Remissionem Peccatorum

Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. - St. Peter

[remissionofsins]

In consideration of...the Augsburg Confession

It is the Feast of the Presentation of the Augsburg Confession which occurred 482 years ago in 1530. While reading about the confession I came across the following from Hermann Sasse speaking of the collected confessions we confess in the Book of Concord. While this does not speak directly to the Augsburg Confession it says wonders for what we confess as Lutherans:

...in every living church there must be room for a variety of theological thinkers, provided they are in agreement as to the dogma of the church. Thus, a difference of interest in, or emphasis on, certain points of doctrine, and even a difference of expression, could well be tolerated. Luther always felt that he and his learned friend [Melanchthon] supplemented each other. As Melanchthon had learned from him, so he had learned from Melanchthon. It has great significance for the Lutheran church that its Confessions were not written by Luther alone. As Melanchthon’s Augsburg Confession, Apology, and Tractatus are happily supplemented by Luther’s Smalcald Articles and Catechisms, so even the Formula of Concord was written by disciples of Melanchthon and of Luther. This variety in expression of one and the same truth gave the Lutheran Confessions a richness which the confessions of other churches do not possess. Nothing is more significant for the Lutheran church’s independence of human authority than the fact that Luther approved of the Augsburg Confession although he clearly stated that he would have written it in a totally different way. It is the doctrine of the Gospel that matters, and not human theology. (Hermann Sasse, This is my body [revised edition] [Adelaide, South Australia: Lutheran Publishing House, 1977], p. 253)

[remissionofsins]

Lutheran Response to Tulip: Limited Atonement - Part 1

The first point of note is that Lutheranism is not Arminianism; the false dichotomy of theological frameworks is not simply Arminianism or Calvinism. This false presentation is often asserted against Anglicans, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Baptists. Arminianism is and always will be a framework that developed in a response to Calvinism from within Calvinism. It is part of the Calvinistic system of thought, albeit a twisted and wrong branch.

Arminians (like the rest of Christianity) do assert that Christ died for all, but their errors – which Calvinists rightly battle – are in decisional regeneration (semi-pelagianism) which at worst is a form of works-based salvation. Lutherans as noted in the previous post affirm that salvation is of the Lord (monergistic) because all are born in sin (Original Sin). While from the perspective of the Calvinist system we are seen as inconsistent, we assert this because of our use of ministerial reason. In addition to this we stress that there is both a hidden God (deus absconditus) and a revealed God (deus revelatus).

These two notions of God’s revelation and will can be understood where the Law teaches us that: “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” (Deuteronomy 29:29)

It is from this that the secret things (deus absconditus) stand in contradistinction to the revealed things (deus revelatus). The revelation of the Gospel and the New Testament teach us that the fullness of the Word is found in Jesus Christ, and Him Crucified. It is from this foundation that all Lutheran theology is founded. We sound a firm “Yea. And Amen!” alongside St. Paul who wrote: “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2)

Calvinistic Doctrine of Limited Atonement

The Synod of Dort is often a good starting place for understanding Calvinism within the Reformed Tradition. It is from this point forward the influence and understanding of Calvinism truly takes root in the post-Reformation period. With respect to the first main point of the canons (“Divine Election and Reprobation”) the Reformed theologians confess:

The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decision. For all his works are known to God from eternity (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:11). In accordance with this decision he graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but by his just judgment he leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen. And in this especially is disclosed to us his act--unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just--of distinguishing between people equally lost. This is the well-known decision of election and reprobation revealed in God's Word. This decision the wicked, impure, and unstable distort to their own ruin, but it provides holy and godly souls with comfort beyond words. Canons of Dort, Point I. Article VI

Again in the second  main point (“Christ’s Death and Human Redemption”) the effectiveness of the atonement in relation to election is confessed:

For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle. Canons of Dort, Point II. Article VIII

Thus far it has been noted that a very foundational concern of Lutheran theology (Theology of the Cross) is Christ crucified. In addition to this we would consider the Medieval Scholastic hermeneutic (Theology of Glory) to be utilized by Calvinists in their theology. Limited atonement is the view that God's election and atonement are to be viewed in unison. Namely that all those for whom and by whom God has elected were alone atoned for on the cross. Calvinists will assert that God did this of His own glory and for His own glory because it would result in a failed Christ who died for those who didn't believe. Or some would assert that a situation of double jeopardy occurs whereby God judges the unbeliever despite the fact Christ died for their sins (unbelief included). 

[Note: In the second part John Calvin will be referenced in relation to Universal Atonement and the alleged double jeopardy.]

The following quote should help express the generic Calvinist response to Unlimited Atonement. Reformed theologian John Owen in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ asserts the following:

“[If Jesus died for all men]…why then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.” But his unbelief, is it sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be sin, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it; If this is so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then he did not die for all their sins.”

This is where we differ in our theologies. We affirm that Christ died wholly for the entire world, and that on the cross all are objectively justified in Christ as St. Paul affirms (Romans 5:9-10;5:16-19). Or where St. John writes that God so loved the world, and that it is unbelief which condemns for rejecting God's Son. (John 3:16-8). Or where our Lord says: "when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." (John 12:32)

Where we differ is in the reception of grace. From the Reformed view ALL whom Christ died for will in space and time receive regeneration and eventual faith (debated issue). In distinction to this is the Lutheran view that Christ died for all, and it is by the Gospel (Word and Sacrament) that men receive salvation. As it says in the Nicene Creed, we believe "... in one Lord Jesus Christ, ... who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven."

Why do I make reference to the creed? Because it is in Christ that salvation is found for all humanity. But because of original sin we are not able to grasp this apart from the gospel which as St. Paul states "is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes." Often in these passages a Calvinist will highlight statements such as "everyone who believes" and act as if this is the extent of the gospel, but this contradicts the statements of St. John and St. Paul who state that Christ came for all, died for all, justified all, and lives for all. They will then respond that all doesn't always mean all. This grammatical somersault is certainly true, but it is an attempt to counter the clear words of the Holy Spirit and St. Paul in favour of a 17th century system of theology.

To be continued...

[remissionofsins]

Lutheran Response to Tulip: Total Depravity and Unconditional Election

The first article of Calvinism to be discussed is the doctrine of Total Depravity.

1. Total Depravity Total Depravity is the Calvinistic explanation of Original Sin which Augustine is most famous for articulating. In his defense of the catholic faith against the growing Pelagian heresy much of his theology of grace, free will and original sin was expounded upon. Original Sin is rooted in the Fall of our first parents Adam and Eve, and was passed down to all the posterity thereof. The most influential development of Original Sin grew incrementally in the first four centuries of the Christian Church. After the fourth century it would formally teach the universality of human sinfulness be attributed to the ineritance of sin and its beginning to the disobedience of Adam and Eve.

The Westminster Confession of Faith teaches that "this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, (Rom 5:6,7:18,8:7;Col 1:21) and wholly inclined to all evil, (Gen 6:5,8:21;Rom 3:10-12) do proceed all actual transgressions. (Jam 1:14-15; Eph 2:2-3; Mat 15:19)" [WCF IV.IV] Likewise the Belgic Confession teaches concerning Original Sin that:

We believe that by the disobedience of Adam original sin has been spread through the whole human race.

It is a corruption of all nature-- an inherited depravity which even infects small infants in their mother's womb, and the root which produces in man every sort of sin. It is therefore so vile and enormous in God's sight that it is enough to condemn the human race, and it is not abolished or wholly uprooted even by baptism, seeing that sin constantly boils forth as though from a contaminated spring. [Article 15, Belgic Confession]

The formal nature of Total Depravity as a doctrine is that man cannot save himself and is wholly dependent upon God for salvation. The blessed Martin Luther provided a similar treatment of salvation and the human condition as a result of Original Sin. His treatment of Original Sin in De Servo Arbitrio (On the Bondage of the Will) is a very succinct definition of his views.

The Smalcald Articles (1537) teach that "This hereditary sin is so deep [and horrible] a corruption of nature that no reason can understand it, but it must be [learned and] believed from the revelation of Scriptures, Ps. 51:5; Rom. 6:12ff ; Ex. 33:3; Gen. 3:7ff" [III.iii, Smalcald Articles]

Likewise in the Augsburg Confession (1530) it is taught that "since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with 2] concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost." [II.i-ii, Augsburg Confession] It is fair to suggest that concerning the doctrine of Original Sin, we agree, albeit in different formulations. The articulation of the Lutheran theologians do not express the doctrine in the same way as the Reformed divines do. Nevertheless, both agree that man is born in sin and in need of a saviour.

One are of dissent among Lutherans concerns human reason and revelation. We affirm that original sin affects the entirety of man, body, soul, and mind. Hence, human reason, as a result of original sin, will seek to reconcile apparent paradox in Scripture. Reason should be a servant to the word of God and not a master of it. Arguably Calvinistic doctrines of sacrament, salvation, atonement, and regeneration go further than Scripture and thus this is where we disagree. Our disagreement is not extensively with Calvinism, the origins are in the errors of the Scholastics theologians of the late-medieval period which taught faith does not contradict reason.

2. Unconditional Election

According to Calvinism the doctrine of Unconditional Election states that before the foundation of the world God elected a people for whom and by whom God Himself would save. Like many aspects of God's Sovereignty this doctrine deals with God's act of predestination and election. In the Westminster Confession of Faith it states

As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. WCF, III.vi 

This doctrine is often followed by a second doctrine of damnation or reprobation whereby God is the active force in the reprobation of man. The Canons of the Synod of Dort when explaining the doctrine of election make claim to this doctrine of reprobation and argue:

those [unelect], that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decision: to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish them (having been left in their own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice. And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin, but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger. Canons of the Synod of Dort, I.xv

It is in this doctrine that the main difference between Calvinism and Lutheranism occurs, namely Double Predestination. As Lutherans we deny this act of God, and instead affirm that not only are all justified in Christ, but all were elect in Adam from creation. It is through concupiscence that Original Sin has universally affected all mankind whereby our damnation becomes apparent. [Note: Some Calvinists will deny that God is active in Reprobation.]  

In the Heidleberg Disputation, Luther defended what he coined as a Theologian of a Cross against the Scholastics and their arguments which he referred to as a Theologian of Glory. These terms predate Calvinism and should not be distinctly understood as Calvinistic in nature. Nevertheless there are similarities between the Calvinist understanding of God's Word and the Scholastic hermeneutic. Consider the following statement:

19. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened [Rom. 1:20]. 20. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross. 21. A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theologian of the cross calls the thing what it actually is. 22. That wisdom which sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened. The Heidelberg Disputation, XIX-XXII

Despite the fact many Calvinists deny they probe the secret things of God from our perspective they most certainly do: in the name of God's glory. Moreover, it is a good thing they deny this, for it shows only an issue of inconsistency not willful wrong teaching.

Generally speaking though as Lutherans we agree with the broad definition of Unconditional Election, because we believe God converts man wholly of Himself by means of His Word which communicates the death and resurrection of Christ, namely the gospel.  In many respects if we were to allow ourselves to be confined to the false dichotomy of either a Calvinist or an Arminian we would be 1.5 Point Calvinists in that we affirm both Original Sin and Election while denying Reprobation, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. In addition to this regardless of any slander leveled against us by Calvinists, we agree with their denial of Arminian semi-pelagianism. While it may appear we are a middle ground for the two, we are not. Arminians deny that God alone saves which we affirm. Arminians place their assurance in their own act of faith (decision), which we deny.  From our perspective Arminian understanding of God falls under the umbrella of Reformed Theology, Jacob Arminius was a Calvinist initially. Arminianism is a reaction to Calvinism, but still within the greater branching of Reformed Protestantism.  When dealing with Limited Atonement it will be necessary to expound upon the ideas of baptism, salvation, and the use of reason.  

[remissionofsins]

Worldview Everlasting: Greek Tuesday - John 3:1-15

[remissionofsins]

Salina Pastor of King Lutheran Church Returns to Pulpit after losing wife and two kids

Watch this: http://www.kwch.com/news/kwch-mbp-salina-pastor-returns-to-pulpit-after-losing-wife-and-2-kids-in-car-accident-20120408,0,2108961.story

[remissionofsins]

Lutheran Response to Tulip: Introduction

I am going to embark upon a critique of Calvinism as expressed in the acrostic form of TULIP which emerged out of the Synod of Dort which rightly condemned the works of Jacob Aminius and his followers with emerged out of the Reformed tradition known today, albeit disconnected historically, as Arminians.

For a thorough expression of the Dutch Reformed stance against Arminianism please click here. For a more thorough expression of Reformed theology please refer to the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and the Belgic Confession (1567). The rebuttals will be founded squarely on the Sacred Scriptures as best expressed confessionally in the Concordia (1580).

Before tackling each of the points of TULIP it will be helpful to provide a succinct definition of them. 

Tulip Unconditional Election Limited Atonement Irresistible Grace Perseverance of the Saints

[remissionofsins]

Nestorian Christianity: In the past

Definition of Chalcedon

Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect both in deity and also in human-ness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul and a body. He is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we are ourselves as far as his human-ness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted. Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity, and now in these "last days," for us and on behalf of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer in respect of his human-ness.

This definition was prepared and confessed as a reaction to the teachings within the Nestorian churches. They rejected and denied the title of God-bearer, or sometimes Mother of God, for the Ever-Virgin Mary, mother of the Lord. While Nestorius had been condemned at the First Council of Ephesus, in 431, (the third ecumenical council), his teachings lived on through some churches present in the mid-fifth century. While it is debatable whether the actual teaching of Nestorius constituted the characicture or straw-man which became associated with Nestorianism, the ramifications of denying concepts such as Mary being the Mother of God would continue through the ages in a variety of different fashions. It is worth noting a number of cults arose during this period which gave an undue amount of veneration to Mary, and this is worthy of reaction. To deny the Virgin as being the Mother of God is not an issue of false-worship, but christology.

Christ is truly God and truly man, and the title, Mother of God is not a title of veneration for the Virgin Mary, but recognition of Christ as the Nicene Creed confess: "true God from true God" and "he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man." The theology that was produced out of this was thehypostasis. TheDefinitioncontinues:

[We also teach] that we apprehend this one and only Christ--Son, Lord, only-begotten--in two natures; [and we do this] without confusing the two natures without the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into separate categories, without contrasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the "properties" of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one "person" and in one hypostasis. They are not divided or cut into two prosōpa [persons], but are together the one and only and only-begotten Logos of God, the Lord Jesus christ. Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us; thus the Symbol of the Fathers has handed down to us.

The Definition of Chalcedon Translated by Henry R. Percival. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890-1900), Volume 14, pages 254-256.

[remissionofsins]

Theology of Glory or Theology of the Cross

Pastor Matt Richard of Sydney Lutheran Brethren Church in Montata runs a blog titled PM Notes. His latest post is titled What Is The Difference Between a "Theology of Glory" and a "Theology of the Cross?" Many different expressions of Reformed Theology often relate to a Theology of Glory and this post may be helpful for understanding the differences. Thanks again to Pastor Richard.

For further reading Matzat, Dan. A Theology of Glory and a Theology of the Cross. http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar51.htm Forde, Gerhard O. On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luthers Heidelberg Disputation, 1518. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997.

[remissionofsins]

Catholic Confessions

Wonderful post over at Cyberbrethren of a Lutheran school which confess our faith. The blog post can be found here and the video is here:

[remissionofsins]

Baptism: First Century and Holy Fathers

Post-Apostolic Church (Holy Fathers) The Shepherd of Hermas (70-150 AD) "And I said to him, I should like to continue my questions. Speak on, said he. And I said, I heard, sir, some teachers maintain that there is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the water and received remission of our former sins. He said to me, That was sound doctrine which you heard;" Book II.IV.i Didache (70-120 AD) "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before." VII The Letter of Barnabas (80-120 AD) "Let us further inquire whether the Lord took any care to foreshadow the water [of baptism] and the cross. Concerning the water, indeed, it is written, in reference to the Israelites, that they should not receive that baptism which leads to the remission of sins, but should procure another for themselves." XI.i "Further, what says He? And there was a river flowing on the right, and from it arose beautiful trees; and whosoever shall eat of them shall live for ever. Ezekiel 47:12 This means, that we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit. And whosoever shall eat of these shall live for ever, This means: Whosoever, He declares, shall hear you speaking, and believe, shall live for ever." XI.i Ignatius to the Ephesians (105-115 AD) "For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water." Chapter XVIII

[remissionofsins]

Baptism: First Century and Holy Scripture

For my own benefit and hopefully the benefit of others I am going to do a short survey (not exhaustive) of the first few centuries and their view of the sacraments. I am going to begin with the 1st Century and the use in both Scripture and the Holy Fathers. I will at this point not be commenting on the usage of the Scripture, but providing some passages that refer to baptism and the washing therein. Apostolic Doctrine (Holy Scripture) Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Matthew 28:19-20 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Acts 2:38  "And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for [the purpose of/into/to] the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name. Titus 3:5-7 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. 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, Romans 6:2-4 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. Col 2:11-12 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

[remissionofsins]

Sacraments: Meditations on Christ

Synoptics Matthew 26:26-28 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Mark 14:22-24 And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Luke 22:19-20 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. Matthew Take, eat; this is my body.” ... “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Mark Take; this is my body.” ... “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." Luke “This is my body, which is given for you. ... “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. Questions 1) What drink "is poured our for many for the forgiveness of sins?"  2) What cup "is poured out for you in the new covenant in my [Jesus] blood?" 3) What body "is given for you?" Any answer other than the actual body and blood seems to be twisting what Christ is saying, because only His body was given and poured (shed - KJV) for me. Johannine Gospel John 6:53-58 "So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”" Epistles 1 Corinthians 10:16  "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? " 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." Judgment 1 Corinthians 10:27-29 "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." Questions 1) How do we participate in the blood and body of Christ? 2) How is it if someone drinks in an unworthy manner they drink "judgment" on themselves? 3) If an unworthy manner drinks judgment, what does worth drink bring?  4) What does John mean by eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ?

[remissionofsins]

The Apostles Creed: First Petition

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

The First Article. Of Creation. I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. What does this mean?--Answer. I believe that God has made me and all creatures; that He has given me my body and soul, eyes, ears, and all my limbs, my reason, and all my senses, and still preserves them; in addition thereto, clothing and shoes, meat and drink, house and homestead, wife and children, fields, cattle, and all my goods; that He provides me richly and daily with all that I need to support this body and life, protects me from all danger, and guards me and preserves me from all evil; and all this out of pure, fatherly, divine goodness and mercy, without any merit or worthiness in me; for all which I owe it to Him to thank, praise, serve, and obey Him. This is most certainly true.

[remissionofsins]

Throwing the baby out with the baptismal water

I do not suspect this will be a long post because I do not feel like rehashing the past traditions I was raised and grew up in. Nevertheless, to begin with, I was raised in a moderately evangelical baptistic household. It was not evangelical in the watered down theology, and also not legalistic in the complete fundamentalist sense, but it was a household where the bible was taught and tradition was experienced. To add to this the tradition adhered to the predominantly popular dispensationalism of the twentieth century. I enjoyed the fruit of the world on and off throughout most of my life until my early twenties where I would formally “repent” of much outward sins. Two theological systems dominated my thought during these years 1) Dispensationalism and 2) Calvinism.  As I began to study Dispensationalism a number of things never added up to what I considered consistent, and its very hermeneutic which they stress was one the Apostles never used. I eventually forsook this tradition in favour of Calvinism or Reformed Theology. This led me to a Reformed Baptist church and eventually to a Presbyterian church. I left the Baptist tradition when theology (Covenant Theology) and history didn’t add up regarding the sacrament of baptism.  It was at this time that I fully gave myself into the Reformed tradition as expressed by the Westminster Confession of Faith. I considered this to be a faithful and thorough expression of God’s Word, and I still think it has great articles. What led me away from Calvinism was first and foremost an appeal to human reason against what God’s Word states. It seemed to me after much study that in order to make Calvinism work a number of exegetical twists and turns were made for certain doctrines. It was again the doctrine of baptism which led me away from the Reformed tradition. A number of solid and Godly men who I respect deeply hold to the doctrine of presumed regeneration of children instead of just presumed election and their example led me away. The Westminster states the following for children who die in infancy:

Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

The issue I take with this is that, Scripture states no such thing, while affirming presumed election. Likewise for presumed regeneration the timing is not discussed but merely assumed. I would often suggest for “elect” children that baptism is a means of salvation, and while this is accepted as a possible means it is considered rare. Therefore regeneration occurs apart from either God’s Word or His Sacraments. This is where I took serious issue. It has God regenerating people (children of believers) randomly. While God CAN do this, His Word says nothing of it and I preferred to adopt the view that baptism is the means for “elect” children. I realized that the only group adhering to such was the Federal Visionists and while they are not monolithic I did not want to trust their views. I started studying the early church and their views and surprisingly they had a very Lutheran view of the sacrament. This led me to investigate the Lord’s Supper as well, and the Zwinglian/Reformed view is so foreign to the Church that I couldn’t accept it. I had to ask myself the question why is that so many Reformed tenets such as Limited Atonement, Zwinglian/Reformed Lord’s Supper, Non-Sacramental Baptism, and Perseverance of the Saints don’t exist in Church history? Was the Church wrong for 1500 years? Certainly not. As I began investigating Lutherans I found out that they are Sacramental and Augustinian in regards to God’s sovereignty. They affirm God elects and yet not all who receive forgiveness will persevere. (The elect will) This caused me great confusion and my first impulse was to reconcile this, but I realized the greatest error of the Reformed tradition: magisterial reasoning. It imposes upon Scripture human reason in areas where we should leave it to God’s revealed Word. Thus I am continuing to understand and embrace Lutheranism.

[remissionofsins]

New Blog: The Remission of Sins

The very act of creating something new involves generally a change of pace or intent or focus of content. The purpose of this blog in contrast to a previous blog entitled "Reformo" will be my thoughts, ideas, or simply something I find interesting in light of the cruci fixus of the corpus christi. Now that I have injected you [the reader] with a dose of Latin I can with certainty feel confident of my own superiority. I am of course kidding, my intent is not superiority, but humility. One purpose of such humility is because in light of the body of Christ [corpus christi] I have the remission of sins. This is why I chose the Latin phrase from the Apostles Creed remissionem peccatorum [remission of sins] as the title of the blog. I believe the forgiveness or remission we receive through Christ is a focal point for all human history, all biblical understanding, all philosophical understanding, all aspects of life.  I have experienced a variety of the "Protestant" side of Christianity in an attempt to not only be obedient, but consistent with myself in light of the corpus christi. This time however it is not the sacrificed body of God I am referring to but His living and active body of the baptized. I was raised in the Baptist tradition which meant I had two options for the history of the Church, 1) ignore it, or 2) rewrite it. When I adopted reformed values I transitioned into the Reformed tradition whereby a Theology of Glory allowed Calvinism and Presbyterianism to answer the questions I had, but today I stand at a cross road where I cannot with certainty see this as a healthy expression of either Christ's Body or the fullest expression of the gospel. Does this mean I condemn either the Reformed or the Baptist tradition? God forbid. I have much greater angst towards the Baptist tradition for holding back the gospel from an entire group of people merely because of their lack of assent. Moreover I have a growing angst in the Reformed tradition for rejecting that very same gospel not in the Holy Sacrament of Baptism, but in the Holy Eucharist.  This is why I am endeavouring on the path of God willing a humble servant. I have no reason apart from God's Word and His Church to endeavour down this path, for I am content with Calvinism and my Presbyterian church, but it is not about being content. I hope to stand before God where He will say "Well done, good and faithful servant."  I hope that this will be of interest to people and that Lord willing He will work by His Word to save as He promised He would. God help me.  In some semblance I can stand with Martin Luther who said, "I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen."