“This is my body” – thoughts on a “sacramental presence”

Andrew Clover

Andrew Clover provides some irenic commentary:

... Unfortunately there are certain important things that we have not historically agreed upon and we shouldn’t pretend those things don’t exist or don’t matter. They do matter and attempts to minimize the importance of certain doctrines will ultimately end in fruitlessness at best, or a sort a-doctrinal liberalism at worst. After all, true unity in the biblical sense can only exists around truth. And if we are not in agreement on what that truth is, then we don’t have unity in the full sense of the word….

When describing their view of the supper, Lutherans will almost invariably say something along the lines of “We take Christ at His word. When The Lord says ‘this is my body’ we acknowledge that it ‘is’ "His body.” It is a source of pride for the Lutheran, not pride in a sinful sense, that their theology doesn’t require them to change the words of institution or play logical and philosophical games or do mental gymnastics with the text. Often times the argument from a Lutheran is as simple as “Hey, is=is.” While I admire the approach to scripture that insists on letting the word speak and not making it say what it doesn’t, I believe that this claim to take Christ’s words literally while others do not is where the Lutheran argument falls on its own petard….

Please Help Andrew Clover

Andrew Clover is a good and dear friend of mine who is trying to raise money to pay for a seminary education. He has been (in the past) a frequent commenter on Triablogue, and he was one of the writers (the first, in fact) who wrote with me at my Reformation500 blog.

He has set up a GoFundMe page to raise money for this, and if you're inclined to do so, please help him out.

“Yes we can!” [go to hell]

Hell exists, and yes, some people will go there. That’s the not-so-happy conclusion of Andrew Clover, my new colleague over at my Reformation500 blog.

“We sin because we are sinners … We are guilty, all of us, of a cosmic mutiny; justice hangs over us like Damocles’ sword and we know it…”

“The true, biblical doctrine of Hell, and the correlating doctrines of our sinfulness and God’s righteousness and holiness, make the gospel shine with all the brightness and sweetness that it was meant to (Romans 9:22-23).”

This appears to be the first of a multi-part series on what he calls “an independent case for the biblical doctrine of Hell.”

In the not too distant past, I’ve mentioned Andrew’s Lutheran and Reformed Discussion Group on Facebook. Apparently, though, the Lutherans became too raucous for him, and he [the founder] dropped out of the group!

As Steve has said, it’s all about talent recruitment. So when Andrew told me he was leaving that group, I asked him if he would join me, discussing (I hope) the history and pre-history of the Reformation, and some of the ways that the various Protestant groups can be of service to one another and to the cause of Christ as we bring to mind some of the “500th” anniversaries that will be coming up over the next several years.

Andrew has been a good friend of mine for several years. He explored Roman Catholicism, and has ended up being a conservative Lutheran. Maybe over time he’ll tell us more about his journey and why he created, then left that Lutheran discussion group!

Reformation500: “The Crucial Role of Union with Christ”

Dr David Snoke, who is a founding elder at my home church, City Reformed PCA in Pittsburgh, has posted a new article at the Reformation500 blog:

The Crucial Role of Union with Christ, part 1

This problem lies at the root of many of the debates about the Gospel over the years, from the Reformation to the present-day debates with N.T. Wright. Wright accepts that our sins can be imputed to Christ, but he rejects the idea that Christ’s righteousness can be imputed to us…

The fundamental question before us is then how it can be just, that is, correctly judged, to impute Christ’s righteousness to us and to impute our sin to Christ. This leads to the question: is there ever any situation in which it is just to impute one person’s debt or credit to another? The answer is yes. Consider the following situations….

In all of these cases, the common element is that we feel that it is just to impute the debts and credits of one person to another if they are united together in a real union. They have become legally, or spiritually, one. In that case, justice actually demands imputation of the debt and credit of one member of the union to another. To the degree that I recognize the reality of the union, to that degree I feel the imputation as legitimate.

Our union with Christ is exactly of this nature. Christ’s death is our death if we are united to him, and his righteousness is our righteousness if we are united to him. In other words, the actual, real union with Christ is crucial for the imputation in the Gospel to be just. If we are not really united to Christ, then his death is nothing to us, and his life of no value to us….

New Testament evidence of union with Christ
The above argument fits with our sense of justice, but is it the teaching of the Bible? I believe that it is, and in fact, the Middle Eastern culture of the Bible would have made it much more understandable in those days.

The concept of union with Christ is clearly taught in Scripture, and has been affirmed by all orthodox Reformed traditions. The Bible has many different ways of presenting this picture. Jesus talks in John 15 of us being united to him like a branch on a vine:

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. (John 15:4-5)

This image of being “in” Christ, and simultaneously having him “in” us, is throughout the New Testament….

This (and I’m guessing there will be a part 2, and maybe more) is an excellent introduction to the concept of “Union with Christ” and also being “In Christ” in the Scriptures. I’d highly commend it to you.

Dave is also professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Pittsburgh. He’s the author of A Biblical Case for an Old Earth, he writes about “science from a Christian perspective” at http://www.christianscientific.org/, and he leads an apologetics group at the church.

Dave has a keen interest in history, too, and he’s also preached a number of Reformation-oriented sermons, and he’s also led a number of discussions on the topic.

I’m very pleased that a number of individuals now have become contributors for Reformation500, including Dave now, along with Andrew Clover [a frequent commenter here and a Lutheran convert], [PCA] Pastor Tony Phelps, and Paul Bassett [along with yours truly]. My hope is to enable a very robust discussion to take place there among all the church traditions that came out of the Reformation, in such a way that the broader evangelical community can benefit from the history, principles and Scriptural understanding that came into focus during that period.

Please take a minute to check it out if you haven’t already done so.

On the Glory of God

Over at Andrew Clover’s Lutheran and Reformed Discussion Group, William M., a Lutheran pastor said:

Where in the Bible does it say that the glory of God is something to be advanced? I can't find this in at least the ESV and RSV? Is this a KJV quirk perhaps? The phrase is simply unfamiliar to me. Help me.

I’m glad to oblige.

First: men and nature glorify God

Psalm 19:1: The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.


Psalm 86:9: All the nations you have made shall come and worship before you, O Lord, and shall glorify your name.


Psalm 86:12: I give thanks to you, O Lord my God, with my whole heart, and I will glorify your name forever.


Romans 11:33-36: Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.


1 Corinthians 6:20: … you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.


1 Corinthians 10:31: So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.


Revelation 4:11: “Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”


Second: the members of the Trinity glorify each other

John 7:18: The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood.

John 8:50: Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it, and he is the judge.

John 8:54: Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’”

John 12:23: And Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.”

John 13:31–32: When he had gone out, Jesus said, “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and glorify him at once.”

John 16:14: [The Spirit] will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

John 17:1–4: When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”

John 17:10: All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them.

Helping to put things aright

Down below, Jason Engwer left the following comment on my post entitled Reformation Season.

That’s a good idea, John.

To expand on one of the points you made, we should keep in mind that Roman Catholicism’s liberalism has had a major impact on other holidays and seasons. Much of the anti-Biblical material that’s published during the Christmas season, for example, comes from Roman Catholic scholarship and former Catholics (e.g., Raymond Brown, John Dominic Crossan, Geza Vermes). Then there’s the failure of so many Catholics, not just liberals, to do much to defend the traditional view of the infancy narratives or the Biblical resurrection accounts, for instance. Evangelicals are at the forefront of conservative Biblical scholarship and apologetics, whereas Catholics are much less so, despite their advantages (larger size, more money, more media access, etc.). As I’ve worked in apologetic contexts over the years, and in the process of watching what’s going on elsewhere, I’ve been astonished by how much bad and how little good Roman Catholicism does relative to its opportunities.

My response to him was a bit long, so I thought I’d turn it into a fresh post:

Thanks Jason -- We're about to have a presidential election, and I think that Romney will win, and that we'll be able to see an improving economy for a bit. But longer term, a presidential election is not going to solve a lot of problems.

In this country alone, the number of abortions performed every year is so outrageous, the debt structure is so massive, and the morality is such an indictment on our culture, that I honestly think that the only cure for our ills is Christ alone, and by extension, the true church bringing Christ to the world, “making disciples of all nations” as it has been commissioned to do.

I would qualify slightly one thing that you say. You talk about “how much bad and how little good Roman Catholicism does relative to its opportunities”. That much alone is true, looking across the world in our day.

But historically, I think that very many of the evils in the world are the result of things that “the official church”, “the church which perceives itself to be in authority” has done, officially -- extending back into the early church. While many individual Christians have done many good things -- and many of these were either “Catholics” from the first millennium (like Augustine), say, or “Roman Catholics” in the last 500 years, by far it seems to me that what is wrong with the world today is traceable to causes put into motion by the official church.

Some of these are inadvertent. We may think of the sudden rise of Islam. Islam was able to conquer areas of the world where the Christian church was cut off by schism. That includes Monophysite Africa and “Nestorian” Asia. Islam was able to spread so quickly, in part, because huge parts of the church had been cut off from larger portions of the church and did not have the wherewithal to stop its earthly spread.

The Medieval European church, while fostering the rise of learning and the universities, also officially took doctrinal positions which had to be opposed, and the Protestant Reformation, while offering the best hope to the world of that day, was mightily opposed by the Roman church, and had to make strange alliances with secular governments, alliances that turned out not to be in the best interest of the cause of Christ.

This is not an attempt at placing blame, but really, an honest look to try to see what went wrong, and what might be done to try (from our end) to help put things aright.

I continue to think that Roman Catholicism’s claims of authority, the claim that “the church that Christ founded subsists in the Roman Catholic Church”, is the biggest impediment in the world today, working against “the church” being what “the church” really ought to be in the world.

With that said, I’m tremendously encouraged by some of the discussions I’m seeing around the Internet. I think Andrew Clover’s Lutheran and Reformed Discussion Group is a model that we’ll want to look at moving forward. While there are still some disagreements, the potential for folks from one side understanding the other side are tremendous.

And while the “two kingdoms” discussions generate a lot of heat, some of the rough edges on the various sides of this debate are being worn down, and the result, I think, will be that Christians, on the whole, will have a better understanding of the role of the church vis-à-vis government.

As well, The Gospel Coalition has just recently published The New City Catechism, which is very much like one of the earliest confessions from the Protestant era. Using the latest technology to promote some of the best theology is only going to have a good effect on the church.

While I don’t think The New City Catechism will turn the Trinity Broadcasting network into Orthodox Puritans, it will enable far more evangelicals to be honestly and historically informed about the Christian faith. Far more opportunities along these lines are coming. And that’s cause for great hope.

The Lutheran Mind

When I left Roman Catholicism, I was looking first of all for polemical tools that would describe the differences between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, but also for a church body where I could fellowship. I found both of these very readily in the Reformed world. For some reason, Lutheran materials seemed harder to find.

But Concordia Seminary in St. Louis has produced a large number of classes and lecture series through iTunes U. Here’s an introductory theology series called “The Lutheran Mind”, which I’m listening to right now.

This seems to me to be an appropriate way to introduce oneself to Lutheranism. Lutherans do seem to have a different “mind” from the Reformed. Over at Andrew Clover’s Lutheran and Reformed Discussion, I was very surprised to find some hostility to even some basic Reformed teachings, such as the Westminster Catechism Question 1: “Man's chief end is to glorify God, And to enjoy him forever.”

It seems as if Lutheran theology today relies very heavily on Luther’s “Theology of the Cross”, which really makes every person (believer or not) into either a “Theologian of the Cross” or a “Theologian of Glory”. At this point, I think some Lutherans might mistakenly tend to categorize the statement in WSC Question 1 as something that a “Theologian of Glory” might say.

At any rate, while Reformed theology is very well-ordered, “systematic”, perhaps even “scholastic”, Lutheran theology seems much more down-to-earth and practical. Luther’s Small Catechism is a series of instructions, for example, many of which begin with the phrase, “As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household…”

Luther himself made this observation about his own writings:

by God’s grace a great many systematic books now exist, among which the Loci communes of Philip [Melanchthon] excel, with which a theologian and a bishop can be beautifully and abundantly prepared to be mighty in preaching the doctrine of piety, especially since the Holy Bible itself can now be had in nearly every language. But my books, as it happened, yes, as the lack of order in which the events transpired made it necessary, are accordingly crude and disordered chaos, which is now not easy to arrange even for me.

From John Dillenberger, “Martin Luther: Selections from his Writings”, New York, NY: Anchor Books, ©1962, “Preface to the Complete Edition of Luther’s Latin Writings, 1545”, pgs 3–4).

Still, several of Luther’s writings to this day are foundational, confessional documents for Lutherans, and they may be found in the Book of Concord.

“Double Predestination”?

I’ve been taking part in a Reformed and Lutheran discussion group that was started by occasional Triablogue commenter Andrew Clover. One of the Lutheran commenters there brought up the question of “double predestination”.

But the concept of “double predestination” does not exist in Reformed doctrine. It is merely a caricature of the Reformed position.

“Written before the foundation of the world in the Lamb’s book of life”

A question has come up in Andrew Clover’s Lutheran and Reformed Discussion group, “Does scripture teach the doctrine of reprobation?” I wanted to talk about this for a bit, because not only is this one of the more notable areas of disagreement between Lutherans and the Reformed, but it has some other applications as well.

Some of the discussion in the group centers on Romans 9 and 11, but here is another passage (group of passages) that I think very clearly show God’s intention.

While this is not a slam-dunk on the doctrine of reprobation, it does speak to the doctrine that God deliberately chooses, not that God merely “foresees”. This is also one of the greatest sources of comfort for the Christian believer who may be undergoing earthly trials.

And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months. It opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling, that is, those who dwell in heaven. Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation, and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. If anyone has an ear, let him hear:

If anyone is to be taken captive, to captivity he goes;
if anyone is to be slain with the sword, with the sword must he be slain.

Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints.

Rev 13:5–10, ESV

If this is “a call for endurance”, it is also a source of information about where that endurance comes from. This passage clearly shows God’s deliberate intention.

The beast is “given a mouth”. “It was allowed to make war”. “Authority was given it”. We are not looking at a description of a God who allows things to chance.

We are also looking at “everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world…” There are those whose names were deliberately written (Rev 21:27), and there are those whose names were not written.

I became aware of the construction found in verse 8 in a Christology course taught by Richard Gaffin of WTS. It was not just “the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world”, but that names were “written before the foundation of the world in the book of life”.

Gregory Beale, in his NIGTC commentary The Book of Revelation (pgs 701 ff) provides some analysis of this passage:

The phrase “book of life” appears five other times in the Apocalypse (Rev 3:5, 17:8, 20:12, 20:15, 21:27). In each case, as here, it is a metaphor for saints whose salvation has been determined: their names have been entered into the census book of the eternal new Jerusalem before history began, which is explicitly affirmed in 21:27, though the pretemporal phrase is omitted there, unlike 13:8 and 17:8, which express the notion of predetermination with “from the foundation of the world.” That saints were written in the book before history began is implied by the fact that the beast worshipers are said not to have been so written.

The genitive “of life” (τῆς ζωῆς) denotes the nature or purpose of the book. The book is a picture of security in God’s eternal city, and the genitive clarifies what kind of security is provided. The saints are given the protection of eternal life. This book stands in contrast to the “books” that record the sins of the ungodly (Rev 20:12–13). The dual notion of a “book of life” for the righteous and “books” of judgment for the wicked is based on Daniel 12:1–2 and 7:10).

The point here is that the multitudes throughout the earth who worship the beast do so because their names “have not been written in the book of life.” They are deceived into worshiping him because they do not have the eternal life-giving protection granted those whose names are in the book. Their destiny is identified with that of the false prophets, whose names also have not been written in the book of life (Ezekiel 13:9: false prophets will not be “written down in the register of the house of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel”).

The last phrase, “from the foundation of the world,” might explain that the death of Christ was decreed before time began (“of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world”; so 1 Peter 1:19ff.: cf. Assumption of Moses 1:14, where Moses’s mediatorship was “prepared before the foundation of the world”). The former translation is viable because the statement about the Lamb’s death is immediately followed by the precreation temporal expression. And it is unlikely that the concluding temporal clause goes with “written,” since twelve words separate them. If the phrase describes the decree of the Lamb’s death, it is complementary to Rev 17:8, which strongly implies that the elect were written “in the book of life before the foundation of the world.”

But Rev 13:8 may refer to the same decree as 17:8, where the precreation phrase immediately follows “whose names have not been written in the book of life” (ὧν οὐ γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα ἐπὶ τὸ βιβλίον τῆς ζωῆς ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου). But if that is the case here in 13:8, why is the temporal phrase separated from the clause it modifies? It is so that a further description may be given to “the book of life.” “Of the Lamb who was slain” is a genitive of possession, or it could also identify the Lamb as the source of the “life” associated with the “book” (the genitive functions likewise in 21:27). The phrase is in contrast to the similar description in vv 3 and 11. People reject Christ, the true “lamb who was slain” because they follow the beast “who was slain” and the beastlike lamb. Those who give such allegiance to the beast demonstrate that they “have not been written in the book of life.” Therefore, the Lamb does not grant them spiritual protection from the beasts’ deceptions. Genuine believers have assurance that their souls can weather any Satanic storm because of the safety accorded by the Lamb’s book. This safety is the precreation identification of God’s people with the Lamb’s death, which means that they also identify with his resurrection life, which protects them from the spiritual death and ultimate deception (cr. Rev 5:5–13). No one can take this life from them.

This conclusion stands regardless of how the syntactical problem is solved. Because the book of life is unreservedly ascribed to Christ, the salvation of all, implicitly including OT saints, is represented as depending on the one redemptive act of Christ.

The language here couldn’t be more clear. Those individuals “whose names have been written in the Lamb’s book of life from before the foundation of the world” have a life that cannot be taken away from them, that will not be dependent on some kind of “second plank of salvation”.

[The question will undoubtedly come up, “how do you know you are one of these”, but that is beside the point: those who were “written before the foundation of the world” never have a need for any kind of “second plank”, and those not written never have the opportunity for any kind of “second plank”. This is a clear contradiction from Scripture of an essential Roman Catholic doctrine.]

I don’t want to make light of this, suggesting it is a “once saved, always saved” kind of thing. But the language is clear: “once written in the Lamb’s book of life (from before the foundation of the world), always written in the Lamb’s book of life”.

A story of grief: six months and counting

Today is the six-month anniversary of the day my wife died. You can’t help but reflect back on something like that. Grief is an ongoing thing, and it comes back to bite at you at the strangest of moments.

About a month ago, my church interviewed me for the church newsletter. That went like this: