "do not permit the children from coming to me" In Luke 15:16-17. The language here is similar to early baptismal language as Jesus says "do not hinder them". In early baptisms, one who had faith and was baptized was asked if anything hindered them from being baptized. Luke knows this and is using this phraseology to get the point across.
This idea that children of believers are separate from heathen children and therefore should be baptized is explained by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7. "For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." (7:14) The argument Paul is making here is not about the children. The issue he is dealing with is whether a Christian should stay married to a non Christian. He argues that since the child is holy with one Christian parent, the marriage is ok. The principle that the child is Holy Paul simply assumes that the Corinthians understand as he uses that principle to defend himself. He does not offer any defense for the principle of the holiness of children itself.
The evidence in the early church shows that this has been practiced since the beginning of the church. Origen (185-254) Hippolytus (170-236) Irenaeus (115-202) and Tertullian (160-220) all mention the practice. None of them try to defend infant baptism but simply assume it. Hippolytus whose family was in the Christian faith for a few generations testifies that it has been a tradition since the beginning of the church. He must have known of his grandfather or possibly great grandfather being baptized as an infant. This takes one to the very beginnings of the church.

An Evaluation of NT Wright's Critical Realism

2008-11-12T11:33:00.000-08:00

NT Wright is certainly a controversial figure within Evangelicalism these days. It seems like some accept everything he says as truth, while others see his mistakes and dismiss all of what he has written. I, being a Lutheran, reject his interpretation of Paul and adamantly disagree with his redefinition of justification. However, I do believe he has some helpful insights in other areas which the reader of the New Testament can greatly benefit from. Among these is his dismissal of both the pre-modern, modern, and post-modern ways of looking at texts. They all have truth to them, but all dismiss a vital aspect of exegesis. This information comes from his book "The New Testament and the People of God".
When reading the New Testament, we must read it like any other book, taking into account what the author was trying to say, and how it applies to us today. Thus, we must construct a theory of reading any historical text. Wright dismisses the idea that history and theology form a dichotomy and must be studied seperately. The New Testament itself always grounds theology historically, and interprets history within the realm of theology. The tendency of many to seperate the "natural" elements of history and the "supernatural" of theology is in itself flawed. The liberal camp has dismissed the supernatural, while the conservative camp has also fallen into this false dichotomy by focusing on the "supernatural" as if it is somehow seperated from the natural.
The modernist epistemology of Positivism is a completely wrong way of coming to the knowledge of a historical text, or anything for that matter. The positivist sees some aspects of knowledge to be absolutely certain. What is not absolutely certain then falls into the realm of the unknown and must be doubted. This view holds to the idea that one can have a "god's eye view" of the facts, without being influenced by any preconcieved notions. Since theological ideas cannot be objectively verified, they are rejected. This view has logically resulted in the relativism that is rampant today. When people realize that there is doubt in every sort of knowledge, and that nothing can be empirically 100 percent verifiable, they reject objective knowledge all together, thus one is only left with doubt. Some areas of knowledge such as science are seen as knowable, while facts about God and the afterlife are left to mere speculation.
The phenomenalist rejects the notion that one can have certainty of objective truth. However, phenomenalism goes too far in rejecting the false epistemology of positivism by asserting that one can only know his perspective of what the truth is. If one reads a New Testament text, he has no certainty what that text means, only what he percieves it to mean. In fact, one cannot even be sure that there is a New Testament, but that one percieves a book with understandable words telling the story of Jesus. Thus, the only knowledge one has is of oneself. Logically, this could cause one doubt the existence of everything but oneself.
So, what is Wright's position rejecting both the mere objective and subjective ways of viewing things? The objective and subjective categories to Wright are unhelpful. One must dismiss these categories and look beyond them. All truth involves both the knower and the known. There is a truth that is out there to be known. I need not question whether or not the New Testament actually exists while I am reading it. This is called Realism. However, though it is admitted that truth outside of oneself can be known, he does not accept the idea that the process of knowing is a mere intellectual excercise which does not engage the knower. The knower only views the known within his own preconcieved notion of reality. His worldview is not only shaped by evidence, but shapes it. We all have our own stories that we fit our experiences into. We must also realize that the New Testament writers also have their own stories by which they interpret their experience. There story involves the redemption of the people of God. This part of Wrights epistemology is Realism.
Having explained the epistemology Wright uses to come to the text, the question is now how that epistemology works itself out practically in New Testament exegesis. Let us look at four common methods used in the interpretation of scripture. The first is the pre-critical method. This was the method used by the Patristics often, especially in the practice of "lectio divina" wherein one sees the text outside of its historical context and interprets it in a way that it applies specifically to the reader's life. This, in the worst cases, resulted in an allegorical interpretation of the text. Fortunately this position sees the text as something which is alive, and not simply dead in the past with no relevance to the modern reader. Pietistic circles still practice the pre-critical method.
The next approach is the "historical approach" which became popular at the time of the enlightenment. In the approach one looks behind the text to see which parts are genuine historical events, and which are not. One studies the historical context of these statements and other statements at the time period like the one being studied, and tries to reconstruct it's original meaning. While this method is correct in looking at historical reality, it is overly optimistic of our attempt to reconstruct the past, and leads to a static reading which has no effect on the modern reader.
The third approach is the "theological approach." This takes the text and evaluates how it speaks of God and man. It is not so much concerned with the historical content, but with what point the author is trying to make with the text. This view, promoted by Bultmann, again promotes the false dichotomy of theology and history. Historical and theological interpretations are always connected in the view of the New Testament writers.
The postmodern approach rejects all the modernists questions about the text regarding "what actually happened" in history. Instead, the focus is on the reader himself. What presuppositions does the reader bring to the text he is reading? How does this effect how he understands the text? This may to some extent, involve his view of the historical question, it is certainly not the focus. Unfortunately, this approach only leads one to knowledge of self, rather than the text, thus the entire purpose of the New Testament is missed.
There are elements of each of these approaches which are certainly helpful. The enlightenment, though its beginings were greatly flawd, does have some helpful insight for the believer. The Biblical story is grounded in history, and is dependent upon history. We must not forget that fact. Scripture does not testify to mere "spiritual truths" whose only purpose is to edify individual believers, but to the coming of God into actual history through the person of Jesus. However, we must also remember that this recorded history is never merely "objective." This history is always recorded and interpreted by one who has his own set of preconcieved notions of the world. He fits this real history into his own story. It is to be remembered however, that the New Testament is not simply "about faith" as Bultmann would have it, but about Jesus. Some have mistakenly seen the purpose of the New Testament writers as showing transcendent truth which has no bearing on actual history. The New Testament includes both real history and transcendent truth. They need not be seperated.
So what do I think of Wright's proposition of critical realism? It certainly has much truth to it. The categories of "objective" and "subjective" are often unhelpful. Many see truth as something that either exists completely outside of oneself, or only inside of oneself. However, I feel the Wright goes too far in seeing all truth as involving both the known and knower. There is much truth that is unknown to us, and our ignorance in no way effects the reality of such truth. In my mind, the categories of "objective" and "subjective" need to be redefined, though not necessarily dismissed. One of my main concerns about NT Wright's exegetical efforts, is that he sometimes reads too much into the story of the writer. Narrative does certainly effect how all men think and write, however, this is not to the exclusion of propositional truth. One need not, as Wright does, read into Paul's discussion of baptism in the opening verses of Romans 6, the underlying narrative of the crossing of the Red Sea. The position I would opt for is a modified critical realism, accepting Wright's critiques, while not completely accepting his revision.

Luther and Calvin on Baptism

2008-11-10T10:30:00.000-08:00

It seems that just about everyday since my conversion to Lutheranism I have had to explain what my view of baptism is. I am usually talking to Calvinistic protestants, as I go to Geneva college. I would like to evaluate what Luther and Calvin's views of baptism were.
Luther's view of baptism is pretty clear. "It works the forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives all eternal salvation who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare". (Luther's small catechism) Simply put, baptism does what scripture says it does; it saves. "Concerning baptism, our churches teach that baptism is necessary for salvation and that God's grace is offered through baptism." (Augsburg Confession Article IX) Baptism is not a mere symbol of grace that is recieved. It genuinely offers and gives grace to the recipient. This is not equal to the Roman ex opera operato view of baptism as is often alleged. In the Roman system, one who is baptized is put in a state of grace, regardless of their faith and only loses that grace when one commits a mortal sin. We recognize that without faith, no man will be saved. Thus, baptismal regeneration is dependant upon faith. Since faith is a gift, God gives the gift of faith to the recipient, even as an infant. Though, the subject of infant faith must be the subject of a seperate post. It must also be said that it is possible for one to be saved without baptism, as faith in Christ alone justifies. However, outright rejection of baptism in tantamount to rejection of God himself, thus no true faith can really be present. True faith always results in baptism.
What is Calvin's view of baptism? "Baptism is the sign of initiation by which we are recieved into the society of the church, in order that, engrafted in Christ, we may be reckoned among God's children." (Institutes Book IV ch. XV) For Calvin, baptism is not merely a sign. It is not something man does to confess his faith before others, as he expressly states in the same chapter, "they who regard baptism as nothing but a token and a mark by which we confess our religion before men... have not weighed what was the chief point of baptism. It is to recieve baptism with this promise: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." (Mark 16:16)These quotes may surpise some Presbyterians, because it seems comparable to the Lutheran position which so many protestants reject as "Romish" without clearly evaluating the Biblical testimony. There is however, a difference between Calvin and Luther's view. For Luther, the grace given to the recipient, including infants is the Holy Spirit himself. For Calvin, the gift given is grace, but this grace comes in the form of entrance into the church community. In some sense the recipient does have a special relationship with the Spirit through baptism, but only as the Spirit is present with the church. This comes from the idea that Calvin does not accept that one can be regenerate and fall away, but Luther does. However, both agree that the elect will all be preserved by grace and gain final salvation.
I submit that Calvinists and other protestants look at the Biblical testimony seriously without rejecting out of hand what sounds Papistic. Just because the Roman church does it does not mean it is wrong. I would also exhort Calvinists to look carefully at what Calvin actually believed about this subject, as so many later Presbyterians see infant baptism as merely looking forward to something in the future, without actually doing anything. Calvin's idea was followed famously by Abraham Kuyper whose doctrine has been labeled "presumptive regeneration." A child is concidered a Christian after baptism, unless signs show that the child is not. Thus, the Spirit can regenerate through baptism but does not always do it. I would also encourage Lutherans to seriously look at Calvins doctrine of baptism, and stop misconstruing what Calvin actually believed in light of current Calvinists who obscure his teachings. True Calvinists have much to be learned from, though on this point I think they are in error, though not fatally so.

Why I believe in Matthean priority over Mark

2008-10-25T13:16:00.000-07:00

Most scholars have accepted Mark's gospel to be the earliest written, which then became the source, along with another missing gospel named "Q" for the gospels of Matthew and Luke. From what research I have done in the gospels so far however, this opinion seems flawed. Evidence points to the fact that Matthew was the first gospel to be written. Here are some reasons why I believe this to be the case

- Matthews gospel was not written, as some suppose at the end of the first century. It was written before the fall of Jerusalem. Matthew, who was so quick to point out when Old Testament prophecies had been fulfilled, would surely have noted, after Jesus prediction of the fall of Jerusalem, that it had indeed come to be.

- Many support a late dating of the gospel of Matthew due to the fact that it contains much liturgy that was to developed to have been so early, such as the trinitarian formulation in the great comission. This is only accepted based upon the idea of the evolution of theology over time. The developed theology of Matthew could not possibly have arisen so soon after the resurrection. This idea is supported by the fact that, for example, Mark is written so simply that the writer must have been ignorant of the more complex doctrines taught in Romans or Hebrews. This is easily explainable because Mark was written for an audience that was not yet informed in the faith. Hebrews was written for the more mature believer. One way that we know a developed theology did arise fairly early is through the writings of the apostle Paul. Even in Paul's undisputed epistles, he contains statements that most recognize to be traditions of earlier Christian origin. This places a developed theology all the way back to possibly the 40s AD.

- It is often supposed that ideas about Christ as pre-existent only appear in the later Johannine writings and somewhat in Paul due to helenistic influence, only later to be more dogmatized in the non-Pauline epistle to the Colossians. This idea is said to be foreign to the gospel writers. If this were the case, and the gospels were written so late in the first century, would not Paul's influence have effected their theology by that point? Thus, their own assumptions contradict themselves. I of course do not agree that this is the case, as I believe Matthew has a very high Christology. The fact that Matthew calls Jesus "Immanuel" is enough to testify to this.

-The consensus of the early church was that Matthew's gospel was written first. This should not be quickly dismissed. In the second century Matthew's gospel is quoted far more often then Mark. In fact Mark was barely referenced, as Luke was also more common. If Mark at one time was the only written gospel, would it not have been circulated much faster and in greater numbers? It is also interesting to note, that from the earliest times, the gospels, particularly Matthew were the center of church worship. This would suggest that Matthew had actually been written before the Pauline epistles. If Paul's epistles were the only existing document of church doctrine, it would have been natural for the church to have given them the central place in worship.

- The Pauline epistles themselves do not contain much information about the actual life of Jesus apart from his death and resurrection. They simply assume that those he is writing to already have knowledge of these events, as is obvious in the creedal formulations he quotes. Even when discussing the crucifixion, he gives no information about how that crucifixion actually took place. How did these early Christians have this knowledge that is presupposed? It is unlikely that oral tradition alone would have provided this knowledge between the years of Jesus' resurrection and the supposed late date of the gospels. Early Christianity was permeated in Jewish culture, thus one would expect aspects of early worship to be similar. At the center of synagogue worship was the reading of the Torah. Most likely the Christian community would have likewise centered its worship on readings from a text about the life of their Messiah. This explains how written documents are necessary, even when the majority of people are illiterate. While the Christians did value the Old Testament as inspired, a simple reading of the Torah during a worship service would not have caused the persecution that arose.

-While oral traditions about the life of Jesus were most likely present in the early church and would have been helpful to an extent, they hardly would have been sufficient for the widespread acceptance of the message. It would have been difficult for mere oral traditions to sustains churches over a wide geographic area.

-The didache is clearly dependent upon the gospel of Matthew, and some even see it as a commentary on Matthew. The dating of this document is anywhere from 50-150 AD. If an early date is accepted, then Matthew had clearly been written early, and not only that, but also had gained wide acceptance.

- It is also worth noting that Matthew wrote at a point when the church had a much larger Jewish membership, which would account for an earlier date. Luke then based his gospel on that of Matthew, making it more accesible to gentile readers.