Pages

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Shiver me timbers!

(Posted on behalf of Steve Hays.)

Josh Strodtbeck recently gave a series of interviews to the iMonk in which he attempted to compare and contrast Lutheranism with Calvinism.1 As a rule I don't target Lutheranism. That's not one of my priorities.

As a Calvinist I obviously have some basic disagreements with Lutheranism. However, the areas of disagreement are roughly paralleled in other theological traditions (i.e. Catholicism, Arminianism), so I find it more useful to target those traditions instead since they reproduce some of the same mistakes (along with many others), minus the many compensatory virtues of the Lutheran tradition.

Since, however, Josh has initiated a comparative critique, using Lutheranism as his standard of comparison (naturally), I'll take the occasion to interact with his critique.

Josh has every right to offer his criticisms of the Reformed tradition. Calvinism must acquit its claims before the bar of Scripture.

Also, since Josh is a very bright, articulate, and well-read disputant, the case for Lutheranism is in good hands. It's not as if I'm picking on a weak opponent. To judge by what I've read on his blog, he's more than able to hold his own with most-all of his critics. Indeed, if he didn't suffer from coprolalia,2 I'd be happy to add his blog to the blogroll over at Triablogue.

I also remember reading that he used to be a Calvinist himself. I'm not quite sure why he swam the Rhine. Maybe with a Teutonic surname like Strodtbeck, it was inevitable that sooner or later he would succumb to the irrepressible urge of the Lutheran Pon farr.3

Perhaps if some enterprising Reformed Baptist had kidnapped him and christened him MacStrodtbeck or van Strodtbeck, he would still be in our camp. However, we can console ourselves in the knowledge that whenever he gets to heaven, Brother Strodtbeck will resume his career as a five-point Calvinist.
If you look at Calvin's Institutes, he begins by defining God philosophically, much like Thomas Aquinas does in his Summa. That is, he defines God in terms of various attributes.
How is it "philosophical" to define God in terms of the divine attributes? Doesn't God reveal his attributes in Scripture? Doesn't God define himself by his revealed attributes?
That in itself makes Calvinism more prone to seeing theology as the development of an abstract system of thought. Again, the similarities to Thomas should be obvious. Of course, just listing attributes of God gets kind of dull after a while, so you have to begin discussing his actions at some point. But since the system itself begins with philosophically defined and described attributes, the theologian is naturally going to gravitate toward discussing things in terms of the attributes.
i) How is it more philosophical to go from what God is (i.e. attributes) to what God does (i.e. deeds) than vice versa?

ii) Why does Josh focus on Calvin's theological method when, at a later stage in the interviews, he will say that contemporary Calvinism is far more influenced by the Westminster Standards than it is by Calvin?

iii) As Josh will later point out, covenant theology is a central plank of the Westminster Standards. And what God does is hardly incidental to covenant theology.

iv)And while we're on the subject of philosophy, what about Gerhard's introduction of Aristotelian categories into Lutheran theology?
I think the nature of the human mind is such that one, maybe two or three more, of the attributes will become dominant, and for Calvinists, this attribute is divine sovereignty, especially because Calvinism as a theological tradition quickly became defined partly in terms of opposition to synergism and a strong emphasis on the ontological transcendence of God. This is manifested most sharply in the Westminster Standards, which in both the Confession and the Catechisms define God in terms of his attributes and derive the rest of Christian doctrine out of God's decrees.
i) It's certainly true that, to a great extent, the emphasis in Reformed theology has been conditioned by its sparring partners (e.g. Catholicism, Arminianism, Amyraldism).

ii) But I would like to see Josh demonstrate the claim that the Westminster Standards derive the rest of Christian doctrine from God's decrees. Is it really that axiomatic?
You see this show up in a number of places. The most obvious one is TULIP and the obsession of some Calvinists with predestination and the ordo salutis.
i) This is a charge I run across quite often—especially at the "Reformed Catholic" kennel. I would like to know which Calvinists are obsessed with TULIP. Is he referring to traditional Reformed theologians? Contemporary Reformed theologians? Reformed epologists?

Could he favor us with a few names? This allegation gets thrown around very freely without any documentation. That is how legends evolve.

ii) There is also a circularity to the charge. It's like members of the news media who constantly badmouth the war effort, then appeal to the unpopularity of the war to justify their hostile coverage. But, of course, the unpopularity of the war effort is owing in large part to the hostile coverage.

Likewise, it's only natural for Calvinism to regularly defend those aspects of Calvinism that regularly come under attack. Are we obsessed with TULIP, or is it our critics who are obsessed with TULIP?
The dominating concern in traditional formulations of the ordo is that God be absolutely sovereign in each step so that his desires are in no way frustrated. Less obvious is the Calvinist use of the Law. A sovereign is chiefly in the business of promulgating laws, whether those laws are active, such as the decree of predestination, or passive, such as the prohibition of murder. For some Calvinists, this means an emphasis on self-reflection to see if one's law-keeping sufficiently proves one's regeneration and election. For others, this means rewriting the doctrine of justification in terms of covenant fidelity or downplaying the significance of justification in theology.
i) How is the emphasis on God's role as a lawgiver in tension with an emphasis on justification? Isn't justification a forensic category? How can you have doctrine of justification by faith apart from its grounding in a divine lawgiver?

ii) What Calvinists "rewrite the doctrine of justification in terms of covenant fidelity"? Is he talking about traditional Calvinism or the Federal Vision?
It often means rigorous church discipline, and it can even manifest itself by discussing the entirety of one's knowledge of God and pursuit of the Christian life almost wholly in terms of law-keeping.
i) I agree with Josh that Presbyterians can get carried away with church discipline. But is the problem with church discipline, per se, or with the imagined infractions that are subject to church discipline?

ii) Is rigorous church discipline a bad thing? Does Josh favor a lax and permissive policy—like the ELCA or PCUSA?
The most obvious place is the doctrine of baptism. Your typical Calvinistic treatment of baptism heavily emphasizes the imposition of covenant obligations on the parents, the child, and the church. Depending on who you read, the "grace" of baptism is little more than being in the community where the covenant stipulations are upheld.
This may be true in some Presbyterian circles. It's less obviously applicable to Reformed Baptistery.
Luther shied away from abstractions, and we Lutherans inherited that. Not just sovereignty, but the attributes of God in general are simply not of extreme importance.
But if God has revealed his attributes in Scripture, then isn't this neglect unscriptural?
If you look at Luther's catechisms, he actually defines God in terms of Creation, the Cross, and the Church. Compare that to Q7 in the Westminster LC. So for Lutherans, theology is done in terms of God's relation to us. That means theology never gets away from Law and Gospel, from justification, from the incarnation of Jesus Christ. If you look at the discussion of election in the Formula of Concord, its driving concern is not maintaining God's sovereignty, but rather how election is to be preached within the framework of Law and Gospel.
Isn't that a rather agenda-driven theological programme? And the danger of a theological agenda is that it tends to be reductionistic. Justification is not the only soteric category in Scripture. What about election, redemption, regeneration, adoption, sanctification, reconciliation, propitiation, and glorification?

Several years ago, Robert Schuller wrote a notorious book4 in which he tried to reorient Christian theology away from Pauline theology because he thought Pauline theology was too negative. It was bad pastoral theology. Too judgmental. Too much guilt-tripping. We need to get back to Jesus.

Obviously Josh wouldn't agree with that way of doing theology. But isn't his own approach just as prejudicial?
That's why Chemnitz is comfortable with basically saying that God declares our election to us in the preaching of the Gospel and admonishes against rational speculation on the inscrutable decrees of God apart from Christ, who is made known to us in the Gospel and the Sacraments.
That's a standard caricature of Calvinism, as if our commitment to predestination is due to our unbridled "speculation" over the "inscrutable" decrees of God. Now, some folks think the supra/infra debate is guilty of that, but in the main, Calvinism is committed to predestination because predestination is a revealed truth.
So for Lutherans, divine sovereignty isn't a significant driving force in theology.
And why is that supposed to be a good thing?
As we see it, God's attributes are in some sense inscrutable.
i) That's a cop-out. Calvinism doesn't deny that "God's attributes are in some sense inscrutable." But this doesn't excuse us from ignoring what God has revealed about himself.

ii) Moreover, is that the real issue? Isn't the real issue the point of tension between sacramental grace and sovereign grace? Sacramental grace is indiscriminate and resistible, whereas sovereign grace is discriminating and irresistible. Since Lutheran theology is committed to the objectification of grace in the sacraments, it must fuzz over predestination.

So isn't the professed agnosticism respecting God's "inscrutable" decrees and attributes something of a charade? Far from being agnostic on the subject, Lutheranism has taken a very definite position on the nature of saving grace, according to which the means of grace (i.e. Word and sacrament) channel saving grace—as a result of which it's necessary to demote gratia particularis in order to promote gratia universalis?
Theology begins and lives where God is known, which is in Christ given to us in the Word and the Sacraments, not in abstract formulations of attributes or rigorous, logically consistent assertions about the nature of divine decrees.
i) And what about his Word? What does he say about himself in his Word? What about his self-revelation in Isaiah or John or Romans or Ephesians?

ii) Is Lutheran theology really that indifferent to logical consistency? For example, Lutheranism vehemently rejects reprobation as inconsistent with gratia universalis. But if Lutherans don't care about logical rigor, then why not affirm reprobation alongside gratia universalis, just as they affirm election alongside gratia universalis? It's seems to me that Lutheranism is very selective in its harmonistic methodology.
In the more common versions of TULIP, justification is an instantaneous, one-time event done by God alone based solely on his eternal, sovereign will and thus ceases being relevant after your conversion.
i) Is Josh saying that, according to Lutheran theology, justification is akin to sanctification? That it's progressive in character?

ii) What makes him think that, in Calvinism, justification is irrelevant after your conversion? Why wouldn't a Calvinist thank God every day for his justification in Christ? Why wouldn't that lay a firm foundation for his subsequent walk of faith? Motivate him to more forward?
In other formulations, justification is a decree made by God after a lifetime of sovereignly directed covenant-keeping.
What formulation is he referring to?
So already, the idea that the pastor's actions have anything to do with justification is taken out of the picture.
Once again, why is that a bad thing? Why should our justification before God be contingent on what a pastor does or fails to do? Why should a pastor mediate our justification? Why should a pastor be the instrument of our salvation or damnation?
So what is there for the pastor to do? Without justification, things can become extremely Law-driven. For example, there are some Reformed pastors who envision the Church as a home-school cult where even suggesting that there are benefits to the local public school gets you excommunicated. That simply doesn't happen in Lutheranism. I know secondhand of a woman from a Reformed church that got excommunicated for not articulating baptism exactly right, and for the Reformed, excommunication means being driven out of the community.
I agree with Josh that this is legalistic. On the other hand, it's a very odd example for him to choose considering a later statement he makes:
First, Lutherans believe that you need to believe in what the Eucharist is in order to receive any benefit from it. We would regard anyone who openly disbelieves in the Eucharist as not ready to receive it (we do not believe that the Real Presence is simply a theological opinion; it is what the Eucharist fundamentally is). This isn't just a fellowship issue; it's a pastoral issue.
So isn't Josh admitting—even insisting—that according to Lutheran church discipline and Lutheran pastoral theology, a theologically accurate and articulate understanding of communion is a precondition for being a communicant? Why isn't that directly parallel to the "bad" example of legalism he cited in reference to Calvinism?
As I said before, we Lutherans are huge on justification, and we believe that God justifies man by forgiving his sins in the Word and Sacraments. Preaching, baptizing, and communing are obviously pastoral actions, so the pastor sees himself chiefly in the business of justification.
How is the administration of the sacraments "obviously" a pastoral action? Where does the NT actually assign or confine those actions to the pastorate? Isn't it pretty precarious for Lutheran theology to erect such a soaring edifice over an invisible foundation?

Incidentally, I don't object if we delegate that task to the pastor, but from what I can tell, that's a tradition—nothing more. Where does the NT ever say that a pastor must officiate at baptism or communion? It doesn't.

There's a difference between what the Bible permits, and what it prescribes. Since Scripture is silent on this issue, we are free to delegate that task to the pastor. But there's nothing mandatory about that social convention.
God is literally forgiving people's sins through him.
Where does the Bible say that?
When you go to a Lutheran pastor and blurt out all that heinous evil you've been engaged in for the last ten years, the first thing he's going to do is forgive your sins in Christ's name.
Where does the Bible mandate auricular confession?
With a typical Calvinistic emphasis on sovereignty as, a Calvinist just plain can't do that.
And how is that a bad thing?
After all, you might not be elect. Christ might not have died for your sins, and thus God may not forgive you at all. So any language about forgiveness and justification is so heavily qualified by predestination language as to make it an abstract conditional formulation you can't grab onto and apply to yourself.
Actually, the denial of priestly absolution doesn't depend on either election or special redemption. There are other reasons for rejecting priestly absolution. I may not believe that Scripture has vested a fallible clergyman with that kind of authority over another man's eternal fate.

Does Josh really think that heaven must mechanically rubberstamp every priestly absolution—regardless of the circumstances? What if the confessionalist isn't truly contrite, but just wants to wipe the slate clean so that he can continue to sin with impunity?

Suppose I'm a Lutheran serial killer. I commit murder Monday through Friday, but go to confession on Saturday, and take communion on Sunday.5 Does God honor my diligent attempt to game the system? Are his hands tied?
Besides, the Reformed have traditionally viewed absolution as God's sovereign right and thus not really the business of the pastor.
Yes, and what's wrong with that, exactly? Sounds good to me!
In less election-obsessed versions of Calvinism, the Law is much more central to pastoral actions than it is in Lutheranism. For example, in Chapter XIV of the Second Helvetic Confession on Sacerdotal Confession & Absolution, the "Gospel" is defined mostly with law terms, being reconciled to God is understood as "faithful obedience," and most importantly, the Office of the Keys is understood as opening "the Kingdom of Heaven to the obedient and shut it to the disobedient." That's not to downplay what it says about absolution and the obvious influences of the Lutheran Reformation there, but this particular Reformed confession hedges its justification language with obedience language in a way that we Lutherans simply don't. I think that's tied up with divine sovereignty–God is a lawgiver who demands to be obeyed.
i) To begin with, the more I read Josh's interview, the more he sounds like Zane Hodges. Of course, they arrive at the same conclusion by somewhat different routes, but what's the ultimate difference?

ii) How does Reformed theology "hedge" on justification? Reformed theology doesn't confound justification with obedience. Rather, Reformed theology says that there's a "benefits' package" to which every child of God is party. Every true Christian is, was, or will be elect, regenerate, redeemed, justified, sanctified, glorified. If you have one, you have them all.

Everyone who is justified is sanctified, or vice versa. If you're not justified, you're not sanctified, and vice versa. These invariably go together, but they do not intersect at any point. So Reformed theology preserves justification in complete, self-contained integrity.
If God says I'm baptized in his name, that's his body & blood for the forgiveness of my sins, and that my sins are forgiven, who am I to argue?
Does Josh believe that every baptized Lutheran and Lutheran communicant is automatically forgiven? Does Josh draw any distinction between a nominal believer and a true believer, or—for that matter—a closet unbeliever or open unbeliever?

What about all those liberal Lutheran Bible critics of from the 19th and 20th centuries? Are they all entitled to the assurance of absolution as long as they've gone through the motions? Are we saved by pronouncing the right ritual words and performing the right ritual deeds? Is Josh's soteriology ultimately that crass and perfunctory?
So if you look at Westminster, it bases assurance on anything and everything except the proclamation from the pulpit that Jesus died for you…because the pastor isn't allowed to say that. Sure, it mentions "promises," but when a Lutheran says "promise," he means "an unassailable promise God has made to you in Christ." When Westminster says "promise," it means "a promise contingent upon fulfillment of covenant conditions." In that context, the only assurance a Calvinist can have is the kind based on a positive self-assessment.
i) Is Josh a universalist?

ii) Josh acts as if the gospel promises are unconditional. Are they?

Isn't forgiveness predicated on faith and repentance? Are you still forgiven even though you're faithless and impenitent?

If Josh answers "no" to either (i) or (ii), then isn't he offering men and women a false assurance of salvation?
The scary thing about TULIP is that uncertainty about predestination means uncertainty about the atonement. For the Calvinist, as long as his predestination is up in the air, so is his atonement. So the only recourse Westminster gives him is a subjective experience, which obviously is subject to uncertainty.
i) Josh doesn't believe that universal atonement entails universal salvation, does he? So universal atonement cannot ground the assurance of salvation.

ii) Doesn't Josh think that you at least need to be a believer to be saved? That you must believe in Jesus? Believe the promises?

Isn't faith a subjective state of mind? Can we really eliminate the subjective dimension altogether? If we eliminate subjective experience, don't we thereby eliminate faith and repentance?

iii) Are we entitled to unconditional assurance? Assurance irrespective of one's faith or fidelity?
I knew a guy who went to a large PCA church here in Kentucky. We got to talking, and I straight-out asked him, "Did Jesus die for your sins?" His answer: "I know that if God wants me to, I'll be saved." It was just depressing. To him, all the passages in the Gospels where Jesus is forgiving people left and right aren't talking to him.
Well, I'll grant you that the guy Josh spoke to gave the wrong answer. So what's the right answer? Is the right answer that all the gospel promises are made to believers and unbelievers alike?

Why didn't Josh ask him a question like, "Do you believe that if you repent of your sins and trust in Jesus to save you from your sins, Jesus will save you?"
They're merely historical narratives of Jesus forgiving some other person's sins. The Gospels are a dead letter to him. And I think that's how most Calvinists look at the Bible, and it's reflected in their sermons. The Bible is largely a compilation of historical information, data for systematic theology, and conditions to fulfill.
Whose sermons? Calvin? Spurgeon? Whitefield? John Owen? Jonathan Edwards? Richard Sibbes? Martyn Lloyd-Jones? John Piper? What about the inspirational writing of Bunyan, Kuyper, and Samuel Rutherford?
For Calvinists, the Supper is just like the atonement. If you're not elect, then you're not regenerate, then you don't have true faith, so Jesus isn't even there to begin with, and he sure as heck isn't telling you your sins are forgiven.
Does Josh think the sacraments are like redeemable tin cans, where if you round up enough sacraments, like discarded tin cans in a shopping cart, and turn them in on your deathbed, you will collect your heavenly dues?

Does he think that a communicant who has no faith is still forgiven? Is Jesus absolving the faithless and impenitent among us?
Westminster's doctrine of communion is actually nearly identical to Trent's (remember that the Sacrifice of the Mass and Holy communion are practically two different sacraments in Trent)–it's all about making you a better person and strengthening your soul with nary a word about forgiveness. The reason Luther was so insistent on the objective, identifiable real presence is that he knew that if you make the reality of the sacrament dependent on your own faith, you lost the whole thing and would be stuck obsessing on whether or not you really had faith rather than believing what Jesus said about "for the forgiveness of sins."
So if Hitler consumes a communion wafer, his sins are remitted? No questions asked? Signed, sealed, and delivered to heaven by certified mail?
The same goes for baptism. Mostly what baptism does is place a bunch of conditions on you and your parents. Anything it promises is either conditional or not a promise of forgiveness of resurrection. I've even heard some Calvinists say that if you're not elect, you didn't get a real baptism; you just got wet. We Lutherans always look to baptism as establishing us in Christ and as God declaring us his forgiven children. We take "therefore reckon yourselves dead to sin and alive to Christ" very seriously when it comes to baptism, so all this vague stuff about "inauguration into the covenant community" isn't anything we have time for.
And what if a baptized Lutheran doesn't take the Pauline dictum very seriously? Does it make any difference to his "objective" state of grace whether or not he takes it seriously?
I think by this point, people know what I'd say. I'd answer by saying, "Listen to what God says to you in the Word, and believe in what he gives you in the Sacraments."
What if no one in the audience is listening to Josh's exhortation? Do they need to listen? Or would that reduce the objectivity of grace to a conditional promise? Isn't listening a "subjective experience."
Obviously, most Christians aren't taught to believe that the minister has any kind of divinely established mandate to forgive sins, and they mostly look at the sacraments as impositions of obligation, memorials, or divine ordinances you obey in order to testify of your own faith. We believe that God is the one testifying in the sacraments, and he's testifying to you and to the world that your sins have been nailed to the Cross.
What if you don't confess to the minister? Is that a condition of salvation? If God has already testified to the world in Word and sacrament that our sins have been nailed to the cross, then why is salvation contingent on priestly absolution?
That's not too far off from Reformed "signs and seals" language, but their language is tempered with limited atonement and/or conditional covenants so that there's some kind of disconnect between between the sacraments and an objective, divine declaration of absolution and righteousness. So the signs are only "effectual" for the elect, or their promise is contingent upon good covenant standing, or something.
Is Josh claiming that the sacraments are "effectual" for everyone who was ever baptized or took communion? In what sense are they effectual for everyone? Is a wafer your nonrefundable ticket to heaven? Instant salvation—just add saliva?

I keep hoping that Josh's position isn't as bad as it sounds, but he's so insistent and persistent that I begin to wonder.
The big criticism from all the other traditions–Catholic, Reformed, Wesleyan, you name it–is that if God were to just go around recklessly forgiving sinners, if people were allowed to believe in their salvation just because Jesus got nailed to a cross, that would encourage people to sin more. The answer, of course, is putting a hedge around Jesus. Basically, you tell people they can't have him unless they shape up. There are volumes and volumes of literature from all sides of Christianity about the conditions placed on forgiveness. Living up to covenants, doing penance, detaching your soul from sin, committing your life fully to obedience, and so on. We absolutely do not believe in that sort of thing. Jesus didn't put covenant conditions on the paralytic before forgiving him. He didn't tell the thief on the cross to shape up. He just absolved them. Just don't call God a liar.
But there are Biblical conditions placed on forgiveness. Forgiveness is conditioned on faith and repentance. And isn't obedience a necessary element in Christian discipleship? Josh would do well to scale back on the invective ("Just don't call God a liar") lest the admonition recoil on his own head.

No, we don't have to "shape" up before we come to Christ. But sanctification is not an optional accessory in the Christian life—like Mag wheels or leather upholstery.
Right, so where's election come into assurance? I think you learn to be confident of your election as you learn to be confident that what God says to you in the Gospel and the Sacraments is true, and that he is indeed saying those things to you.
True for whom? True for John Spong?
God speaks, and you say "Amen."
What if you don't say "Amen"? Is Josh placing a "condition on forgiveness"? Does that introduce a note of uncertainty into the transaction?
I believe I'm elect, because God's called me through the Gospel.
Wouldn't it be better to say I believe I'm elect because I'm answering God's Gospel call? That my response is the mark of election?
When I hear Luke, that paralytic is me. So when Jesus says "Man, your sins are forgiven," he's not just saying it to the paralytic in the story, but to me and everyone else who sees himself lying helpless on that mat. So I believe in my own election, and I'm not afraid to say that.
I don't have any particular problem with that application, but it's a conditional application all the same.
There's always the big question mark about apostasy. No matter what you believe about election, that one can keep you up at night. Christians who were just as good as you have fallen away, so why shouldn't you fall away, too? I think the answer lies in the fact that God's promises don't come out of the sky; they're made in the Church, because that's where his Word is spoken. My answer to that question isn't to try and find a logical resolution or some quality that differentiates me from them; it's to go to church.
Go to which church? Josh talks about certainty, yet he has staked his certainty in the sacraments. Yet that raises its own set of uncertainties. How does he determine a valid sacrament? How does he determine a valid ordination?
Christians are elect because Christ is elect, and so if I decide I don't want to be where Christ is because I think church is stupid or I'd rather live a life of flagrant sin, I'm counting myself out by my own unbelief.
Is he saying that "flagrant sin" is damnatory? But he keeps telling us that we have these objective, unconditional promises in the Word and sacraments.

Incidentally, where does Scripture say that Christ is elect?
I know most people want a logical answer, but I just don't have one. Keep going to church and believe what God says to you there if you want your troubles about apostasy to bother you less. That's why it's absolutely essential to go to a church where the Gospel is preached and the sacraments are administered according to Christ's institution and not let unfaithful pastors stay in power.
Well, that's fairly good advice, but he's stipulating that certain conditions must be met to avoid apostasy, and he's introducing an element of uncertainty in his appeal to the valid administration of the sacraments.
As I've said before, the pastor is an ambassador, given specific duties to perform. This is established when Jesus told his disciples in Matthew, "Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." John's version is even more transparent: "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld." We take these words of Jesus very seriously in the Lutheran church.
Do they take these words of Jesus very seriously? Where did Jesus make this promise to the pastorate?
But I am left thinking: Why is election defined as God choosing some for salvation and some for damnation.

In the OT, God elects/chooses a nation to fulfill the Abrahamic promise to bless the nations. Israel is chosen not in spite of the other nations but in order to bless the nations (with the only hope for humanity, knowlege of the one true God). Election then has a missional sense. Why do we then go to the NT and give it the sense of divine determinism.
i) This assumes that OT election was indeterministic.

ii) It also assumes that "election" in the OT is identical with "election" in the NT. But Paul distinguishes between different levels of "election."
Was Paul's theology formed in a vacuum? Paul spent years with the Christian communities in Antioch and Jerusalem. Doesn't it make sense that the synoptic tradition along with Paul's Damascus road experience would have provided the core of his theology?
Why? Paul was an OT scholar in his own right. And he received his knowledge of the gospel by direct revelation.
Doesn't it seem logical that the parable of the seeds and the soil, which appears in ALL FOUR gospels, would have informed his belief about God's initiative in salvation (the sower) and man's response (the nature of the soil)?
Why does Josh think the parable of the sower is inconsistent with Reformed theology?
Paul knew Jesus as Lord and God and had to know of Jesus' weeping over Jerusalem's refusal to find rest and refuge in him. Did he think Jesus was faking it or something?
Is Lk 19:41 Josh's best argument against the Reformed interpretation of Isa 40-48, or the predestinarian passages in the Gospel of John, or the predestinarian passages in Acts, or Rom 9-11, or Eph 1-2, &c?

Since Jesus is the God-man, he has human emotions. We already know that. How does that negate Biblical predestination?
One of the main problems that I have with hardcore Calvanism (and another other kind of systematic theology that does the same thing) is that pictures God sitting on a throne emotionlessly picking and choosing, saving and damning, killing and delivering. That is not the God of the OT that constantly bears his heart through his prophets.
i) Is Josh a neotheist? I don't think so. How would Josh debate a neotheist? He seems to share the same hermeneutical assumptions as open theism.
That is not the God revealed in Jesus' parables. That God runs to prodigal sons in great fits of emotion.
Does Josh really think that God is subject to "great fits of emotion"? Is God manic-depressive? Is God on Prozac? What happens if you have the ill-fortune to catch God on a bad day?

Is it better for God to be "killing and delivering" as long as he's emotional about it? A passionate executioner?

This is not to deny that God may have something selectively analogous to human emotions. But unless you turn Yahweh into Zeus, it is necessary to make allowance for poetry and hyperbole. A parable is fictitious. And it's often hyperbolic by design. Didn't they teach him that at seminary?

ii) Josh's complaint reveals another problem. His attack on Reformed theology is almost entirely pragmatic. He disapproves of certain consequences which follow from Calvinism. But how is that any way to judge if Calvinism is true to Scripture?

For example, Josh is a critic of the ELCA. But liberal Lutherans revile the consequences of Josh's confessional Lutheranism, do they not? They think it's antiquated, bigoted, judgmental, patriarchal, narrow-minded, sexist, intolerant, unscientific, homophobic, heteronormative, &c. Is Josh measuring Reformed theology by the same yardstick he's using on Lutheranism?

Josh generally strikes me as a pretty thoughtful guy, but in reading through his interview, he doesn't seem to have thought through his theological position as thoroughly as I'd expect.



1 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/gods-sovereignty-in-lutheranism-an-interview-with-josh-strodtbeck-1
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/god's-sovereignty-in-lutheranism-an-interview-with-josh-strodtbeck-2
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/god's-sovereignty-in-lutheranism-an-interview-with-josh-strodtbeck-3-assurance
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/god's-sovereignty-in-lutheranism-an-interview-with-josh-strodtbeck-4-election-and-salvation
2 Coprolalia is a medical condition which is disproportionately represented in Catholic, Lutheran and emergent church populations. Although it may have a genetic point of origin, it appears to be contagious.
3 As one can see from my Scottish surname, I was ultimately unable to resist the Reformed Pon farr.
4 Self-Esteem: The New Reformation.
5 As Lutheran serial killers go, I happen to be a fine lay theologian, with a well-marked copy of the Book of Concord. I'm also a regular lurker at weblogs like Cyberbrethren and Metalutheran.

44 comments:

  1. I think the nature of the human mind is such that one, maybe two or three more, of the attributes will become dominant, and for Calvinists, this attribute is divine sovereignty, especially because Calvinism as a theological tradition quickly became defined partly in terms of opposition to synergism and a strong emphasis on the ontological transcendence of God. This is manifested most sharply in the Westminster Standards, which in both the Confession and the Catechisms define God in terms of his attributes and derive the rest of Christian doctrine out of God's decrees.

    This is cute, but isn't this just regurgitating Heppe, Schweitzer, et.al.? What about Muller's rebuttal:

    "those schooars who have argued that the doctrine of the attributes provides, together with the doctrine of the eternal decree, the initial point of departure for a purely deductive systme of theology have thoroughly misunderstood the Protestant orthodox system." (Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 4, p. 415).

    As I recall, this is hardly a "Reformed" rebuttal. Lutheranism scholars today are agreeing with Muller, for example: Lowell C. Green, David P. Scaer, David Bagchi.

    Beza is usually the one at whose feet this charge is laid, but Beza antedates the Westminster Standards, so it seems to me this historiographical thesis is pretty schizophrenic, not to mention ill-informed.

    And isn't Melanchthon the one who is given the distinction of developing the loci method in presenting theology? Doesn't this carry over into Reformed theology? And if so, since when did Calvin become the standard of comparison by which to judge the Reformed tradition as a whole?

    If you look at Luther's catechisms, he actually defines God in terms of Creation, the Cross, and the Church. Compare that to Q7 in the Westminster LC

    What about the Heidelberg Catechism? The Westminster is hardly the catechism qua catechism of the Reformed churches.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Josh refers to how particular passages of scripture are "taken very seriously" by Lutherans. I hear the same from other people, like Roman Catholics. And these claims often aren't accompanied by any exegesis.

    Somebody who believes that every Christian should sell all of his possessions and give the money to the poor could make the same sort of claim about Luke 18:22. He could claim that he "takes Luke 18 very seriously". Or somebody who takes John 13:4-15 as a justification for a permanent church practice in which forgiveness of sins is attained by means of having your feet washed by a pastor could claim to be "taking John 13 very seriously". Or what would "taking Matthew 5:29-30 very seriously" look like?

    People can take a passage seriously by interpreting it in a seriously wrong manner. You don't have to interpret a passage in a highly literal way or take it as the establishment of a permanent church practice, for example, in order to be taking the passage seriously. Sometimes interpreting a passage in a less literal manner or taking it as a unique historical event rather than the establishment of an ongoing church practice, for instance, is the correct way of taking the passage seriously, since that sort of interpretation makes more sense of the text and context.

    And I agree with Josh's citation of the forgiven paralytic. Like the paralytic, we attain justification through faith alone, prior to baptism. We see that same process in other passages in the gospels and elsewhere (Genesis 15:6, Luke 7:50, 18:10-14, Acts 10:44-48, 15:7-11, 19:2, Galatians 3:2-9, etc.). Justification occurs through faith alone, prior to baptism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let me narrow in on one point you address - confession/absolution.

    I think it would be helpful to remember that Calvin was a proponent of Confession/Absolution and his discussion of the same in his institutes is consistent, if not identical to, the Lutheran view of the the practice (See 3.4.2 - 3.4.14)

    No less than Dr. Horton have suggested that the reformed return to this practice.

    That said, I don't think most in the reformed/presbyterian world would be comfortable with private confession/absolution. As such, I think that lends creedance to the point that tradition is generally more influence by the Westminster standards and Zwingli than Calvin.

    Calvin did sign the unaltered Augsburg Confession after all.

    To be sure there are some differences but I don't think that they are as pronounced as some would characterize. Frankly, noting how the traditions have shifted in theology over the years I think if Calvin were here (in the U.S.) today he would be much more comfortable in a confessional Lutheran church. I think most reformed/presbyterian worship and theology would be too close to the enthusiats and anabaptists for his tastes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've heard quite a few sermons on TULIP and first got converted to Calvinism by books by guys who talk about TULIP 99% of the time.

    Muller refutes a caricature of the actual claim. No one says that Calvinism is a purely deductive system starting with divine attributes. The attributes are dominant in most Reformed thought, but I never said that every Reformed idea is simply logically deduced from them.

    Westminster is more important in the USA than Heidelberg. I was responding to a question in the American context, not giving a "history of ideas" account.

    Reformed Baptists are only half-Calvinists, so I don't much see their views of baptism as normative.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Calvin did sign the unaltered Augsburg Confession after all.

    It was slightly altered - Calvin signed a version known as the Variata

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yet that raises its own set of uncertainties. How does he determine a valid sacrament?

    I doubt if this is a problem to people who have a high view of the sacraments. This is a problem too with people who see them as ordinances. Even if one does not believe in the assurance that the sacraments bring, one would wonder if one is properly doing the ordinance.

    If we can not determine what is a valid sacrament or ordinance, the Christian church is in a messy state. Fortunately that is not the case.

    We know the sacrament is not valid on our own, it is valid by the Words of Christ, and not within the status of the one giving it nor the one receiving it.

    My point is simply that whatever your denomination might be, be it credo or paedo baptist (for example), our denominations have definitions on what a valid baptism might be.

    ReplyDelete
  7. L P CRUZ SAID:

    “I doubt if this is a problem to people who have a high view of the sacraments.”

    To the contrary, this problem is generated by those who hold a “high” view of the sacraments.

    “This is a problem too with people who see them as ordinances.”

    To the contrary, since they have a “lower” view of the sacraments, they don’t have the same stake in outcome.

    “Even if one does not believe in the assurance that the sacraments bring, one would wonder if one is properly doing the ordinance.”

    But that’s less of a problem if you don’t think your salvation hangs in the balance.

    “We know the sacrament is not valid on our own, it is valid by the Words of Christ, and not within the status of the one giving it nor the one receiving it.”

    That merely sidesteps the question of when the Words of Christ validly apply to a ritual action. Which rite is the right rite?

    “My point is simply that whatever your denomination might be, be it credo or paedo baptist (for example), our denominations have definitions on what a valid baptism might be.”

    Which sidesteps the question of how you know which definition is the true definition.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I answered all your questions at my blog.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Way to disgracefully bow out of the discussion. Your retreat is acknowledged.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The fact that I even answered them is more than was deserved. Patrick asked me 141 questions (I may be off by 2 or 3). Michael gave me 5. Answering all 5 took me 8 days. Giving similar attention to all 141 questions in this post would have required roughly 225 days, or the better part of a year. I don't have the time to devote that kind of attention to a single blog post.

    ReplyDelete
  11. How is it "philosophical" to define God in terms of the divine attributes? Doesn't God reveal his attributes in Scripture? Doesn't God define himself by his revealed attributes?

    Here is one philosophical outlook on the attributes of God from one person who happens to be Lutheran.

    FWIW.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh dear.

    My surname is Sicilian. Does this mean I shall some day swim the Tiber?

    But it gets worse. My surname is also common amongst an ethnic group of Albanians that settled in Southern Italy and Sicily, the Arbëresh. Shall I some day bow toward Mecca??

    ReplyDelete
  13. To the contrary, this problem is generated by those who hold a “high” view of the sacraments.

    Lutherans are not obsessed if in their churches they are getting valid baptism or the supper. The sacraments are founded on the words of Christ as we believe, not on the status of the giver or the receiver of them.

    My point is that it is determinable that is what I am saying. It is the same way that if you are an LBCF confessor who considers baptism for example not a sacrament but an ordinance, you know if you have obeyed your ordinance of baptism or not etc.



    LPC

    ReplyDelete
  14. l p cruz said...

    “Lutherans are not obsessed if in their churches they are getting valid baptism or the supper. The sacraments are founded on the words of Christ as we believe, not on the status of the giver or the receiver of them.”

    This is the second time you’ve sidestepped the question. I take it that you don’t have much experience offering a rational defense of your faith.

    The words of Christ are general. They do not automatically pick out any particular ritual act in the course of church history. So you have yet to explain by what criterion you validly apply his words to a particular ritual act which you deem to be sacramental.

    Do you think that just anyone can officiate at communion? Or just a minister? What makes a minister a minister? Can John Spong officiate at communion?

    “My point is that it is determinable that is what I am saying. It is the same way that if you are an LBCF confessor who considers baptism for example not a sacrament but an ordinance, you know if you have obeyed your ordinance of baptism or not etc.”

    You continue to commit a level-confusion. The distinction between a sacrament and an ordinance would only establish the category. It does not establish what particular exercise exemplifies that category.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Kyle said:
    Oh dear.

    My surname is Sicilian. Does this mean I shall some day swim the Tiber?

    But it gets worse. My surname is also common amongst an ethnic group of Albanians that settled in Southern Italy and Sicily, the Arbëresh. Shall I some day bow toward Mecca??

    *************************

    It means that you're fated someday to become a Muslim Catholic—unless you become a Catholic Muslim. The way this works out is that you'll go to the mosque Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, while you go to mass Tuesday, Thursday, and weekends. You heard it first from me!

    ReplyDelete
  16. l p cruz said...

    “Lutherans are not obsessed if in their churches they are getting valid baptism or the supper. The sacraments are founded on the words of Christ as we believe, not on the status of the giver or the receiver of them.”

    Sure about that? As I thumb through vol. 3 of Pieper’s Christian dogmatics, he frequently distinguishes between valid and invalid sacraments.

    A Unitarian baptism is invalid even if it uses the traditional Trinitarian formula (262-63). A wrong intention invalidates Unitarian baptism.

    In cases of adult baptism, only believers are valid baptismal candidates (227). A wrong intention invalids the sacrament.

    Valid communion must use valid communion elements (353-54).

    The congregation must exercise the right intention (366).

    Catholic and Reformed communion is invalid because it is celebrated with the wrong intention (370-71).

    To be valid communicant, one must be baptized, perform spiritual self-exercise, and affirm the Real Presence (383).

    The Eucharistic celebration of heterodox churches is invalid (385).

    So, according to Pieper, the validity of the sacraments is often contingent on the status of the officiant and/or recipient—not to mention the precondition of valid sacramental elements.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sure about that?

    I, for one, am sure about that, Pieperian Dogmatics notwithstanding.

    I am grateful you dug those passages up, though. I have never heard of Pieper, but those passages go against what I have learned as a Lutheran, especially;

    In cases of adult baptism, only believers are valid baptismal candidates

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jay D,

    Pieper as a 19th century president of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. He's not infallible, but he does usually give you the line on historic Lutheran orthodoxy.

    Have you actually learned in a Lutheran church that baptism will save an unbelieving adult? Really?

    The list Steve gives us isn't complicated or shocking when you realize what a "right intention" is. It's simply faith in the Word of God.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Have you actually learned in a Lutheran church that baptism will save an unbelieving adult? Really?

    "Baptism will save an unbelieving adult" is not quite the antithesis of "In cases of adult baptism, only believers are valid baptismal candidates"

    The antithesis is that non-believers can possibly be valid baptismal candidates. An "unbelieving" adult baptismal candidate can be given God's promise in 1 Peter 3:21:

    Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jay,

    Sure you can give an unbeliever that PROMISE, and you should. That's preaching the Gospel. But as long as he remains an unbeliever, you don't actually baptize him. It wouldn't do any good.

    ReplyDelete
  21. It wouldn't do any good.

    That, in itself, would invalidate the promise of 1 Peter 3:21.

    By "baptismal candidate", I mean someone who comes forward to say "baptize me," I don't mean baptizing someone against their will or anything.

    I wonder what you mean by an unbelieving baptismal candidate. Does it mean they have less than the minimum threshold of certainty on some topic? How does the baptizer know if a candidate meets that requirement? How does the baptizee know if he meets the requirement? How does anyone know if the baptism "won't do any good"?

    The promise is "baptism now saves you," which is valid for any baptismal candidate.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Jay,

    Read a little further. Baptism saves us not as "the putting away of the filth of the flesh," but as "the answer of a good conscience toward God." Without faith, baptism does not save. See section 28ff on Holy Baptism in Luther's Large Catechism.

    > I wonder what you mean by an unbelieving
    > baptismal candidate.

    I mean someone who doesn't believe the Gospel, but wants to get baptized anyway for some reason.

    > The promise is "baptism now saves you,"
    > which is valid for any baptismal candidate.

    Certainly. But the validity of the promise isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the reception of the promise. "By grace are ye saved through faith."

    ReplyDelete
  23. "the answer of a good conscience toward God."

    That is interesting. I was reading the ESV, which says something quite different. I wish I knew greek.

    but as an appeal to God for a good conscience

    In the ESV it is the appeal to God that baptism saves as, the translation you used makes it sound as if it is the good conscience itself that baptism saves as.

    Certainly. But the validity of the promise isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the reception of the promise. "By grace are ye saved through faith."

    Sure it is through faith that God saves the baptized, but we are talking about baptismal candidates.

    ...someone who doesn't believe the Gospel but wants to get baptized anyway for some reason.

    What about it? What if, at the time, he thought he believed the Gospel, but years later came to realize that what they actually believed was a false Gospel, and then came to believe in the true Gospel. Was his baptism not valid?

    He is baptized, and now he believes. Can he trust the promise in Mark 16:16?

    Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

    ReplyDelete
  24. khkJay,

    The Greek can actually be rendered either way, and I prefer the ESV's take on it, though I'd forgotten it rendered the verse like that. Either way, the role of faith comes across.

    > What if, at the time, he thought he believed
    > the Gospel, but years later came to realize
    > that what they actually believed was a false
    > Gospel, and then came to believe in the true
    > Gospel. Was his baptism not valid?

    When St. Paul was writing to the Galatians, who were listening to teachers who destroyed the Gospel, he nevertheless told them, "Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (3:26-7). If people are expecting God to save them from death and Hell because of Christ's death and resurrection, they have saving faith, even if they misunderstand the Gospel in many ways that compromise its consistency and purity.

    Now, if you're imagining a situation in which someone got baptized without any actual faith in Christ, and then later in life came to faith, I would have to check Pieper to see what he says about that. I wouldn't assume from Steve's brief summary that he would want that man rebaptized. I know St. Augustine wouldn't have. It's a bizarre case, but I'm sure it happens, and as far as I know, Lutherans don't rebaptize those who were baptized in Trinitarian bodies, even if they somehow managed never to hear the Gospel there.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Steve, I'm afraid you have misinterpreted Pieper.

    Baptism should only be administered to adults if they profess faith, as Pieper said. It does not follow that my baptism was invalid if I did not believe when otherwise validly baptized as an adult. If I come to faith later in life, I will not be rebaptized by a Lutheran pastor, but rather encouraged to believe the promise made to me in my baptism, the very promise that I had formerly rejected in unbelief. There was nothing wrong with the baptism, but only with my rejection of it, as Luther explained in his catechisms.

    When Pieper and other Lutheran theologians say the validity of baptism depends on the words of God spoken, they do not mean merely the sound of those words in any particular language, as with the words of a magic spell. Rather, the word of God, communicated in any language, gives validity to baptism. Some words in Mandarin that communicate God's word in a Chinese community would not communicate his word to me. Pieper's point about Unitarian "baptism" is that if, in a given community, the words "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" do not mean what they mean to the catholic church, but rather mean something more Arian, then the word of God would not be properly translated for that community by those English words. That is, the Unitarian community is its own language group that does not comprehend the plain sense of the words of institution as spoken in English. The same thing applies to translating the Eucharist's words of institution to something that means "this is a symbol of my body, etc." within another community or language group. The word of God has not been spoken, but only the sounds, that, in the context of a more orthodox community, would have been the word of God.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Okay, I've checked on that Pieper passage, and it seems Steve was being rather creative in his summation. On page 277 of vol. 3 (not p. 227, as Steve said), Pieper writes:

    "Scripture expressly points out that only such adults are to be baptized as have previously come to faith in Christ." He then gives two quick Scriptural examples: Acts 2:41 and Acts 8:36-38.

    The rest of the section deals with infant baptism.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Steve,

    I do not answer your question because you an intelligent man that can read books and I am not that obseesed as I told you.

    The distinction between a sacrament and an ordinance would only establish the category. It does not establish what particular exercise exemplifies that category.

    Sorry but this is special pleading.The exercise is the same and we are talking about the same activity even though we are calling or treating them differently - do you not baptize using water and the words of Christ? We are talking about what is valid/invalid baptism and in the case of the ordinance, then, those who hold it also talks about valid/invalid ordinance. For the LBCF confessor he knows that a baptism of infant is invalid nor a baptism not by immersion. So the thing is determinable which you say is not. The practice contradicts you.

    So, according to Pieper, the validity of the sacraments is often contingent on the status of the officiant and/or recipient—not to mention the precondition of valid sacramental elements.


    And we do have that in the Lutheran church and so I lose no sleep.

    Not satisfied with my answer? Sorry -- so sue me.

    Cheers,

    LPC

    ReplyDelete
  28. Suppose I'm a Lutheran serial killer. I commit murder Monday through Friday, but go to confession on Saturday, and take communion on Sunday. Does God honor my diligent attempt to game the system? Are his hands tied?

    But he that lacketh these things [i.e moral excellence, knowledge, self-controll, perseverence, godliness, brotherly kindness, love]is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. (2 Peter 1:9)

    It would seem that the Scriptural answer is that this person is doing a lot of forgetting on purpose.

    So there are a couple things that may happen.

    1.) The serial killer manages to do what he intended when he intended to go out and sin. He manages to forget about his forgiveness. So he was validly forgiven, but failed to receive it through faith.

    Or

    2.) The serial killer doesn't manage to do what he intended because the forgiveness really did create faith in him, and a knowledge of God's goodness will lead him to self-control and brotherly kindness, whether he walked in intending that or not.

    The way the posted question was framed, the forgiveness of sins does not achieve anything. That belief sounds as much like unbelief to me as anything the Lutheran serial killer is planning to do.

    I think these situations (or the less obvious examples we bring to it in real life) DO go both ways. We may have intended to work the system, only to find that the system worked us.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The "Lutheran Serial Killer" thought experiment is just a way of asking the question, "Is repentance necessary for forgiveness?" Yes, it certainly is.

    That's not a legal requirement, it's just an inevitable part of faith. The whole world is forgiven by God in Christ, but that doesn't mean everyone benefits from this forgiveness. It must be received by faith, and contrition is intrinsic to such faith.

    "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God" (2 Cor. 5:19-20).

    ReplyDelete
  30. DRB SAID:

    “Steve, I'm afraid you have misinterpreted Pieper. Baptism should only be administered to adults if they profess faith, as Pieper said. It does not follow that my baptism was invalid if I did not believe when otherwise validly baptized as an adult.”

    “Otherwise validly baptized”? So you’re admitting that the absence of faith is in impediment to valid baptism.

    “If I come to faith later in life, I will not be rebaptized by a Lutheran pastor, but rather encouraged to believe the promise made to me in my baptism, the very promise that I had formerly rejected in unbelief. There was nothing wrong with the baptism, but only with my rejection of it, as Luther explained in his catechisms.”

    This is still a roundabout way of admitting that faith is a necessary, if insufficient, condition of valid baptism.

    “When Pieper and other Lutheran theologians say the validity of baptism depends on the words of God spoken, they do not mean merely the sound of those words in any particular language, as with the words of a magic spell. Rather, the word of God, communicated in any language, gives validity to baptism. Some words in Mandarin that communicate God's word in a Chinese community would not communicate his word to me. Pieper's point about Unitarian ‘baptism’ is that if, in a given community, the words ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ do not mean what they mean to the catholic church, but rather mean something more Arian, then the word of God would not be properly translated for that community by those English words. That is, the Unitarian community is its own language group that does not comprehend the plain sense of the words of institution as spoken in English. The same thing applies to translating the Eucharist's words of institution to something that means ‘this is a symbol of my body, etc.’ within another community or language group. The word of God has not been spoken, but only the sounds, that, in the context of a more orthodox community, would have been the word of God.”

    How do you think your explanation in any way contradicts my reply to Cruz? He said, “Lutherans are not obsessed if in their churches they are getting valid baptism or the supper. The sacraments are founded on the words of Christ as we believe, not on the status of the giver or the receiver of them.”

    I pointed out that Lutheran theology (a la Pieper) is concerned to distinguish between valid and invalid sacraments, and does so, in part, according to the status of the officiant or recipient (i.e. a right or wrong intention).

    Your explanation reinforces my original point in reply to Cruz.

    ERIC PHILLIPS SAID:

    “Okay, I've checked on that Pieper passage, and it seems Steve was being rather creative in his summation. On page 277 of vol. 3 (not p. 227, as Steve said), Pieper writes: ‘Scripture expressly points out that only such adults are to be baptized as have previously come to faith in Christ.’ He then gives two quick Scriptural examples: Acts 2:41 and Acts 8:36-38.”

    How was my summation “rather creative”? I originally said:

    “In cases of adult baptism, only believers are valid baptismal candidates (227). A wrong intention invalids the sacrament.”

    Doesn’t Pieper restrict adult baptism to believers? Or are you claiming that the baptism of an adult unbeliever would be valid? But if that constitutes a valid baptism, why the restriction of adult baptism to believers?

    “Sorry but this is special pleading.The exercise is the same and we are talking about the same activity even though we are calling or treating them differently - do you not baptize using water and the words of Christ? We are talking about what is valid/invalid baptism and in the case of the ordinance, then, those who hold it also talks about valid/invalid ordinance. For the LBCF confessor he knows that a baptism of infant is invalid nor a baptism not by immersion. So the thing is determinable which you say is not. The practice contradicts you.”

    You have a problem following your own argument. This is what you originally said: “Lutherans are not obsessed if in their churches they are getting valid baptism or the supper. The sacraments are founded on the words of Christ as we believe, not on the status of the giver or the receiver of them.”

    i) But the words of institution do not, of themselves, tell us when any particular instance is valid or invalid. According to Pieper, not everything that claims to be a sacramental action is a valid sacramental action—even if all the right words are used.

    The fact that the sacraments are “founded” on the words of Christ, as a dominical institution, by no means implies that every particular instance which lays claim to baptism or communion corresponds to what our Lord instituted.

    ii) A Reformed Baptist doesn’t claim that the status of the officiant or recipient is irrelevant to the validity of the ordinance. To the contrary, the officiant or recipient must meet certain conditions (e.g. faith).

    “And we do have that in the Lutheran church and so I lose no sleep.”

    You also have difficulty keeping track of Josh’s argument. His contention was that Calvinism is false, it part, because it cannot offer the assurance of salvation—and it cannot do that, in part, because it makes the gospel promises conditional, thereby introducing a note of uncertainty into the transaction.

    He then countered that, in Lutheranism, by contrast, the promises are unconditional. They do not depend on the subjective state of the officiant or recipient.

    If, however, Lutheranism must distinguish between valid and invalid sacraments, then Lutheranism can’t very well invoke the unconditionality of the promises—for certain conditions must be met in order for a particular action to count as a valid baptism or Eucharist.

    If the officiant must be theologically orthodox, if you must have faith in the sacraments, and if you must have a theologically accurate grasp of sacramentology (e.g. believing in baptismal regeneration or the real presence), &c., then Lutheran theology has stipulated a number of conditions which must be met for the promise to obtain in any individual case. Why doesn’t that introduce a note of uncertainty into the transaction, and thereby rob the Lutheran of his assurance?

    “Not satisfied with my answer? Sorry -- so sue me.”

    Now you’re being childish, which doesn’t do much to bolster the case for Lutheranism.

    “ERIC PHILLIPS SAID:

    “The ‘Lutheran Serial Killer’ thought experiment is just a way of asking the question, "Is repentance necessary for forgiveness?" Yes, it certainly is. That's not a legal requirement, it's just an inevitable part of faith. The whole world is forgiven by God in Christ, but that doesn't mean everyone benefits from this forgiveness. It must be received by faith, and contrition is intrinsic to such faith.”

    You seem to have forgotten the argument I was responding to. According to Josh, the gospel promises are objective and unconditional, which forms the basis for the assurance of salvation—since no subjective conditions need to be satisfied.

    If you deny that, you destroy his argument—which is fine with me.

    I’m just answering you guys on your own grounds. And thus far I’m getting mixed signals—which is the common precursor to a train wreck or pile up on the Interstate.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Eric,

    To be perfectly clear, the absence of faith does not in any way or to the slightest degree invalidate baptism. A baptism in the Trinune name administered by an unbelieving minister to an unbelieving recipient is perfectly valid even though the minister should refuse baptism if the candidate does not profess faith. Baptism in the Trinune name is actually administered by the Triune God himself and thus is never invalid or lacking; it certainly does not need my faith to make it valid or complete (Luther's Large Catechism). In fact, there would really be no baptismal promise to reject were it invalid. As Luther explained, faith must have an object.

    It is one thing for you to write me an invalid check, but it is quite another thing for you to write me a valid check that I refuse to deposit.

    ReplyDelete
  32. You seem to have forgotten the argument I was responding to. According to Josh, the gospel promises are objective and unconditional, which forms the basis for the assurance of salvation—since no subjective conditions need to be satisfied.

    No. Because you later wrote "Isn't forgiveness predicated on faith and repentance? Are you still forgiven even though you're faithless and impenitent?" There are positions between "no subjective conditions" on the one hand and "faith and repentance" on the other.

    In Lutheranism, repentance precedes faith. And the repentance that precedes faith is terrors of conscience. Without some level of these, the Gospel doesn't make sense. It is not received because it is not seen as helpful. But repentance doesn't save as a virtue, or because there is a certain amount of it. It makes faith possible, and the faith is what connects us to the promise. But "he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

    But if you frame it such that faith is a precondition, you end up creating loops that people cannot enter. "Okay, so God gave me a promise. But I have to have faith to get what he promised. So where do I get faith?" (Yes, certain Reformed answer this by telling us to pray. But if the person is praying without faith, he will not be heard. And if he already has faith, he doesn't need to pray. And if he doesn't know he has faith, he doesn't know whether there is a good reason to pray or not. For he either does not have what he prays for and so his prayer is in vain, or he already has what he prays for so his prayer is unnecessary.)

    If people come to Calvinism out of Arminianism, and accept their prior status as Christians as a given, and merely paste perseverance onto it, I can see how such Calvinists have assurance. If they had to come in anew and try to gain assurance while they had a full grasp of what Calvinism teaches, I'm not so sure it will work.

    ReplyDelete
  33. phil walker said...

    “I have to say, I thought that Patrick/Steve (I can't tell who wrote it; the note at the top confuses things) dropped the ball quite seriously at the point about Christ's status as the Elect One. It might only have been an ‘incidental’ point, but it's about the most obviously true thing about him.”

    Where’s the argument? I’ve heard Arminians and Barthians make that claim—implausibly.

    john z said...

    “Well, whoever it is, he's missed the point entirely by veering off on the question of ‘priestly’ absolution. That's not what it's about.”

    How am I veering off topic when Josh was the one who brought this up in the first place?

    “If I'm reading Josh correctly the point about absolution is that it actually makes sense in the Lutheran context, whereas in a Calvinist context it can never make sense, because the free grace of Christ is bound up in questions about whether or not you're elect, which ends up driving us to questions about whether or not we show evidence of being elect. I took a Reformed Baptist friend to church with me one Sunday. His jaw dropped during the absolution. He told me it had nothing to do with the fact that the pastor was pronouncing absolution, rather that someone was doing it. "How can you just proclaim to a whole room of people that they're forgiven?" That grace is too free.”

    His position can be evaluated on either internal or external grounds:

    i) Even if it makes sense in a Lutheran context, that doesn’t make it Scriptural. That simply begs the question in favor of Lutheranism.

    ii) If, in addition, priestly absolution is contingent on the fulfillment of certain conditions (e.g. a validly ordained pastor, the right intention of the congregation or confessionalist), then that negates Josh’s claims about the unconditionality of the gospel promises.

    “As far as the silly charge of universalism goes, we are called to point people to Christ and proclaim his forgiveness to everyone. Either people believe it or they don't. God is not just writing everyone's sins off, because otherwise what would be the point of telling everyone about the Cross? The point is that the statement ‘God has forgiven you your sins on account of Christ’ is a summons to believe in and of itself (which, of course, is still wrought by the Spirit).”

    Which negates Josh’s argument about the unconditionality of the gospel promises—as the basis of our assurance. For some reason, a number of his commenters lack the mental discipline to track his own argument—either in my combox or his.

    josh s said...

    “Phil Walker, read the relevant texts carefully: Jesus is talking to the Twelve. I think that especially in Matthew, the Twelve should be understood not just as Christians in general, but as the first of the ministry. To answer your more specific question, I would say that adminstering the sacraments is inherently pastoral rather than restricted to the ministry; the latter is a legal category that makes the validity of Christ's word dependent on the guy having had a "valid ordination," whatever you want to mean by that (and which is always the subject of much argument).

    If it’s always subject to much argument, then wouldn’t that introduce a note of uncertainty into the validity of certain pastoral acts, like absolution or celebration of the sacraments?

    “This is a subject of a much longer discussion, but I would summarize it by saying that Christ instituted the ministry for the sake of preaching & the sacraments, and the Church continues this by appointing/sending men to do these things. So I would say that whoever's been appointed to execute the office, which should be immediately apparent at any assembly, is ‘validly ordained’."

    What if the assembly unwittingly ordained a closet apostate or heretic? Or what if the minister loses his faith at a later date. Is a faithless minister still a valid minister? Or does the subsequent violation of his ordination vows nullify his ordination?

    “While that's actually the traditional Lutheran exegesis (you're thinking of Matthew 18), I think the text is actually part of a larger pericope of instructions for ministry. Look at Matt 17:14-18:12. I think the instruction on ministry in each of these passages is primary, but it's not the only meaning by any means.”

    Where does Mt 17-18 assign the administration of the sacraments to the pastorate?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Steve,

    My last comment should have been addressed to you rather than to Eric.

    The practices of baptizing adults only if they profess faith and of regarding non-Trinitarian baptism as invalid are shared by the Reformed denominations. They depart from the Lutheran Church by holding a different view of the efficacy of baptism and the other means of grace, especially by adding conditions to what Lutherans regard as the unconditional promise communicated by word and sacrament. The gospel remains good news whether I believe it or not.

    ReplyDelete
  35. drb said...

    “To be perfectly clear, the absence of faith does not in any way or to the slightest degree invalidate baptism. A baptism in the Trinune name administered by an unbelieving minister to an unbelieving recipient is perfectly valid even though the minister should refuse baptism if the candidate does not profess faith.”

    Seems to me that Pieper said just the opposite with respect to Catholic sacraments, Reformed sacraments, and Unitarian baptism even if it uses an orthodox baptismal formula.

    Mind you, in the first two instances he was referring to the Eucharist, but both the Catholic and Reformed use the NT words of institution—sometimes for the words of consecration.

    “It is one thing for you to write me an invalid check, but it is quite another thing for you to write me a valid check that I refuse to deposit.”

    But in that event, the promise is not unconditional since you must exercise faith to cash the check.

    “In Lutheranism, repentance precedes faith. And the repentance that precedes faith is terrors of conscience. Without some level of these, the Gospel doesn't make sense. It is not received because it is not seen as helpful. But repentance doesn't save as a virtue, or because there is a certain amount of it. It makes faith possible, and the faith is what connects us to the promise.”

    So you’re positing two subjective conditions—repentance and faith—to “connect” us to the promise. In which case, the promise is conditional rather than unconditional, for what is promised is contingent on the satisfaction of these subjective conditions. And their satisfaction is not assured in every case.

    “But if you frame it such that faith is a precondition, you end up creating loops that people cannot enter. ‘Okay, so God gave me a promise. But I have to have faith to get what he promised. So where do I get faith’?"

    i) The faithless don’t ask this question. Being faithless, they don’t believe in God’s promises. So they don’t ask “where do I get faith to get what he promised.” Being faithless, they don’t believe that God made these promises. So they’re blissfully unconcerned with meeting the conditions.

    The only person who would ask a question like that is someone who already has faith in the promises of God.

    ii) Are you saying that one doesn’t have to have faith to get what God promised? Is this a promise to unbelievers or believers? If you die an unbeliever, are your sins forgiven? If you die an unbeliever, do you go to heaven?

    “If they had to come in anew and try to gain assurance while they had a full grasp of what Calvinism teaches, I'm not so sure it will work.”

    Faith is a gift of God, and he sees to it that the conditions are met, by his grace, in the lives of the elect.

    drb said...

    “My last comment should have been addressed to you rather than to Eric. The practices of baptizing adults only if they profess faith and of regarding non-Trinitarian baptism as invalid are shared by the Reformed denominations.”

    At the moment I’m not discussing whether the Lutherans are right or wrong on this count. Rather, I’m discussing the coherence of the Lutheran claim.

    Do Word and Sacrament proffer unconditional promises? Josh says they do, but if you must distinguish between valid and invalid sacraments, then you introduce a condition.

    “They depart from the Lutheran Church by holding a different view of the efficacy of baptism and the other means of grace, especially by adding conditions to what Lutherans regard as the unconditional promise communicated by word and sacrament. The gospel remains good news whether I believe it or not.”

    i) If the promise is contingent on a valid sacrament, then it’s conditional.

    ii) What is the nature of the promise? Is the promise that everyone will be saved, period? Or that everyone will be saved who complies with the terms of the promise (e.g. repentance, faith, fidelity)?

    If only believers get what was promised, then the promised were qualified, and you must qualify for the terms of the promise to get what was promised.

    The promise is legit no matter because it's a conditional promise. Therefore, noncompliance doesn't invalidate the promise. But it does condition the promise.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Steve,

    Not all of your quotations should be attributed to me. For example, the paragraph on repentance is not mine.

    There still seems to be some misunderstanding. When Lutheran theologians say the gospel promise is unconditional, they do not mean invalid sacraments communicate that promise, so you are using the term "unconditional" in a different sense. Our theologians make no claim that every invalid sacrament communicates the unconditional promise of the gospel. Rather, those sacraments administered by God himself are valid and truly communicate his unconditional promise: "Christ died for your sins; therefore, your sins are forgiven." That is a clear promise that you can either believe or reject. That promise is the power of God to save everyone who believes it. It is pure gospel (good news), not law; the promises of the law are conditional: "do this, and live."

    By contrast, the logic of consistent Calvinism confuses law with gospel by making the gospel conditional. Good news: you may have forgiveness by fulfilling a set of conditions other than the set of conditions stipulated by the law of Moses. There is no unconditional promise to believe or reject. In fact, the gospel does not even tell you Christ died for your sins. Rather, you have some conditions to fulfill before you can believe Christ died for your sins and that your sins are forgiven. The specific conditions vary from one Calvinist theologian to another. For Charles Hodge, you need a revelation from the Holy Spirit beyond what is written in Scripture, whereas for John Owen, you must believe that you have incipient faith before you can believe Christ died for your sins:
    http://dawningrealm.org/papers/faith.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  37. Steve,

    It means that you're fated someday to become a Muslim Catholic—unless you become a Catholic Muslim. The way this works out is that you'll go to the mosque Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, while you go to mass Tuesday, Thursday, and weekends. You heard it first from me!

    Mary and Muhammad, pray for me??

    Well, if the Pope can kiss the Quran, I suppose it's possible!

    ReplyDelete
  38. DRB SAID:

    “There still seems to be some misunderstanding. When Lutheran theologians say the gospel promise is unconditional, they do not mean invalid sacraments communicate that promise, so you are using the term ‘unconditional’ in a different sense. Our theologians make no claim that every invalid sacrament communicates the unconditional promise of the gospel. Rather, those sacraments administered by God himself are valid and truly communicate his unconditional promise: ‘Christ died for your sins; therefore, your sins are forgiven’ That is a clear promise that you can either believe or reject.”

    i) So the promise is indexed to valid sacraments rather than invalid sacraments. That introduces a note of uncertainty, since you must be able to distinguish between valid and invalid sacraments.

    ii) Scripture doesn’t proffer the promise of the gospel as “Christ died for your sins; therefore, your sins are forgiven.”

    Rather, Scripture uses conditional formulae like Jn 3:16 and Rom 10:9.

    “That promise is the power of God to save everyone who believes it. It is pure gospel (good news), not law; the promises of the law are conditional: "do this, and live."

    And when you make the benefit contingent on faith, you introduced a subjective condition, which—according to Josh—introduces a note of uncertainty into the transaction and therefore robs the Christian of assurance.

    “By contrast, the logic of consistent Calvinism confuses law with gospel by making the gospel conditional. Good news: you may have forgiveness by fulfilling a set of conditions other than the set of conditions stipulated by the law of Moses. There is no unconditional promise to believe or reject. In fact, the gospel does not even tell you Christ died for your sins. Rather, you have some conditions to fulfill before you can believe Christ died for your sins and that your sins are forgiven.”

    i) Actually, it’s Lutheranism that’s imposing a more specific requirement on the content of saving faith than we find in classic passages like Jn 3:16 and Rom 10:9.

    ii) And, even on its own grounds, since only the elect exercise saving faith in Christ, they rightly believe that Christ died for them.

    iii) An “unconditional promise to believe or reject” is an oxymoron. If, on the one hand, it’s unconditional, then it will eventuate regardless of your belief or disbelief. If, on the other hand, its eventuation is contingent on your belief or disbelief, then it’s conditional.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Steve,

    We can probably agree that you use the term "unconditional" in a different way than it is used in Lutheran theology, so I'm not sure the term is useful for explaining that theology to you. The Lutheran faith and its fundamental difference from consistent Calvinism can be understood without the use of the term and even without discussing the sacraments. Luther, following Paul, made a clear and absolute distinction between law (what God requires of you in pain of death) and gospel (the good news that your sins are forgiven through Christ's death). Calvinism's main departure from Lutheranism lies in mixing law with gospel rather than sharply distinguishing the two. Pieper and Walter have explained this better than I can, so I commend their writings to you. I recommend Pieper's chapters on law and gospel and on the means of grace and especially Walther's book on law and gospel, which is both in print and available online.

    The Lord be with you.

    ReplyDelete
  40. By contrast, the logic of consistent Calvinism confuses law with gospel by making the gospel conditional. Good news: you may have forgiveness by fulfilling a set of conditions other than the set of conditions stipulated by the law of Moses. There is no unconditional promise to believe or reject. In fact, the gospel does not even tell you Christ died for your sins.

    Of course Scripture never couches the "promise" of the gospel (forgiveness of sins, for example) in terms of "Jesus died for your sins." Nowhere, in Scripture does any evangelical offer state, "Believe Christ because he died for you."

    Your argument is just the old Arminian "free offer" objection raised in sacramental terms. The warrant to believe is not found in general atonement or the ability of man (as in Arminianism) but in the sacraments and what is promised in them. The logic, however, is precisely the same.

    The problem is, of course, that Scripture couches the "free offer" as an explicit "command" and the commands of God, whatever they may be, are their own intrinsic warrant to believe/obey. Isn't it odd that for all their contempt of Arminianism, Lutherans invariably raise all the same arguments and objections.

    Scripture itself is very explicit that the "offer" or the "promise" is also a command. Therefore, it carries the authority of law. Implicit in the Law itself is the duty of men to repent and believe. Evangelism in this age only makes this explicit.

    This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us. (1 John 3:23)

    Acts 17:30: Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Mr. Bridges,

    Whereas Arminians make the gospel demand a decision or an exercise of the free will, you seem to be adding a different demand to the gospel. To say that the gospel promise is a demand is to confuse an announcement of good news (you have been reconciled because of what Christ did) with the law (do this and live).

    The command you quoted, far from being yet another demand of the law, is simply a generous invitation to believe the promise of the gospel revealed in the Scriptures, the good news that Christ died for the sins of "the whole world," for "all." All who believe this good news have salvation (Romans 1:16-17).

    Not so fast, says the consistent Calvinist. Don't think you are necessarily included in "the whole world" or "all." Whatever good news is in Scripture is not enough for you to know Christ died for your sins. Charles Hodge says you also need an extra-biblical message from the Holy Spirit. John Owen says you also must see that you have a beginning faith before you can have faith that Christ died for your sins.

    For further discussion beyond what I can reasonably post here, see the above link to Walther or my "Calvinistic modification of justification by faith alone: Does God save all who believe the good news of Christ crucified?" (PDF).

    ReplyDelete
  42. Steve,

    First, most of what you quoted in your response to me was written by a different poster.

    Second, there is a very significant difference between what Pieper actually said ("only such adults are to be baptized as have previously come to faith in Christ") and what you represented him as saying ("only believers are valid baptismal candidates. A wrong intention invalids the sacrament"). The chain of reasoning by which you attempt to equate the two reveals that you don't realize what "valid" means here.

    Every water baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is _valid_, but not every such baptism _saves_. If a guy receives baptism without faith, and later comes to faith, the reason he doesn't get RE-baptized is that the baptism he received was VALID. But had he died in unbelief, that valid baptism would not have saved him.

    Re: "the unconditionality of the Gospel promise as the basis of our salvation":

    Obviously faith is a condition when you view things from the vantage of the whole human race (If "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself," then why isn't the whole world saved? Because not everyone believes). That's why the Gospel is presented in cause/effect form in verses such as Acts 2:38 ("repent...and be baptized...and you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost") and 16:31 ("believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved")--because it is being presented to those who have not yet believed.

    But in the Church, it's different, isn't it? Forgiveness is declared as fact, without the preamble, "believe/confess, and...." For instance, "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God" (I Cor. 6:11). THAT is an unconditional announcement, because it is being made to those who have believed and been baptized. Their faith is assumed, even though we know that some of them may suffer "shipwreck of the faith."

    Basically, people who want assurance are believers already. You don't have to tell them to believe. You just present to them once more WHAT they believe, to reinforce and explain and apply it. The Gospel won't give them false hope. If they believe it, then they are saved. If they stop believing it, then they'll stop hoping too, or they'll turn to a false hope from somewhere else. That's the unqualified offer Josh was talking about. There's no fine print, no room for worrying whether or not Christ actually died for YOU. He did. You are washed. You are sanctified. You are justified.

    ReplyDelete
  43. “Second, there is a very significant difference between what Pieper actually said (‘only such adults are to be baptized as have previously come to faith in Christ’) and what you represented him as saying (‘only believers are valid baptismal candidates. A wrong intention invalids the sacrament’). The chain of reasoning by which you attempt to equate the two reveals that you don't realize what ‘valid’ means here.__Every water baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is _valid_, but not every such baptism _saves_. If a guy receives baptism without faith, and later comes to faith, the reason he doesn't get RE-baptized is that the baptism he received was VALID. But had he died in unbelief, that valid baptism would not have saved him.”

    i) In the case of Unitarian baptism, Pieper says that Unitarian baptism is invalid even if an orthodox formula is used. It’s invalidated by the wrong intent of the officiant and/or congregation.

    ii) More generally, he discusses other cases in which wrong intent invalidates a sacrament, viz., if a communicant doesn’t believe in the real presence. Why does Pieper say that Catholic and Reformed communion is invalid?

    So are you saying that wrong intent never invalidates a sacrament, or only in some cases—and if the latter, where do you drawn the line?

    And do you deny that Pieper sometimes links sacramental validity to the intent of the officiant and/or recipient?

    iii) An unbeliever cannot receive baptism with the right intent. Same thing with communion.

    “That's the unqualified offer Josh was talking about.”

    No, that’s not all Josh said. He drew the following series of contrasts:

    Lutheranism is to Calvinism as unconditionality is to conditionality, objectivity is to subjectivity, and certainty is to uncertainty.

    “There's no fine print, no room for worrying whether or not Christ actually died for YOU. He did. You are washed. You are sanctified. You are justified.”

    Your allusion to 1 Cor 6:11 is a double-bladed sword, for this comes on the heels of his admonitory sin list in vv9-10, in which he tallies a number of damnable sins. And he’s addressing this to the church.

    So there is some “fine-print.” And Paul is not the only one (e.g. 1 Jn 2:2-3). The apostles address a number of warnings to professing believers. The promises are qualified.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Since Lutherans believe God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their sins against them (2 Corinthians 5:18-19), they can proclaim, without qualification, to believer and nonbeliever alike, "Your sins are forgiven!" This gives unbelievers killed by the law's threats against damnable sins a promise to believe. "Lazarus, come forth!"

    I hope this comparison chart clarifies the chasm between the good news Luther proclaimed and the sadly qualified gospel of the Reformed:
    The chief difference between Reformed and Lutheran theologies

    I will let the Calvinists have the last word; this is, after all, their blog. Thank you for the dialogue opportunity.

    ReplyDelete