A Response to Some Question on the Sacraments

I got a recent comment on an old post which I felt was worth responding to with a new post because these are some very commonly asked questions:

1) You said one can be justified by faith alone without needing to be baptize (at least in some special cases). Can you provide instances of these?

The typical response to this question is to point to the thief on the cross. Clearly the thief on the cross did not have the opportunity to accept baptism but was received into paradise regardless. This is the only case I can think of, because all others who become believers in the New Testament have the opportunity to receive baptism. True faith will always result in baptism. Luther says that it is not the lack of baptism that damns but the rejection of it. Baptism is the ordinary means of regeneration but not the only means.

2) Can you please enumerate, based on what Luther taught, the benefit(s) of baptism for adults who have already come to faith in Christ?

This is a somewhat complex question. For Luther, everyone in Germany was baptized as an infant. He didn't face the question in the same way we do today. The Lutheran scholastic tradition is somewhat muddled on this question as well, sometimes seeming to promote baptismal regeneration for infants only, and baptism as a sign and assurance of faith for others. This is one of Charles Hodge's main arguments against a Lutheran view of baptismal regeneration, because it has no clear doctrine of baptism for both infants and believers. I would say, in response to this question, that baptism gives the gospel promise in a concrete way for the believer, seals him with the Holy Spirit, and brings the forgiveness of sins. These things are present through the word but are sealed, confirmed, and strengthened through baptism. It seems clear in the book of Acts, and of the way Paul speaks of baptism, that the presence of the Spirit becomes greater through baptism. He is present in a way he is not beforehand.

I also think that one can speak of regeneration as more than a one time act. Luther speaks of the Christian life as continual repentance and renewal. Thus I think it is valid to say that one was both regenerated through the word, and through baptism (which also is accompanied by the word).

3) Again, with regards to those who have trusted in Christ for Salvation and are not yet baptized, are they saved already, or not yet until they are baptized?

They are saved through the word, which is also a means of regeneration. However, they should not neglect the great benefits given through baptism which does not then become a mere symbol.

4) Do Lutherans believe in mortal sin?

Yes. We don't have a list of sins that are mortal, or believe that the believer is constantly falling out of a state of grace. However, continual unrepentant sin can drive away the Spirit and cause the loss of faith. This does not have to be then remedied through satisfaction or works of penance, but is forgiven when one trusts in the gospel promise. The Lutheran fathers do use the language of mortal and venial sin, but not in the Roman Catholic sense.

5) What is Absolution?

Absolution is a proclamation of the Pastor that he forgives all of our sins for the sake of Christ. This is often called the "office of the keys" and is based on Jesus' words in Matthew 16 and John 20, that whatever sins are forgiven by the disciples are also forgiven in heaven. The words of the pastor become the words of Christ, as through human words, God conveys the benefits of the gospel. This is often called by Lutherans a third sacrament.

6) I was baptized in a Baptist church (which holds that baptism is a mere profession of faith). Does Lutherans accept my baptism as valid?

The validity of baptism depends on God's word and promise, not on the faith or life of the minister. This was defended by St. Augustine against the Donatists who held that an unholy man's baptism was invalid. As long as the word was present, and the Triune name invoked, your baptism is valid.

Sermon on John 10

My sermon on John 10, concerning Jesus as the good Shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep. here

A Quick Update on my Life

I just want to let all of my readers know about the direction of my life and ministry that has developed in the past few months. In April I defended my Masters thesis on the doctrine of Justification in Luther, the New Perspective on Paul, and the early Church, at Trinity Lutheran College in Everett Washington. I passed my defense and received my Degree. I have begun applying for Ph.D. programs, and am pursuing a dissertation on the topic of justification in contemporary theological dialogue dealing with the New Perspective on Paul, the Finnish Interpretation of Luther, and Forde's "Radical Lutheranism." I hope to begin a Ph.D. program this fall.

On the ministry front, I am finishing my vicarage at St. John's Lutheran Church in Westfield, MA. This summer I will be interviewing for ordination in the AALC, (www.taalc.org) a small Confessional Luther church body in full fellowship with the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. I hope to receive a call soon thereafter. I would appreciate all of your prayers through this process.

I also will begin posting audio of my sermons on a regular basis for anyone interested.

A Warning to Lutherans to Avoid Evangelical Errors

I have noticed in certain strains of Evangelical Catholicism some tendencies which tend toward some of the same errors as American Evangelicalism. I don't mean that we have suddenly started singing 7-11 choruses or having our Pastors preach on the latest popular movie in his "Jesus is my homeboy" t-shirt. However, I have noticed a certain strain of emotionalism and obsession with aesthetics which mimics that of mega church culture. Let me explain.

I have, for example, heard some Lutherans say that they "feel more worshipful" when the Pastor is wearing a chausable, or when incense is used during the service. This is then the justification for those practices. Or, I have heard of some who claim to be Lutherans simply because they appreciate the aesthetics of liturgy over dull evangelical worship styles. I have heard faithful Lutheran churches denigrated simply because they don't have enough chanting during the service, or the Pastor chooses an alb and stole over a chausable. Is this not simply buying into the same emotionalism which drives evangelicalism? Stating that you feel God's presence through the beauty of the liturgy, vestments, and church architecture, is not all that different from the concept of feeling God's presence through the emotionally manipulating music. Sure, its a heck of a lot more classy than the contemporary version of it. I'm emotionally moved far more by Bach or Handel than Chris Tomlin or Michael W. Smith. However, the same error can be mimicked.


I'm not saying that emotion shouldn't be part of worship. The beauty of the liturgy is certainly one of the great benefits of being a Lutheran. Beautiful music does and should move us emotionally. Vestments and architecture do convey a sense of the presence of the Holy that isn't present in many modern churches. However, there is a danger when this becomes the overriding concern. That which drives a Lutheran should be the gospel as presented in the Lutheran Confessions, and the administration of the sacraments. The beauty of the worship is a secondary concern. God is present just as much in the small country church with 20 congregants, a Pastor who can't carry a tune, an organist who can't play in an ugly sanctuary, as He is in a beautiful Cathedral full of candles, icons, and incense.

I love high church services with all of the smells and bells. However, I think we have to be careful where our priorities lie. If I were to worship solely according to the beauty and emotion conveyed in worship, I'd be Eastern Orthodox, not Lutheran. But the central concern of ours should be the gospel, which is proclaimed more clearly in the Lutheran church than any other. That is what makes us Lutheran and should keep us Lutheran.

Lutherans don't believe in the third use of the Law?

On the recent Christ the Center podcast, the subject of Lutheranism again came up. This time the subject at hand is that of the third use of the Law. Rev. Nick Batzig rightly showed that the discussions of the three uses of the Law came from Melancthon and were subsequently popularized by Calvin. However, Rev. Batzig made the comment that the Lutheran tradition largely denies the third use of the Law. Is this true?

In recent Lutheran history, there has been a large debate surrounding the issue of a third use of the Law. Gerhard Forde, the chief proponent of so-called "radical Lutheranism" argued that there is no such thing as a "Natural Law" or a third use of the Law. The third use of the Law is not to be found in Luther's theology, but is an unfortunate departure following Melancthon's lead.

The issue really comes down to one question, "what do the Confessions teach?" Lutheranism is not defined by the teachings of Luther. We do not idolize any individual theologian and accept his opinion as de facto truth. The Lutheran movement is a Confessional movement, proclaiming its teaching through the consensus of the Church. This consensus is contained in the Confessional documents contained in the Book of Concord. The Small and Large Catechisms for example are not adopted as Confessions simply because Luther wrote them; rather, they are Confessional documents because the church agrees that they accurately summarize the teachings of Holy Scripture.

The Forde type of theology does not simply propose a new view of the third use of the Law, but a radical restructuring of the sources of Lutheran teaching. Much of the movement places a functional priority of the teachings of Luther over the teachings of the Church. Thus Forde and those following his lead are not to be defined as representative of the Lutheran tradition, but as a new theological tradition altogether.

If you are wondering where the Confessions teach the third use of the Law, look at the Formula of Concord Article VI where the subject is treated, and the third use is rigorously defended.

This does not mean that Reformed and Lutheran perspectives on the Law are identical. The Reformed, following Calvin's lead, have prioritized the third use over the other two. However, the Lutheran tradition has Confessed that the primary use of the Law is always to slay the old Adam, showing the Christian his inadequacy before God. This is because the Law always accuses (lex semper accusat). Even when the Law is used as our guide, showing us what good works we should perform, we are still confronted with the truth that we don't live up to what God commands. We don't love God with our whole heart, and we don't love our neighbors as ourselves. It is only through this honest confession that we can begin to use the Law as our guide.

A Response to Kevin DeYoung and Rick Phillips on Sanctification

I was asked by a reader to respond to a Christ the Center program which discussed the issue of sanctification. The primary argument of the program is that some have over-forensicised the gospel, teaching justification as the gospel alone without regard for sanctification. This programs brings about many of the primary differences which exist among the two Confessions (Lutheran and Reformed) regarding the relation of justification and sanctification.

DeYoung argues that discussions about sanctification by grace/works or monergistic/synergistic sanctification are unnecessary as they import arguments about other soteriological benefits into discussions about the Christian's growth in holiness. For DeYoung, justification is by faith, but sanctification is through faith and striving toward holiness. This is because in justification, language of faith is receptive, receiving Christ's benefits. However, sanctification is active rather than receptive. It's my contention that sanctification, as is justification, is through faith alone. (See Acts 26:18) Not only is it through faith alone, but also occurs through the righteousness of another. It's unfortunate that Luther's contention that alien righteousness both justifies and sanctifies has been lost. For Luther, sanctification occurs through a gradual resurrection of the Christian wherein after being slain by the accusation of the law in one's flesh,God continually raises the Christian through faith in victory over sin, death, and the devil. It is solely through the work of another, one extra nos, that the Christian is sanctified.

Good works never become the essence of the Christian life. For the Reformed, justification occurs as a one time act wherein one is imputed righteous and forgiven. Yes, there are several "signs" that God gives as a reminder and assurance of this past forgiveness, such as the Supper, however, forgiveness is not continually given. For Luther, forgiveness is something that is continually received. As the Christian hears God's word proclaimed, and receives Christ in the Eucharist, God again forgives the Christians' sin and brings him victory over sin. For the Reformed, the Christian life becomes about one's works in light of once for all justification; for the Lutheran, the Christian life is about God's continual outpouring of grace through word and sacrament.

Sanctification should not be equated to the Christian's good works. Rather, the Christian's good works are a result of God's act of sanctification in us. As God continually forgives us, and resurrects us from sin to life, we respond with loving acts toward our neighbors. The Christian life is one of Eucharisto, of acts of love and service given as a thank offering for God's work on our behalf.

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

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.