I am currently doing an independant study on the so called, "new perspectives on Paul." Pauline theology is one of my greatest interests, and I hope to someday be a scholar who will be able to offer something in this debate. I am going to give a brief overview of each section of E.P. Sander's Paul and Palestinian Judaism, the first important volume in this movement. I know many do not have the time to read through this much material themselves, so I am hoping to be of aid to those who would like to understand this movement.
Part 1: Palestinian Judaism
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 succesfully, yet there work was not of much effect. Weber's view still was the majority opinion.
Sanders wants to prove that Weber's view is flawed by evaluating the writings of the second temple period extensively. According to Sanders, there is an overall coherence of the "pattern of religion" in Judaism. 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 there 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 is 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 writes that there were three different answers to this question in second temple literature. One answer is that the covenant was offered to all nations, yet Israel was the only one to accept it. The second opinion is 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. It seems to me that the first two responses do not coincide well with Sanders overall thesis. Whether or not the merit of the descendents of the patriarchs gained the covenant, it was still gained by human merit. I find it interesting that some thought the covenant was initiated because of the merits of the patriarchs. This means that it would not be an idea foreign to Judaism for Paul to say that we are saved by the righteousness (or merit) of another, namely the Godman Jesus Christ. Perhaps this framework allowed Paul to frame his ideas in such a way as to be understandable to a Jewish audience.
Sanders certainly is right in showing the sloppiness of much scholarship dealing with the second temple literature. Often no differentiation was made between Tannaitic and Amoraic material, and it had been simply assumed that Rabbinic Judaism was identical to Pharisaic Judaism. Sanders convincingly shows that there is more to Jewish soteriology than a simple weighing of merits. One would try his best, and when he failed there was the system of atonement in the law which would restore him, and assure him that his sins had been forgiven. One is often said to be rewarded for his goodness, and for his deeds, yet it is not that one earns salvation through these merits, but that one maintains his status and proves himself through these merits. The just God must reward righteousness, and punish evil, yet not in such a way as to say that a man earns that status. He is only aided to righteousness by God grace. When Sanders runs into a passage that seems to contradict his idea, he resorts to saying that they were no systematic theologians, thus were not careful and could be inconsistent.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Some good quotes from St. Bernard of Clairvaux
"The cause of loving God is God. I spoke the truth, for He is both the efficient and final Cause. It is He who gives the occasions, it is He who creates the affection, He consummates the desire."
"He 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 the redemption of those in captivity." (On the Love of God ch. VII)
"Give Him glory once for offenses pardoned; give it again for virtues conferred." (Sermon on Canticle of Canticles ch. III)
"His fatherly love is greater than any injustice whatsoever." (Canticles ch.X)
"You were sinning, oh man, in darkness and in the shadow of death through ignorance of truth. You were sitting bound by the chains of sin. He down to prison not to torture you, but to rescue you from the power of darkness. And first the Teacher of truth dispelled the darkness of ignorance by the light of His wisdom. The by the righteousness of faith he loosed the bonds of sin, freely justifying the sinner." (Canticles ch.XV)
"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." (Canticles ch.XVI)
"Ah! from how great bitterness of soul have you often delivered me, O Good Jesus, coming to me!... 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. Those who are afflicted in this way, behold they know that the Lord Jesus is truly a Physician Who healeth the broken of heart and bindeth up their bruses" (Canticles ch.XX)
"Great faith merits great rewards. And wherever you set down the foot of hope among the goods of the Lord, they will be yours." (Canticles ch.XX)
"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." (Canticles ch. XXIV)
"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." (Canticles XXIV)
"While I am in this life this more sublime philosophy will be mine-to know Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." (Canticles ch.XXVIII)
"In order to merit, it is enough to know that our merits do not suffice for us." (Canticles ch.XLI)
"He 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 the redemption of those in captivity." (On the Love of God ch. VII)
"Give Him glory once for offenses pardoned; give it again for virtues conferred." (Sermon on Canticle of Canticles ch. III)
"His fatherly love is greater than any injustice whatsoever." (Canticles ch.X)
"You were sinning, oh man, in darkness and in the shadow of death through ignorance of truth. You were sitting bound by the chains of sin. He down to prison not to torture you, but to rescue you from the power of darkness. And first the Teacher of truth dispelled the darkness of ignorance by the light of His wisdom. The by the righteousness of faith he loosed the bonds of sin, freely justifying the sinner." (Canticles ch.XV)
"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." (Canticles ch.XVI)
"Ah! from how great bitterness of soul have you often delivered me, O Good Jesus, coming to me!... 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. Those who are afflicted in this way, behold they know that the Lord Jesus is truly a Physician Who healeth the broken of heart and bindeth up their bruses" (Canticles ch.XX)
"Great faith merits great rewards. And wherever you set down the foot of hope among the goods of the Lord, they will be yours." (Canticles ch.XX)
"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." (Canticles ch. XXIV)
"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." (Canticles XXIV)
"While I am in this life this more sublime philosophy will be mine-to know Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." (Canticles ch.XXVIII)
"In order to merit, it is enough to know that our merits do not suffice for us." (Canticles ch.XLI)
Monday, September 8, 2008
The ten most important theologians of all time
I have compiled a list of who I think the ten most important theologians outside of the New Testament in the church are. Anyone disagree with my assesment? Feel free to comment.
1. Augustine- Augustine is simultaneously the father of Roman Catholicism, Calvinism and Lutheranism. His high view of the church was adopted by the Romish church, his view of grace was adopted by the Lutheran and Reformed churches, and his view of the sovereignty of God became the cornerstone of Calvinism. Also the mystic and scholastic movements could claim themselves as heirs of Augustine. He has done great things for the universal church by giving the clearest explenation of the trinity which the western church would ever have in his book on the Trinity. He defined original sin much clearer than any theologian before him, securing this position for all of the western church. Because of his doctrine of original sin, the theological foundation for infant baptism was secured, not to be questioned for hundreds of years. Augustine's book the City of God influenced both the theocracy under Charlamagne and the two kingdom theology of Luther. Augustine's treatise on the Spirit and the Letter was the first clear explanation of what would later be known as the Lutheran law/gospel distinction. Also, the universalism that many had speculated about since the time of Origen was finally wiped out by Augustine.
2. Martin Luther- Martin Luther was of course the father of the Protestant reformation, one of the most important events in the history of the church (and the world in general). He defined the doctrine of justification by faith alone clearer than any had before him. Paul's theology for the first time was fully understood. Luther pushed the whole church to go back the scripture as the only infallible source of truth. He helped abolish the idea that good works were done by seperating oneself from society and trying to save himself. Good works are those things done for the benefit of one's neighbor. Monasticism was not a higher form of spirituality than that of a baker, and it certainly was not a "second baptism." In short, Luther helped the church rediscover the gospel.
3. Athanasius- He made two major theological claims which effected the church for the rest of history. First, his work On the incarnation of the word was the first book written on the atonement, the center of Christianity. In this treatise, Athanasius supports the idea that we all owe a debt of death to God because of our sin. Christ took this debt upon Himself, so that we could be redeemed. Not only are we forgiven of our sins, but God then conforms us to the image of His son. His second major accomplishment was his defense of the deity of Jesus Christ. Athanasius defended at one point against most of the church that Christ was of one substance with the father. He was kicked out of the empire several times for defending the truth. He was the major figure behind the definition of Nicea.
4. John Calvin- Calvin did not do much that was new. However, he formulated a doctrinal system which would effect all of Protestantism outside of Lutheranism. He defined the idea of double predestination which would become a central tenant of the reformed church. He went farther than Luther with the idea of sola scriptura by creating the regulative principle of worship. Man is only to include in a worship service that which is directly commanded by God. He formulated a view of governent which became the ideology of the Puritans when they came to establish America. The most positive thing Calvin did was emphasize the grammatical historical method of Bible interpretation. It surely was taught by many before Calvin, but he did it with excellence, not surpassed by perhaps any since his time.
5. Thomas Aquinas- He is considered the "angelic doctor" of the Roman church. He put together the most comprehensive system of theology ever produced, which layed the groundwork of modern day Roman Catholicism. He popularized the use of Aristotle in Christian theology and the use of natural theology. According to Aquinas, man's intellect was not fallen, though his will was. He was the most important figure to come out of the scholastic period.
6. Friedrich Schleiermacher- He is the father of Protestant liberalism. When the enlightenment came, many became deists and rejected religion all together. Schleiermacher did not want to do this and so he claimed to be a Christian theologian while rejecting almost every cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith. His unfortunate influence is still with us today and was the cause of the Bible wars in the 20th century.
7. Karl Barth- He formed neo-orthodoxy, the midway point between conservativism and liberalism. He accepted some of the historical critical ideas, but did not want to reject the theology of the Protestant Reformers. Barth put the Bible back in an authoritative place and rejected natural theology. Christ was once again placed at the center of the Christian faith. Barth's influence has been both positive and negative. Positive in his Christocentrism, yet negative in his denial of innerancy.
8. Gregory the Great- He defined what would be the religion of the middle ages. He marks the end of the age of the fathers and the dawn of a new era. He liked Augustine but toned down his theology of predestination, coming closer to the semi-pelagian position. While rejecting the title of universal bishop, he got himself involved in political affairs, laying the groundwork for the Papal theocracy of a later period. He popularized the idea of purgatory which led to the focus on the meritorious nature of penance and prayers to the saints as mediators between man and Christ. In some ways, Gregory is the first Roman Catholic.
9. John Wesley- The founder of methodism, he popularized Arminianism and led way to a new branch of the Protestant church. As an evangelist, he did many good things, preaching both law and gospel. Under Wesley, experience became essential to the Christian life. One must have an experience of grace and come to a point where God assures him of his salvation. Wesley fought against much of the legalism in the Anglican church of his day, emphasizing the gratuity of God's grace. In doing this he rejected Calvinism while defending the idea of prevenient grace. He came up with the idea of perfectionism, which taught that the Christian could come to a point in his life when he would no longer sin. This led to the second blessing idea which was then the foundation of pentacostalism.
10. Charles Finney- He was the leader of the so-called "second great awakening." Rather than emphasizing the sinfulness of man and the free grace of God in Christ, as Wesley, Edwards, and Whitfield did in the first awakening, Finney emphasized the experience of conversion. Finney denied original sin and the substitutionary atonement of Christ. For Finney, Christianity was about morality. One could be converted by an emotional experience and then live a good moral life. These ideas have become the basis for modern evangelicalism.
1. Augustine- Augustine is simultaneously the father of Roman Catholicism, Calvinism and Lutheranism. His high view of the church was adopted by the Romish church, his view of grace was adopted by the Lutheran and Reformed churches, and his view of the sovereignty of God became the cornerstone of Calvinism. Also the mystic and scholastic movements could claim themselves as heirs of Augustine. He has done great things for the universal church by giving the clearest explenation of the trinity which the western church would ever have in his book on the Trinity. He defined original sin much clearer than any theologian before him, securing this position for all of the western church. Because of his doctrine of original sin, the theological foundation for infant baptism was secured, not to be questioned for hundreds of years. Augustine's book the City of God influenced both the theocracy under Charlamagne and the two kingdom theology of Luther. Augustine's treatise on the Spirit and the Letter was the first clear explanation of what would later be known as the Lutheran law/gospel distinction. Also, the universalism that many had speculated about since the time of Origen was finally wiped out by Augustine.
2. Martin Luther- Martin Luther was of course the father of the Protestant reformation, one of the most important events in the history of the church (and the world in general). He defined the doctrine of justification by faith alone clearer than any had before him. Paul's theology for the first time was fully understood. Luther pushed the whole church to go back the scripture as the only infallible source of truth. He helped abolish the idea that good works were done by seperating oneself from society and trying to save himself. Good works are those things done for the benefit of one's neighbor. Monasticism was not a higher form of spirituality than that of a baker, and it certainly was not a "second baptism." In short, Luther helped the church rediscover the gospel.
3. Athanasius- He made two major theological claims which effected the church for the rest of history. First, his work On the incarnation of the word was the first book written on the atonement, the center of Christianity. In this treatise, Athanasius supports the idea that we all owe a debt of death to God because of our sin. Christ took this debt upon Himself, so that we could be redeemed. Not only are we forgiven of our sins, but God then conforms us to the image of His son. His second major accomplishment was his defense of the deity of Jesus Christ. Athanasius defended at one point against most of the church that Christ was of one substance with the father. He was kicked out of the empire several times for defending the truth. He was the major figure behind the definition of Nicea.
4. John Calvin- Calvin did not do much that was new. However, he formulated a doctrinal system which would effect all of Protestantism outside of Lutheranism. He defined the idea of double predestination which would become a central tenant of the reformed church. He went farther than Luther with the idea of sola scriptura by creating the regulative principle of worship. Man is only to include in a worship service that which is directly commanded by God. He formulated a view of governent which became the ideology of the Puritans when they came to establish America. The most positive thing Calvin did was emphasize the grammatical historical method of Bible interpretation. It surely was taught by many before Calvin, but he did it with excellence, not surpassed by perhaps any since his time.
5. Thomas Aquinas- He is considered the "angelic doctor" of the Roman church. He put together the most comprehensive system of theology ever produced, which layed the groundwork of modern day Roman Catholicism. He popularized the use of Aristotle in Christian theology and the use of natural theology. According to Aquinas, man's intellect was not fallen, though his will was. He was the most important figure to come out of the scholastic period.
6. Friedrich Schleiermacher- He is the father of Protestant liberalism. When the enlightenment came, many became deists and rejected religion all together. Schleiermacher did not want to do this and so he claimed to be a Christian theologian while rejecting almost every cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith. His unfortunate influence is still with us today and was the cause of the Bible wars in the 20th century.
7. Karl Barth- He formed neo-orthodoxy, the midway point between conservativism and liberalism. He accepted some of the historical critical ideas, but did not want to reject the theology of the Protestant Reformers. Barth put the Bible back in an authoritative place and rejected natural theology. Christ was once again placed at the center of the Christian faith. Barth's influence has been both positive and negative. Positive in his Christocentrism, yet negative in his denial of innerancy.
8. Gregory the Great- He defined what would be the religion of the middle ages. He marks the end of the age of the fathers and the dawn of a new era. He liked Augustine but toned down his theology of predestination, coming closer to the semi-pelagian position. While rejecting the title of universal bishop, he got himself involved in political affairs, laying the groundwork for the Papal theocracy of a later period. He popularized the idea of purgatory which led to the focus on the meritorious nature of penance and prayers to the saints as mediators between man and Christ. In some ways, Gregory is the first Roman Catholic.
9. John Wesley- The founder of methodism, he popularized Arminianism and led way to a new branch of the Protestant church. As an evangelist, he did many good things, preaching both law and gospel. Under Wesley, experience became essential to the Christian life. One must have an experience of grace and come to a point where God assures him of his salvation. Wesley fought against much of the legalism in the Anglican church of his day, emphasizing the gratuity of God's grace. In doing this he rejected Calvinism while defending the idea of prevenient grace. He came up with the idea of perfectionism, which taught that the Christian could come to a point in his life when he would no longer sin. This led to the second blessing idea which was then the foundation of pentacostalism.
10. Charles Finney- He was the leader of the so-called "second great awakening." Rather than emphasizing the sinfulness of man and the free grace of God in Christ, as Wesley, Edwards, and Whitfield did in the first awakening, Finney emphasized the experience of conversion. Finney denied original sin and the substitutionary atonement of Christ. For Finney, Christianity was about morality. One could be converted by an emotional experience and then live a good moral life. These ideas have become the basis for modern evangelicalism.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Obama and McCain at Saddleback
I am sure many of you saw this program, as I did. Aside from the politicizing from both candidates, I have some problems with this type of forum. The question I have is, "should a pastor be taking this role in America's politics?" It seems to me that Rick Warren thinks a little more of his importance than he should. His job should be shepharding God's sheep. From what I have seen from Rick Warren lately, he has been much more focused on the world's problems than the word of God. Should a church building be such a place for political ventures? I don't think so. The church is for the preaching of God's word and the administration of the Sacraments, not for politics.
Monday, August 18, 2008
A Lutheran evaluation of the five points of Calvinism
Often in evangelicalism, the question is asked "are you a Calvinist or an Arminian?" No other alternatives are given. How should a good Lutheran answer this question? Some would day that they agree with only the first two points of the acronym TULIP but rejects the rest. A more nuanced view, which I would take, is that there is truth to be affirmed in four of the five points.
Now to go through each point:
1. Total Depravity- The Lutheran language on this point differs, as "the bondage of the will" is spoken of rather than total depravity; this is due to a possible misunderstanding that mankind is as evil as possible (utter depravity). However, the theological point remains the same. Humans are unable to approach God apart from grace, because the sinner's will is fallen; they are in bondage to sin.
2. Unconditional Election- Lutheran theology affirms, along with Calvinism, that God's election unto life is unconditional. God does not elect based on foreseen faith or merit, but out of pure grace with no regard to the behavior of the elect sinner. Thus, on this point here is also agreement, though it is to be noted that Lutherans reject the negative side of this teaching, that God predestines people unto death. In Lutheranism, predestination is single rather than double.
3. Limited Atonement- This is the major area of disagreement with Reformed Theology. Lutherans affirm a universal saving will in God, as well as a universal atonement. The atonement was objectively given for all, but its benefits must be subjectively received by faith. For more on this point, see my article here, or listen to this podcast on the subject.
4. Irresistable Grace- On this point, there are both areas of agreement and disagreement. Along with Calvinism, Lutherans affirm that when one is saved, it is the result of sovereign grace overcoming the sinner's fallen will, and not in any way the result of a free decision on the part of man. Lutherans also affirm that God's election will always result in final salvation; in other words, election is immutable. However, we don't limit saving grace to the elect, but teach that grace is universal in scope and intent. For more on that point, listen to this program.
5. Perseverence of the Saints- On this point, as with the fourth, there is both agreement and disagreement. It is unfortunate Lutherans too often confuse this doctrine with the idea of "once saved always saved", and thus reject the entirety of the Reformed doctrine. This idea is that if one "accepts Christ" at some point in their life, they may then live as they please and still gain eternal life. This is not and never was the Calvinistic doctrine. The Calvinist's doctrine of perseverence is the outcome of the doctrine of election. Those whom God elected, He will preserve until the end. All of God's elect will be finally saved. It emphasizes the reality that it is God who preserves the elect in faith. Regarding monergism, there is agreement here. Lutherans too argue that perseverance is the sole work of God, not of man. However, we confess that some do depart from the faith, and lose their salvation. You can read my article on that subject here.
The difference between Lutheran and Reformed theology on these points is that the Lutheran system allows seeming tensions to stand side by side, as both are affirmed in Scripture. God's grace is universal, yet those who are saved are so by grace alone. One who is saved is elected unto salvation unconditionally, and the glory goes to God; one who is damned is lost only because they purposefully rejected God's grace, all the blame goes to the human person.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
The Fundamental Theological Issues which resulted in my "conversion"
Why I became a Lutheran
1. The starting point of Lutheran theology is the starting point of the New Testament Writers
Calvinism starts with the doctrine of God and from there developes it's theological system. This is the fundamental difference between the two great branches of the reformation. In Calvinism, the begining of theology is the glory of God. God glorifies Himself in all He does. He is in control of all that happens. He has decreed all things from all eternity for His own pleasure. This includes the saving of some and damning of others. Christ then comes in the picture to execute God's justice for those whom He has chosen.
Lutheranism begins with Christ. God cannot be known apart from Christ. God does of course do all things for His pleasure and is in control of all, however, we cannot seek Him there. God in His glory is unknown to us. We must not try and study His secret counsel. God must only be sought as He has perfectly revealed Himself in Christ, as testified by the Holy Scriptures. I believe this because this is where the Bible itself leads us. The gospels begin not with God in His glory, but God coming down and revealing Himself to us as a man in the person of Jesus. That is the only way He may be known, as Paul testifies, "He (Christ) is the image of the invisible God." (Colossians 1:15) If He is the image of the invisible God, why search for God apart from Him?
2. Lutheranism rightly emphasizes Universal Grace and Sola Gratia
In Calvinism, election is seen in the hidden decrees of God. This is how the infralapsarian/supralapsarian controversies are possible. Double predestination is nothing more than God's glorifying Himself by saving and damning. The starting point is the doctrine of God.
In Lutheranism, the starting point is the sinfulness of man, and the free grace of God in Christ. God has saved us apart from anything that we can do on our own. We are lost and hopeless children of Adam. This culminates in the doctrine of justification. Election is nothing else than a further explanation of this fact. For example, in Romans we are first told through chapters 3-8, that we are justified by faith alone apart from works. From that starting point, Paul goes even further in defending this doctrine by saying that even our faith was a gift from God. Not even that was contributed! Election further explains and defends the gratuity of grace, and the sinfulness of man. The Bible never describes election in such a systematic and rigid way as Calvinism does. It is always used in a soteriological context. This does not mean that Lutheranism falls into the same errors as Arminianism. Predestination is not based upon mere foreseen faith or good deeds. It is not merely the predestination of a plan. God has predestined specific people unto salvation unconditionally, and will preserve them unto the end.
Calvinism restricts grace to the elect. Christ died only for the elect, and God desires only the salvation of the elect. Passages such as I Timothy 2:4, and 2 Peter 3:9 are explaned to be about the elect alone.
Lutheranism teaches that God truly offers grace to all men. Thus, if a man is damned it is completely his own doing and cannot be attributed to the fact that God never offered him grace. I Timothy 2:4 is clear that God wishes "all men to be saved." In the context of this passage, Paul is urging that we pray for all men, including those in authority. The thought continues through verse 4. If verse four does not literally mean "all men" but only "all kinds of men" then Paul must also mean that we do not pray for all men, but only all kinds of men. This clearly distorts his point. Jesus also weeps over Jerusalem because he desired to gather them to Himself but they refused. Calvinists have often have trouble with this passage, assuming that Christ is talking only of the elect in Jerusalem. Explanations offered by Calvinists, such as James White in The Potter's Freedom are unconvincing. It is obvious that scripture teaches God wills the salvation of all men, and that He has predestined unconditionally a specific group of people unto salvation. If God offers salvation to all, why does He only give the gift of faith and preserve some? We must not answer this question, but accept in humble faith that what God's word says is true. Calvinists have tried to answer this question by either attributing two wills to God or by trying to explain away universalistic passages. Scripture says nothing of contradictions in God, and we must not assume that to be the case.
3. Lutheranism accepts what God says in His word about the Eucharist
The doctrine of Calvin in regards to the Lord's Supper is that Christ is spiritually present when recieving for the believer upon the condition of faith. Christ according to His human nature is only at one place, and that is at the right hand of God. Thus only His divine nature is present. However, through faith, the Spirit causes the believer to ascend to heaven to commune with the whole Christ, divine and human.
Lutheranism teaches that Christ, at the institution of the meal, means, "this IS my body", which Calvinists have taken to mean "this represents my body." Lutherans take Jesus at His word. It IS His body. Fortunately, the apostle Paul also touched on this subject, giving us assurance that the Lutheran interpretation is correct. "Is not the coup 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?" (1 Corinthians 10:15) Notice that there is nothing here about the soul ascending to heaven, or about the Spirit, or about Christ according to His divine nature, or about a "symbol" of the blood and body of Christ. These things are mere inventions of men, escaping the obvious meaning of the text. The Bible says not a word about these things which the reformed add to these passages. We actually participate in His actual body and blood. Body and blood are attributes of the human nature, not the divine. What about the claim that Christ is only present on the condition of faith? Paul here gives us a clear answer, "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." (1 Corinthians 11:27) Those who recieve the Supper without faith still recieve His actual body and blood. Notice that it does not say, "sinning against a symbold of the body and blood."
If this is true, then how can Christ be at so many places at one time according to His human nature? The answer is, "I don't know but the Bible teaches it." Christ being seated at God's right hand means that Christ is seated in a position of authority with the father, not that he is seated on an actual throne next to an actual throne of God the father. This would suggest that God the father Himself has a human body. It is clear in scripture that Christ can do things which a normal man cannot. He at times dissapears in the gospels, and even walks through walls. This does not mean that Christ is a mere phantom or that He is not truly fully human. Rather, due to the union of the person of Christ who is both God and man, He is not limited in the same ways we are. Paul gives a clear expression in his epistle to the Ephesians that Christ's human nature is omnipresent with His divine. "He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens in order that He might fill the whole universe." (Ephesians 4:10) If this means, as Calvinists take it, that Christ at His ascension filled the whole universe only according to His divine nature, this means that before this Christ's divine nature did not fill the universe. If omnipresense is a necessary attribute of deity, this means that Christ was not truly divine! Christ, as God, always filled the universe. It was only after His ascension that the Godman filled all things.
4. Lutherans accept what God teaches about Baptism.
According to basically all protestants, begining with the reformed, Baptism was seen as a sign that did not actually impart grace to the recipient. The Bible talks sometimes of "spirit baptism" and sometimes of "water baptism." Baptism is often seen as something we do in order to show our faith to the world. In Presbyterianism, baptism is a covenant sign, given to all the members of a believing household. It does not impart grace to the infant, but incorporates them into the Church and the family covenant, offering them forgiveness of sins.
As a Lutheran, I can say with the apostle Paul, "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." Baptism actually gives what the Bible says it gives. It is not a mere symbol. As Jesus tells Nicodemus in John 6, man must be born of water and of the Spirit. The water in baptism is not seperated from the Spirit in baptism. Some will object that John baptized with water but Jesus baptized with fire. Does this not mean that John's was water baptism, and Jesus meant an inward change of the heart, without regards to water? No, the difference was redemptive historical. John's baptism did not impart the Spirit as later baptism did because the Spirit was not yet sent as Christ's vicar. This happened at Pentecost. After this point, baptism with water also gave the Spirit. Regeneration and baptism are not seperated in the New Testament as some would believe. In Titus 3, regeneration is said to be a washing, clearly refering to water. The book of 1 Peter has a lengthy discussion of regeneration. He explains in chapter 3 how this regeneration occurs. "...baptism now saves you, not by 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" (1 Peter 3:21) baptism saves, because through it God imparts the Spirit and forgives sin. This being said, can may be saved without baptism? Yes, man is justified by faith alone, however, God gives and sustains faith through means. Those means are word and sacrament.
This being understood, I can baptize my infant with the assurance that he has died and been raised with Christ. Through baptism, my child is given the gift of faith. But can an infant actually believe? That does not seem possible? Well, it may not seem possible, and I certainly do not understand it, however the Bible teaches it. John the baptist leapt in his mother's womb. David also teaches it. "From birth I have relied on you" (Psalm 71:6)
5. Lutherans reject human reason as a means to find God's truth.
These errors in reformed theology come from vain attempts of man to use his own reason to create doctrine. It does not make sense how God could give grace universally and save by grace alone. For this reason, universal grace is rejected. It does not make sense how Christ as a man can be omnipresent. Thus, the clear words of our Lord are rejected. It does not make sense how God could use such a thing as water to give so great a gift! Thus, baptism is made into a mere symbol. It does not make sense how an infant can have faith. Thus, infant baptism is rejected. Some of the most popular attempts at defending reformed theology are philosophical discussions, rather than straight exegesis, for example: John Owen's the Death of Death, and John Edwards' the Freedom of the Will. A fundamental error of the Calvinist side of the reformation is that though they accept the principle of Sola Scriptura, they too often use their reason to make sense of things which do not make sense to mortal man. God's truth is much larger than our brains. This is why Calvinist's begin with rational discussions of the essense and decrees of God, while Lutherans begin with the foolishness of the cross.
1. The starting point of Lutheran theology is the starting point of the New Testament Writers
Calvinism starts with the doctrine of God and from there developes it's theological system. This is the fundamental difference between the two great branches of the reformation. In Calvinism, the begining of theology is the glory of God. God glorifies Himself in all He does. He is in control of all that happens. He has decreed all things from all eternity for His own pleasure. This includes the saving of some and damning of others. Christ then comes in the picture to execute God's justice for those whom He has chosen.
Lutheranism begins with Christ. God cannot be known apart from Christ. God does of course do all things for His pleasure and is in control of all, however, we cannot seek Him there. God in His glory is unknown to us. We must not try and study His secret counsel. God must only be sought as He has perfectly revealed Himself in Christ, as testified by the Holy Scriptures. I believe this because this is where the Bible itself leads us. The gospels begin not with God in His glory, but God coming down and revealing Himself to us as a man in the person of Jesus. That is the only way He may be known, as Paul testifies, "He (Christ) is the image of the invisible God." (Colossians 1:15) If He is the image of the invisible God, why search for God apart from Him?
2. Lutheranism rightly emphasizes Universal Grace and Sola Gratia
In Calvinism, election is seen in the hidden decrees of God. This is how the infralapsarian/supralapsarian controversies are possible. Double predestination is nothing more than God's glorifying Himself by saving and damning. The starting point is the doctrine of God.
In Lutheranism, the starting point is the sinfulness of man, and the free grace of God in Christ. God has saved us apart from anything that we can do on our own. We are lost and hopeless children of Adam. This culminates in the doctrine of justification. Election is nothing else than a further explanation of this fact. For example, in Romans we are first told through chapters 3-8, that we are justified by faith alone apart from works. From that starting point, Paul goes even further in defending this doctrine by saying that even our faith was a gift from God. Not even that was contributed! Election further explains and defends the gratuity of grace, and the sinfulness of man. The Bible never describes election in such a systematic and rigid way as Calvinism does. It is always used in a soteriological context. This does not mean that Lutheranism falls into the same errors as Arminianism. Predestination is not based upon mere foreseen faith or good deeds. It is not merely the predestination of a plan. God has predestined specific people unto salvation unconditionally, and will preserve them unto the end.
Calvinism restricts grace to the elect. Christ died only for the elect, and God desires only the salvation of the elect. Passages such as I Timothy 2:4, and 2 Peter 3:9 are explaned to be about the elect alone.
Lutheranism teaches that God truly offers grace to all men. Thus, if a man is damned it is completely his own doing and cannot be attributed to the fact that God never offered him grace. I Timothy 2:4 is clear that God wishes "all men to be saved." In the context of this passage, Paul is urging that we pray for all men, including those in authority. The thought continues through verse 4. If verse four does not literally mean "all men" but only "all kinds of men" then Paul must also mean that we do not pray for all men, but only all kinds of men. This clearly distorts his point. Jesus also weeps over Jerusalem because he desired to gather them to Himself but they refused. Calvinists have often have trouble with this passage, assuming that Christ is talking only of the elect in Jerusalem. Explanations offered by Calvinists, such as James White in The Potter's Freedom are unconvincing. It is obvious that scripture teaches God wills the salvation of all men, and that He has predestined unconditionally a specific group of people unto salvation. If God offers salvation to all, why does He only give the gift of faith and preserve some? We must not answer this question, but accept in humble faith that what God's word says is true. Calvinists have tried to answer this question by either attributing two wills to God or by trying to explain away universalistic passages. Scripture says nothing of contradictions in God, and we must not assume that to be the case.
3. Lutheranism accepts what God says in His word about the Eucharist
The doctrine of Calvin in regards to the Lord's Supper is that Christ is spiritually present when recieving for the believer upon the condition of faith. Christ according to His human nature is only at one place, and that is at the right hand of God. Thus only His divine nature is present. However, through faith, the Spirit causes the believer to ascend to heaven to commune with the whole Christ, divine and human.
Lutheranism teaches that Christ, at the institution of the meal, means, "this IS my body", which Calvinists have taken to mean "this represents my body." Lutherans take Jesus at His word. It IS His body. Fortunately, the apostle Paul also touched on this subject, giving us assurance that the Lutheran interpretation is correct. "Is not the coup 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?" (1 Corinthians 10:15) Notice that there is nothing here about the soul ascending to heaven, or about the Spirit, or about Christ according to His divine nature, or about a "symbol" of the blood and body of Christ. These things are mere inventions of men, escaping the obvious meaning of the text. The Bible says not a word about these things which the reformed add to these passages. We actually participate in His actual body and blood. Body and blood are attributes of the human nature, not the divine. What about the claim that Christ is only present on the condition of faith? Paul here gives us a clear answer, "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." (1 Corinthians 11:27) Those who recieve the Supper without faith still recieve His actual body and blood. Notice that it does not say, "sinning against a symbold of the body and blood."
If this is true, then how can Christ be at so many places at one time according to His human nature? The answer is, "I don't know but the Bible teaches it." Christ being seated at God's right hand means that Christ is seated in a position of authority with the father, not that he is seated on an actual throne next to an actual throne of God the father. This would suggest that God the father Himself has a human body. It is clear in scripture that Christ can do things which a normal man cannot. He at times dissapears in the gospels, and even walks through walls. This does not mean that Christ is a mere phantom or that He is not truly fully human. Rather, due to the union of the person of Christ who is both God and man, He is not limited in the same ways we are. Paul gives a clear expression in his epistle to the Ephesians that Christ's human nature is omnipresent with His divine. "He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens in order that He might fill the whole universe." (Ephesians 4:10) If this means, as Calvinists take it, that Christ at His ascension filled the whole universe only according to His divine nature, this means that before this Christ's divine nature did not fill the universe. If omnipresense is a necessary attribute of deity, this means that Christ was not truly divine! Christ, as God, always filled the universe. It was only after His ascension that the Godman filled all things.
4. Lutherans accept what God teaches about Baptism.
According to basically all protestants, begining with the reformed, Baptism was seen as a sign that did not actually impart grace to the recipient. The Bible talks sometimes of "spirit baptism" and sometimes of "water baptism." Baptism is often seen as something we do in order to show our faith to the world. In Presbyterianism, baptism is a covenant sign, given to all the members of a believing household. It does not impart grace to the infant, but incorporates them into the Church and the family covenant, offering them forgiveness of sins.
As a Lutheran, I can say with the apostle Paul, "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." Baptism actually gives what the Bible says it gives. It is not a mere symbol. As Jesus tells Nicodemus in John 6, man must be born of water and of the Spirit. The water in baptism is not seperated from the Spirit in baptism. Some will object that John baptized with water but Jesus baptized with fire. Does this not mean that John's was water baptism, and Jesus meant an inward change of the heart, without regards to water? No, the difference was redemptive historical. John's baptism did not impart the Spirit as later baptism did because the Spirit was not yet sent as Christ's vicar. This happened at Pentecost. After this point, baptism with water also gave the Spirit. Regeneration and baptism are not seperated in the New Testament as some would believe. In Titus 3, regeneration is said to be a washing, clearly refering to water. The book of 1 Peter has a lengthy discussion of regeneration. He explains in chapter 3 how this regeneration occurs. "...baptism now saves you, not by 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" (1 Peter 3:21) baptism saves, because through it God imparts the Spirit and forgives sin. This being said, can may be saved without baptism? Yes, man is justified by faith alone, however, God gives and sustains faith through means. Those means are word and sacrament.
This being understood, I can baptize my infant with the assurance that he has died and been raised with Christ. Through baptism, my child is given the gift of faith. But can an infant actually believe? That does not seem possible? Well, it may not seem possible, and I certainly do not understand it, however the Bible teaches it. John the baptist leapt in his mother's womb. David also teaches it. "From birth I have relied on you" (Psalm 71:6)
5. Lutherans reject human reason as a means to find God's truth.
These errors in reformed theology come from vain attempts of man to use his own reason to create doctrine. It does not make sense how God could give grace universally and save by grace alone. For this reason, universal grace is rejected. It does not make sense how Christ as a man can be omnipresent. Thus, the clear words of our Lord are rejected. It does not make sense how God could use such a thing as water to give so great a gift! Thus, baptism is made into a mere symbol. It does not make sense how an infant can have faith. Thus, infant baptism is rejected. Some of the most popular attempts at defending reformed theology are philosophical discussions, rather than straight exegesis, for example: John Owen's the Death of Death, and John Edwards' the Freedom of the Will. A fundamental error of the Calvinist side of the reformation is that though they accept the principle of Sola Scriptura, they too often use their reason to make sense of things which do not make sense to mortal man. God's truth is much larger than our brains. This is why Calvinist's begin with rational discussions of the essense and decrees of God, while Lutherans begin with the foolishness of the cross.
I am going to begin using this thing again
I have decided to continue my blogging, after a very long time of posting nothing. Since the last time I posted here, my theological views have changed. Thus, this blog will now be primarilly a defense of confessional Lutheranism as the correct interpretation of Holy Scripture. My main theological positions in many ways have not changed. I am still a very strong monergist. The five solas of the reformation are at the heart of my belief system. I still believe that God selected individual people unto salvation and will preserve His elect until the end. While the Reformed Confessions speak much truth, I believe them to be in error in a few points, primarilly in dealing with the sacraments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)