Free Lutheran Kindle Books

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

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

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

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

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

A Defense of the Omnipresence of Christ's Human Nature

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.