12 hours ago
Showing posts with label Luther. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Luther. Show all posts
"You list "immutability" as an attribute of God; however, you do not list "mutability" as an attribute of man. The attributes you do list are all affected by man's essential mutability. For example, immortality is not an essential attribute of man. However, in his essential mutability, mortal man puts on immortality (1 Cor. 15:52, 53)."
He is right. The most important attribute of man is his mutability. If man were incapable of being changed, then there would be no hope for him. We, by nature, are dead in our trespasses in sin, and, if we were to remain that way would suffer in everlasting perdition. But thanks be to Christ, God has had mercy on us, and given us His Son's righteousness. As a result of this, we now have life in Him. Besides God's mercy and the Work of Christ on His cross, the only way any of this is possible is due to the fact that man's nature is capable of being changed from something dead to something alive by God's hands.
All this reminded me of something I read recently. The subject was regarding "Christian Alchemy", and the book was by John Warwick Montgomery; Principalities and Powers: A New Look At the World of the Occult. If you are interested on the history and subject of Christian Alchemy, then give what follows a read.
This passage comes from the 4th chapter titled, "The Stars and the Hermetic Tradition", under the subheading, "Alchemy: Gold From Dross":
Whether or not all such accounts represent reality, alchemy had another, and considerably more important side: spiritual transmutation, the search for a means by which the dross of one's base nature could be transformed into the gold of spiritual purity. Exceedingly important studies of this largely neglected aspect of the alchemical tradition have been made by religious phenomenologist Mircea Eliade and by analytical psychologist Carl Gustav Jung. They have observed that the laboratory operations of the alchemist served as a "physical liturgy" - a ritual whereby the adept searched for the means to overcome the disjunction in himself (expressed as the opposing principles of "Sulphur" and "Mercury"). The discovery of the Stone of the Philosophers (often significantly termed the Elixir of Life or the Universal Medicine) would arise on the basis of the "conjunction of opposites" in the personality (symbolized by the alchemical marriage of Sulphur and Mercury). Thus would the alchemist achieve what Jung called "individuation": personal wholeness, salvation. Physical or metallic transmutation interlocked with this because of the fundamental hermetic belief that a "cosmic unity" embraced both the Macrocosm (nature) and the Microcosm (man). The Philosopher's Stone would therefore not only accelerate the organic and natural transformation of base metals into more "noble" elements but would also serve as the means to personal salvation and eternal life.
The redemptive side of alchemy was capable--as is anything related to human salvation--of two approaches, charachterized in Christian theology as "works-righteousness" and "salvation by grace through faith." Works-righteousness refers to any and all activities on the part of fallen man to save himself through self-effort; such attempts are doomed to failure because sin, like water, cannot rise above its own level, and the very activity of trying to save oneself is evidence that the sinner refuses to admit the extent of his self-centeredness. Salvation by God's grace, appropriated by faith, is the only way to life, for to rely on God is to see the true extent of one's own sinful incapacity and to go to the one pure source of lifegiving medicine. Alchemy outside the Christian tradition, and the Gnostic, "nature-philosophy" hermeticism of Renaissance Paracelsians and modern esoteric alchemists, is most definitely a variation on the theme of works-righteousness. By self-motivated religio-chemical technique, the adept harmonized the contraries within him, produced the Philospher's Stone, and transmutated his own existence to higher, more spiritual plane. Goethe's Faust is a characteristic example of the esoteric alchemist who by trying to save his own life ends up in a genuine devil's pact.
There were also, however, many Christian alchemists, who, losing their lives for Christ's sake saved them. Particularly in the epoch of the Protestant Reformation (the 16th and 17th centuries were the high point of alchemical activity in western history), alchemists imbued with Luther's central conviction that the just shall live by faith employed alchemical operations as a liturgy of biblical salvation. The Philosopher's Stone became "the Stone that the builders rejected": Christ Himself, who alone could achieve the conjunction of opposites in the individual soul and in the cosmos (the "chemical marriage" of Sulphur and Mercury displayed the Marriage Supper of the Lamb). Reformation alchemists produced outstanding works interrelating hermetic symbolism and Scriptural truth (e.g. Heinrich Khunrath's Amphitheatrum sapientiae aeternae of 1609, and the many writings of Michael Maier), and some of them, such as Libavius, contributed mightily to the development of today's chemistry.
Did "spiritual transmutation" work? The common rationalistic approach to the question is first of all to demythologize physical alchemy (metallic transmutations were merely "symbolic" of inner, existential transformation) and then to dispense with the spiritual claims of alchemists as subjective will-to-believe. This line of interpretation directly parallels the negatively critical approach to the Bible which first demythologizes the texts by eliminating their historical claims and then subjectivizes their message. But not all cases even of physical transmutation can be easily dismissed, as we have already noted. Where spiritual alchemy is concerned, Carl Gustav Jung made the striking discovery that the fundamental symbols and motifs employed by the old alchemists also appear in the dream life of the modern businessman! These common--indeed, universal--"symbols of transformation" represent what Jung calls archetypes of the collective unconscious: symbolic patterns describing every man's need to have his broken soul mended.
Thus the alchemists were engaged in a real--not a mythical or individual-subjective--quest. Did they find an answer? We know that the Christian alchemists did, for Christ was their Philosopher's Stone, and His historical resurrection from the dead establishes the veracity of His promise that "because I live, you shall live also" (Jn. 14:19) As for the esoteric alchemists who sought (and continue to seek, for many still exist, especially in France) a salvation that can be drawn from within themselves or achieved by technique, they too "have their reward" (Mt. 6:2, 5, 16). It would be fruitless to deny their claims to special spiritual experience. But salvation can be counterfeited, for the Evil One is "a liar and the father of lies" (Jn. 8:44). The quest of the true Philosopher's Stone is dangerous: "whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder" (Lk. 20:18). A broken and contrite heart will not be despised, and the path to salvation goes in that direction; while the arrogance and false security of self-salvation have no other end than the crushing weight of a millstone.
(Montgomery, John Warwick; Principalities and Powers; pgs. 101-104, Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1973)
497 Years ago today a learned monk of the Augustinian order named Martin Luther nailed a document called The 95 Theses to the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. The world has never been the same! Here is that document, and the hymn of the Reformation: A Mighty Fortress!
+Soli+Deo+Gloria
Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences
by Dr. Martin Luther (1517) Published in:
Works of Martin Luther:
Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds.
(Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), Vol.1, pp. 29-38
Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.
In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.
2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.
3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.
4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.
6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God’s remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.
7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.
8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.
11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.
12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.
14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.
15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.
17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.
18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.
19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.
20. Therefore by “full remission of all penalties” the pope means not actually “of all,” but only of those imposed by himself.
21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope’s indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;
22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.
23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.
24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty.
25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.
26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.
27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].
28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.
29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.
30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.
31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.
32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.
33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;
34. For these “graces of pardon” concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.
35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.
36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.
37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.
38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.
39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.
40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].
41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.
42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.
43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;
44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.
45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.
46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.
47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.
48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.
49. Christians are to be taught that the pope’s pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.
50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter’s church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.
51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope’s wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.
52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.
53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.
54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.
55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
56. The “treasures of the Church,” out of which the pope. grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.
57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.
58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.
59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church’s poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.
60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ’s merit, are that treasure;
61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.
62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.
64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.
65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.
66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.
67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the “greatest graces” are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.
68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.
69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.
70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.
71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!
72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!
73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.
74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.
75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God — this is madness.
76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.
77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.
78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.
79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.
80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.
81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.
82. To wit: — “Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial.”
83. Again: — “Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?”
84. Again: — “What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul’s own need, free it for pure love’s sake?”
85. Again: — “Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?”
86. Again: — “Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?”
87. Again: — “What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?”
88. Again: — “What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?”
89. “Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?”
90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.
91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.
92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace!
93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Cross, cross,” and there is no cross!
94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;
95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.
A Lutheran and Calvinist Debate on Limited vs. Universal Atonement
0 comments Posted by Drew Lomax at 10:55 PMPlease visit this link to witness a debate on the (false) Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement vs. the (correct) Lutheran doctrine of universal atonement (objectively offered to all and subjectively received by some, of course).
Arguing for the Calvinist side is Frank Turk, an "internet apologist", and, obviously, a Calvinist.
Arguing for the Lutheran side is Pr. Stuart Wood, who is one of the instruments of God's use in putting this blog together in the first place, and also a good friend to boot.
Please give a look-see!
.
.
Arguing for the Calvinist side is Frank Turk, an "internet apologist", and, obviously, a Calvinist.
Arguing for the Lutheran side is Pr. Stuart Wood, who is one of the instruments of God's use in putting this blog together in the first place, and also a good friend to boot.
Please give a look-see!
.
.
(*Update*)
Here the InternetMonk blog posts that started this whole thing.
In addition, Todd Wilken of Issues Etc., has done an interview with the author of "The Coming Evangelical Collapse", Michael Spencer. Give it a listen!
Wow! Here is some "glass-is-half-full" positive news about American Evangelicalism from Michael Spencer, columnist for the Christian Science Monitor, he says:
"We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West."
"Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the "Protestant" 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century."
"This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good."
"Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I'm convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close."
Ah, there's nothing like callin'em as you see'em!
Now, According to Spencer, here's why (many reasons I agree with, by the way):
"1. Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism."
"2. We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught."
"3. There are three kinds of evangelical churches today: consumer-driven megachurches, dying churches, and new churches whose future is fragile."
"4. Despite some very successful developments in the past 25 years, Christian education has not produced a product that can withstand the rising tide of secularism."
"5. The confrontation between cultural secularism and the faith at the core of evangelical efforts to "do good" is rapidly approaching."
"6. Even in areas where Evangelicals imagine themselves strong (like the Bible Belt), we will find a great inability to pass on to our children a vital evangelical confidence in the Bible and the importance of the faith."
Now, according to Spencer, what will be left?
"•Expect evangelicalism to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches that have defined success."
"•Two of the beneficiaries will be the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions."
"•A small band will work hard to rescue the movement from its demise through theological renewal."
"•The emerging church will largely vanish from the evangelical landscape, becoming part of the small segment of progressive mainline Protestants that remain true to the liberal vision."
"•Aggressively evangelistic fundamentalist churches will begin to disappear."
"•Charismatic-Pentecostal Christianity will become the majority report in evangelicalism."
"•Evangelicalism needs a "rescue mission" from the world Christian community."
"•Expect a fragmented response to the culture war."
This partly jives with an (AFP) report regarding the rise of secularism, and other reports regarding declining Church membership across the board.
The basic gist of the (AFP) press report states that:
"Secularism is gaining ground in the United States, eating away at the percentage of Americans who identify with the Protestant Christianity of the founding fathers, a poll published Monday showed."
"The percentage of Americans who adhered to no particular religion jumped from 8.2 percent in 1990 to 15 percent last year, the third American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) conducted over 10 months last year by pollsters from Trinity College in Connecticut, showed."
"When the survey was conducted in 2001, 14.1 percent of respondents said they were not religious."
Now, if what these reports are stating is indeed fact, then things will definitely be a-changin' in the religious and political landscape as we know it. However, for now, I want to go back to Spencer's reasons why and expectations of things to come.
First he says, "Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism."
When he states the term "Evangelicals" I will suppose that he's referring to everything under the umbrella of "American-style Evangelicalism".
Oddly enough, much of the "culture war" phenomena was started by the family values oriented LDS Church. Only since the late sixties, following the social and political upheaval of the times did the fundamentalists jump on board and try to "take back culture", as if they had owned it at one time or another, or that it's theirs by right or something. Now we have organizations like Focus on the Family, and Campus Crusades for Christ, etc., who follow more of a "deeds not creeds" mentality, which believes nothing more than civil righteousness as God pleasing acts. That's when you hear guys such as Hagee, or Robertson, et. al, claim that when any calamity which befalls the United States is a just punishment from God because of the immoral republic. These guys are classic theologians of glory, God rewards good behavior and punishes evil behavior, therefore when anything bad happens to the nation, it's because of the immorality of its people. Yet, these guys fail to see that everything, even the good things man does is nothing but evil. and for a better explanation on this point see thesis 6, and proof from the Heidelberg disputation.
As for the political element of it all, it is frankly disturbing. It is right for everyone outside the fray of Evangelicalism to look with a jaundiced eye at the gland-hand, Christian, political action committee lobbyists who cozy up with politicians in hopes of affecting some legislation favorable to their side. One hasn't seen such coziness between Church and State since the 15th century, and heaven forbid you tell a fundamentalist that he resembles the papacy, for he's sure to respond, "but I don't pray to Mary or the Saints, or go to confession, or believe the Pope is infallible", as if this "style-over-substance" were the only thing that separates us from Rome.
Later he says, "[w]e Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught."
I'll assume, once again, that when he speaks of "orthodox" that he's speaking of Churches rooted in Biblical doctrine and the Word of God. If this is the case, then I must say that I agree with him. The discipline, or lack thereof, regarding American Churches in passing on their faith, correctly mind you, in favor of the "happy-clappy" style of worship and personal devotion, has showed itself highly inferior to secularist intellectuals, especially when a young Christian is faced with it on their college campus.
Regarding what Spencer is anticipating for the Evangelicalism to come, he said, "[e]xpect [it] to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches...."
Oh no, not more of this! I suppose though if people are going to reject the Gospel and sound Biblical doctrine, not that the current American Evangelical Churches necessarily teach such things, but the masses will still need an idol of "Christian-Lite", you know, heavy on pop-psychology and lite on doctrine, to get them through. I just wish this won't be the case, but I'll suppose we'll see.
Later he says, "[t]wo of the beneficiaries will be the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions."
Well, this is already an occurring phenomenon. Please see my article here, and response to that article here where I wrote about, and then communicated with a Fr. Hackney who converted from the LCMS to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Also, another more notable case is that of Christian Apologist Francis Beckwith, who converted from (I'm not exactly sure what Church body he was originally affiliated with, but it was something akin to American Evangelicalism, I think, but please don't quote me on that) to Roman Catholicism.
So, I guess if people grow disgusted by "content-less", "un-historic" Christianity then it would make some sense for someone to gravitate towards something with a tremendous weight of history and meaningful tradition.
All-in-all no one knows what the future holds, and as for me, I'm with Luther (in more ways than just this one) when he says, and I paraphrase, "if someone knew beyond the shadow of a doubt the world were to end tomorrow, I would plant a tree today." So, in regard to crumbling Church movements, where crumblings have actually happened, and rumors of crumblings are supposed to happen, we, that is Confessional Orthodox Lutherans must preach the Gospel to lost and broken souls today.
(But then again maybe there's something to all this, perhaps this is what Dave Wilkerson was talking about on his blog. But then again, maybe not.)
Today we look at thesis five of the Heidelberg Disputation, it states:
The works of God (we speak of those which he does through man) are thus not merits, as though they were sinless.
It is here we delve deeper into how God works through man, and, more especially how these works of God relate to the so-called “righteous-capabilities” of man.
For the sake of illustration, let’s pretend a pro-angler was given a rod made of the weakest, rotted-through, worm-eaten balsa wood one could find. Also, instead of high-test string, he was given a spool of over-cooked spaghetti in its place. And, just to make the example a little more absurd, let's just forget about any kind of bait altogether. Yet, in spite of these impossible disadvantages this experienced fisherman miraculously catches a glorious 15 pound Bass! How he manages to do such a thing is beyond us, but, nevertheless he does it. Now, would we marvel at the fisherman and his ability to pull off such an amazing feet, or would we give all praise to the rod?
Given the knowledge of all the particulars it's kind of a stupid question right? Well not so fast, for what's truly amazing is how many people would actually give praise to the rod. Let me explain.
While many would give lip-service praise to God for the ability to do any kind of good thing, they would still be understood as a “good” person, and perhaps accept praise for as much. It's as if the goodness of the work derives itself from, and is attributed to the person, instead of the source of all goodness, which is none other than God himself.
The perfect example of this is seen at any kind of awards gala. The person receiving recognition, perhaps may give thanks to God, but in the end, the event is not about our Lord, it is about the people receiving the award. So, in many cases, after giving lip service to God, they then recite a seemingly endless list of people they thank, people they could’ve never accomplished such and such an act without, all the while never thanking God for putting these very same people into their lives to help in the first place. While it may be true that a person could never do a certain thing without help of another, nevertheless, the help they receive, whether it is from natural circumstances or helping hand from without, ultimately comes from God, does it not? And, as for the people who are attending, to them this is not a worship service for God, but for the people of honor, the people whom this benefit is for.
Unfortunately, it's not much different in the church either. In a PC-USA Presbyterian church, a church I was once a member of, it was, and probably still is common practice for the congregation to clap wildly in appreciation for any kind of soloist (instrumental or vocal), for the choir, or for the children’s skit (regrettably during worship), what have you, as if the congregation was at some kind of concert hooting and hollering for their favorite pop-star! One time, during a “Wide-Open-Worship” service I was regrettably attending (notice the clever acronym W.O.W.), the “worship-leader” felt a little embarrassed (perhaps a guilt-pang of conscience maybe) by all the praise she was receiving, and to alleviate some of this “embarrassment” she praised and encouraged the audience to continue giving “claps for Jesus”.
So, it's easy to see that from the secular world all the way into the pews of our local congregation that it's quite common to obey our natural urges and praise the works of men, but not the God who gives us the ability to do any of these works in the first place. However, that's not really all that this thesis is trying to get at, as a matter of fact, it is but a small part, for the focus of this thesis is on what man observes as a good and “sinless” work.
The thesis presumes the bondage of man to sin (Rom. 3:10-18) as the only thing he's capable of doing in any active sense, even when the outcome is good, or the observation of the act appears right to human eyes. Yet, it is really by God working through us in a passive sense that any good is procured or made manifest through the work itself, and subsequently the work we actively do still remains sinful because of our bound nature. Here is Luther describing it beautifully in his own words regarding the proof for this thesis, and he states:
“In Eccles. 7[:20], we read, “Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.” In this connection, however, some people say that the righteous man indeed sins, but not when he does good. They may be refuted in the following manner: “If that is what this verse wants to say, why waste so many words?” or does the Holy Spirit like to indulge in loquacious and foolish babble? For this meaning would then be adequately expressed by the following: “There is not a righteous man on earth who does not sin.” Why does he add “who does good,” as if another person were righteous who did evil? For no one except a righteous man does good. Where, however, he speaks of sins outside the realm of good works he speaks thus [Prov. 24:16], “The righteous man falls seven times a day.” Here he does not say, “A righteous man falls seven times a day when he does good.” This is a comparison. If someone cuts with a rusty and rough hatchet, even though the worker is a good craftsman, the hatchet leaves bad, jagged, and ugly gashes. So it is when God works through us.”
So, what does this all point back to? Well, what it points back to is that man, in his natural state, cannot see things as they really are. God is hidden to him, and is hidden to him by an act of mans evil will. When He, that is God, works in the world it's as if He wears masks, scary, ugly masks that effectively work in making God look like a devil, or a fool (not that this is or isn't necessarily his intention). Man's erring reason assumes that because Gods works appear evil or foolish is that it's because He is an evil fool. However, this is only man averting his eyes from the truth, for the evilness that seems to come about by God's work is really better likened to a master working with a poor instrument, which is nothing but Him working through us or fallen nature, both of which are a consequence of original sin.
Conversely, when we see a ray of light in the ordinarily ugly actions of man we are quick to attribute it to the “indwelling goodness” of that individual. Yet, once again this is simply man unwilling to look at his own evil nature, and willfully denying that he's incapable of doing anything other than actively sinning.
So, here we are once again, looking at the nature of God and the nature of man confusing ultimately what is plainly visible with what is hidden, and what is plainly good with what is evil. Why? Well, it basically boils down to this, we can't bare to look at ourselves as we really are. The only way we can possibly do that is by looking at our reflection in the mirror of God's Law, and even doing that causes us to retract in horror, so much so, that we pray to never do it again. You see, in this reflection we will see someone who so richly deserves the full wrath of God that the only punishment to suffice would be public humiliation, flogging, permanent alienation from God, and hanging cursed on a tree until death, nevertheless before our family, friends, and fellow countrymen.
If you ask me how I know this, then I must answer that this is the very death my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ died in my stead. I know this because, according to the Scripture, my sin is now His, and His righteousness is now mine. This cruel death and punishment He took in my place. The humiliation I deserve He endured. The flogging He received was on account of my sins. And the curse of hanging on a tree, which Christ received was truly the curse that was solely unto me alone.
God did to His own Son what He vowed to never do to us.(Heb. 13:5) The forsaken nature of Christ on the cross at calvary was always meant for me, but because Christ took it upon Himself, I never have to question God's favor towards me. Whenever I feel forsaken of God I can always look back to Christ on the cross and know, confidently, that Christ was forsaken of God once and for all, and especially for me from all eternity. Yet, not only me, but for the whole world as well. Christ has made all things new, and in Him we are no longer made in the likeness of our first father Adam, but in the likeness of the Son of God, restored unto the very likeness of God himself.
Yet, do I not still look into the mirror of God's Law and see this wretched man? Of course I do, we all do! However, in spite of what we see, always know that God's Law is a two-way mirror, while, yes, you cannot help but see your hideous reflection, God, when looking through the other side at us, also can't help but see the resplendent beauty of Christ's righteousness in our place. He no longer sees us as our true selves; He sees us nothing other than His very own Son. So, let us then rest in the peace of our Lord, perceiving nothing but Christ and Him crucified for our sins just like our Father in heaven perceives our image through nothing but His blessed holiness. Once this right perception of things unseen is restored, then, and only then can we apprehend correctly the divine mysteries of our God in heaven.
Bible Passage:Gal 3:10
For as many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continues not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them. Gal. 3:10.
* * *
Here we see that the curse is, as it were, a flood swallowing up whatsoever is without Abraham; that is to say, without faith and the promise of the blessing of Abraham. Now, if the Law itself, given by Moses at the commandment of God, makes them subject to the curse who are under it, much more shall the laws and traditions so do, that are devised by man. He, therefore, that will avoid the curse, must lay hold upon the promise of blessing, or upon the faith of Abraham, or else he shall remain under the curse. Upon this place "shall be blessed in thee," it follows that all nations, whether they were before Abraham, in his time, or after him, are accursed, and shall abide under the curse forever, unless they be blessed in the faith of Abraham, unto whom the promise of the blessing was given to be published by his seed throughout the whole world. Here nothing is handled as touching civil laws, manners, or matters political (which are the ordinances of God, and good things, and the Scripture elsewhere approves and commends the same), but of a spiritual righteousness, by which we are justified before God and are called the children of God. This spiritual righteousness, excluding the Law and all works, looks only unto the grace and blessing which is given by Christ, as it was promised to Abraham and by him believed. Now, if we hope to receive this blessing by Christ alone, then it follows necessarily that it is not received by the Law. They, therefore, who are under the Law are not blessed, but remain under the curse.
Believing, we rejoice
To see the curse remove;
We bless the Lamb with cheerful voice,
And sing His bleeding love.
(This is from the website LCMS sermons; you can get this sent to your e-mail everyday if you wish.)
Bible Passage:Gal 3:9
So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. Gal. 3:9.
* * *
All the weight and force of this passage lies in the words, "With faithful Abraham." For he puts a plain difference between Abraham and Abraham. As if we said, 'There is a working and a believing Abraham.' With the working Abraham we have nothing to do, for if he is justified by works, he may boast, but not before God. Let the Jews glory as much as they will of that begetting Abraham who is a worker, who is circumcised, and keeps the Law; but we glory in the faithful Abraham, of whom the Scripture says that he received the blessing of righteousness through his faith, not only for himself, but also for all those which believe as he did. Therefore all the world is blessed; that is to say, receives the imputation of righteousness, if it believes as Abraham did. Wherefore the blessing is nothing else but the promise of the Gospel. It was indeed a great glory that Abraham received circumcision at the commandment of God, that he was endued with excellent virtues, that he obeyed God in all things, as it is also great virtue to follow the example of Christ working, to love your neighbor, to pray for your enemies; but all this avails nothing toward righteousness before God. Paul speaks here of Christ redeeming and Abraham believing, and not of Christ giving example or of Abraham working.
Look unto Him, ye nations; own
Your God, ye fallen race;
Look, and be saved through faith alone.
Be justified by grace.
75] But if you say: What, then, shall I do if I cannot feel such distress or experience hunger and thirst for the Sacrament? Answer: For those who are so minded that they do not realize their condition I know no better counsel than that they put their hand into their bosom to ascertain whether they also have flesh and blood. And if you find that to be the case, then go, for your good, to St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, and hear what sort of a fruit your flesh is: Now the works of the flesh (he says [Gal. 5:19ff ]) are manifest, which are these: Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like.
76] Therefore, if you cannot feel it, at least believe the Scriptures; they will not lie to you, and they know your flesh better than you yourself. Yea, St. Paul further concludes in Rom. 7:18: I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing. If St. Paul may speak thus of his flesh, we do not propose to be better nor more holy. 77] But that we do not feel it is so much the worse; for it is a sign that there is a leprous flesh which feels nothing, and yet [the leprosy] rages and keeps spreading. 78] Yet, as we have said, if you are quite dead to all sensibility, still believe the Scriptures, which pronounce sentence upon you. And, in short, the less you feel your sins and infirmities, the more reason have you to go to the Sacrament to seek help and a remedy.
79] In the second place, look about you and see whether you are also in the world, or if you do not know it, ask your neighbors about it. If you are in the world, do not think that there will be lack of sins and misery. For only begin to act as though you would be godly and adhere to the Gospel, and see whether no one will become your enemy, and, moreover, do you harm, wrong, and violence, and likewise give you cause for sin and vice. If you have not experienced it, then let the Scriptures tell you, which everywhere give this praise and testimony to the world.
80] Besides this, you will also have the devil about you, whom you will not entirely tread under foot, because our Lord Christ Himself could not entirely avoid him. Now, what is the devil? 81] Nothing else than what the Scriptures call him, a liar and murderer. A liar, to lead the heart astray from the Word of God, and to blind it, that you cannot feel your distress or come to Christ. A murderer, who cannot bear to see you live one single hour. 82] If you could see how many knives, darts, and arrows are every moment aimed at you, you would be glad to come to the Sacrament as often as possible. But there is no reason why we walk so securely and heedlessly, except that we neither think nor believe that we are in the flesh, and in this wicked world or in the kingdom of the devil.
83] Therefore, try this and practise it well, and do but examine yourself, or look about you a little, and only keep to the Scriptures. If even then you still feel nothing, you have so much the more misery to lament both to God and to your brother. Then take advice and have others pray for you, and do not desist until the stone be removed from your heart. 84] Then, indeed, the distress will not fail to become manifest, and you will find that you have sunk twice as deep as any other poor sinner, and are much more in need of the Sacrament against the misery which unfortunately you do not see, so that, with the grace of God, you may feel it more and become the more hungry for the Sacrament, especially since the devil plies his force against you, and lies in wait for you without ceasing to seize and destroy you, soul and body, so that you are not safe from him one hour. How soon can he have brought you suddenly into misery and distress when you least expect it!
85] Let this, then, be said for exhortation, not only for those of us who are old and grown, but also for the young people, who ought to be brought up in the Christian doctrine and understanding. For thereby the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer might be the more easily inculcated to our youth, so that they would receive them with pleasure and earnestness, and thus would practise them from their youth and accustom themselves to them. 86] For the old are now well-nigh done for, so that these and other things cannot be attained, unless we train the people who are to come after us and succeed us in our office and work, in order that they also may bring up their children successfully, that the Word of God and the Christian Church may be preserved. 87] Therefore let every father of a family know that it is his duty, by the injunction and command of God, to teach these things to his children, or have them learn what they ought to know. For since they are baptized and received into the Christian Church, they should also enjoy this communion of the Sacrament, in order that they may serve us and be useful to us; for they must all indeed help us to believe, love, pray, and fight against the devil.
.
.
...Pr. Stuart Wood's insightful articles based on Seigbert W. Becker's, The Foolishness of God? This book along with these seven articles give a great introduction into the Lutheran understanding of reasons rightful place. Read and enjoy!
Christian Faith versus Human Reason
by: Pr. Stuart Wood
(This article is republished with the authors consent)
The Priority of Faith
It is a privilege for me to share with you some things that I have learned while on my Christian pilgrimage. What follows is partly testimony, partly instruction, and partly warning. As far as I am aware, the ELCR is one of the last remnants of the visible, orthodox, historical Church here on earth. Not that there are not other Christians elsewhere, but you have the high honor of still holding to the Word of God in all of its truth and purity. May God preserve this unique and valuable heritage in these last days of Satanic assault.
One of the things that led me to recognize Martin Luther as a true teacher of the orthodox Church was his constant and correct emphasis on the priority of faith over reason. Dr. Luther understood that faith was that God-given ability to confidently affirm the truth of God's Word wherever it might go. There is no such thing as faith without the external, objective Word of God. "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" (Rom. 10:17). "Through faith, we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God" (Heb. 11:3). Abraham, the Father of Faith, was commended because he was "fully persuaded that what God had promised, He was able also to perform" (Rom. 4:21).
Dr. Luther did not oppose reason in and of itself. Rather, he insisted that reason must operate within its own proper domain. Faith must lead reason, and not vice versa. Luther called reason, "Madame Reason". She must be subject to her husband, Faith. She must behave herself modestly, and call him "Lord". She must not usurp his God-given authority to lead. She must remain silent in the Church, and keep herself covered in worship for the sake of the angels. In the Assembly, we must hear only the oracles of God, with the voice of Faith ever saying, "Amen and Amen".
Click here to continue reading...
Today we will examine thesis 3 of the Heidelberg Disputation:
Thesis 3 states that:
Although the works of man always appear attractive and good, they are nevertheless likely to be mortal sins.
Alright, at this moment I believe I've heard a "ker-plunk" in the reasoning portion of the blogosphere's collective mind. I can imagine people (even Christians mind you) saying that, "This isn't true, what could Luther possibly mean by this? Surely he's a fool!"
Well, Luther did refer to himself as "God's fool" many times, but he did so within the context of 1 Cor. 1:25 where it says:
"...the foolishness of God is wiser than men, ..."
So, as to the foolishness of God, let us all pray that we partake of God's unique and very different wisdom, trusting in nothing but what His Word tells us about us, Himself, and our relation to Him wholeheartedly, even if it's in spite of our reason.
Now, regarding what exactly Luther is saying here, it's very important to keep perspective. And, what's most important is that we, as much as humanly possible, try to lose our perspective and attempt to see things through God's eyes.
Mankind has made for himself a system of justice based almost in whole part upon a conglomeration of different philosophies and sciences from throughout the ages. This system is hardly a settled issue in any sense, for the pock-marked surface of human laws are hammered out each day in courts all over the world. Nor do mans laws agree in every land, and subsequently, confrontations have naturally occur based on what one tribe considers legal and what another one doesn't. Yet, man indeed does have a moral intuition given him by God (i.e. conscience), and from this moral intuition he sees the necessity in deeming certain acts good and other acts evil.
For example, when we saw the firemen that ran into burning buildings to save lives on the morning of 9/11, while recognizing that many of them payed the ultimate price in doing so, we easily understand this as a good, morally upright, and heroic act. And also, in another instance a little closer to home, a co-worker of mine recently received a badly needed kidney from his brother. Now, the owner of the company I work for-a Roman Catholic-has called my co-worker's brother, based solely upon his good work, a saint. Believe me, I'm not exaggerating in the least bit by saying that my boss believes his action has earned this man heaven itself. Although, I as a Lutheran do not agree with my boss or believe God's knighted him in sainthood based on his deed, I still do nevertheless naturally see virtue in his selfless act.
However, this is the very problem. I'm trusting in my nature and in the judgment of what I see, and if I were to let that carry me away beyond the safe harbors of sound Lutheran doctrine, then there's no doubt I'd stand in solidarity with my boss by thinking these great deeds have indeed earned all the men who performed them God's salvation.
You see, this is man's natural religion; if you do good deeds then you get rewarded, you do bad deeds you get punished, plain and simple! Anybody who questions this common sense notion is perceived to be silly, foolish, or even perhaps evil. However, and unfortunately, we don't see things as they really are.
This is how Luther describes our works in his proof for thesis 4, he states:
Human works appear attractive outwardly, but within they are filthy, as Christ says concerning the Pharisees in Matt. 23[:27]. For they appear to the doer and others good and beautiful, yet God does not judge according to appearances but searches "the minds and hearts" [Ps. 7:9]. For without grace and faith it is impossible to have a pure heart. Acts 15[:9]: "He cleansed their hearts by faith." The thesis is proven in the following way: If the works of righteous men are sins, as Thesis 7 of this disputation states, this is much more the case concerning the works of those who are not righteous. But the just speak in behalf of their works in the following way: "Do not enter into judgment with thy servant, Lord, for no man living is righteous before thee" [Ps. 143:2].
The Apostle speaks likewise in Gal. 3 [:10], "All who rely on the works of the law are under the curse." But the works of men are the works of the law, and the curse will not be placed upon venial sins. Therefore they are mortal sins.
In the third place, Rom. 2[:21] states, "You who teach others not to steal, do you steal?" St. Augustine interprets this to mean that men are thieves according to their guilty consciences even if they publicly judge or reprimand other thieves.
You see, since the time our first parents fell, we are by nature bound unto sin, and we can do nothing other. So, even when we do something we would otherwise judge as good, in God's eyes it is nothing but sin, for, that's all we're capable of doing. Yet, when we receive Christ's righteousness, when his virtuous works done here during his time on earth are applied to us, we are thus covered by it in everything we do, yes, even our sins, and this is what causes us to be righteous in the sight of God. And so, it basically boils down to this: if there is any good that comes about by the works we do, then God be praised; if there is any evil, whether great or small, intentional or unintentional, then we in whole part solely possess it.
Now, on earth we may act as judge and deliver sentences upon our fellow brothers to the very best of our ability, but we are unable to judge the hearts and minds of the defendants before us. This task solely belongs to God, and to God alone. He has given us the very scale upon which he has weighed what we consider our righteousness, namely by His Law, and He has found us severely wanting. Yes, even the firemen of 9/11 and my co-workers brother's works are nothing but wretched and vile sins, and yes, to make it abundantly clear, even these most heroic and life saving acts are but rubbish before God's eyes. However, the only reason they'd be rubbish, is when and if these men ever wore their works as feathers in a fancy cap, flouting them before God and thinking He was impressed by their pious attire.
You see, unless we fear that even our best works are mortal sins, salvation can never be granted us by God. Whatever good we believe we do, the praise really belongs to the one who has hidden our sin, by covering us in His righteousness. For, without God there is no good, and without Jesus we share no communion in God's goodness. He is what makes us good; we, left to ourselves, really have nothing to do with it at all. It's Christ who is our righteousness, and for God and His perfect judgment no other supposed pseudo, self-assured "righteousness" will suffice. We can now rest in the fact that all is done in Christ, and that we no longer need to labor under the torture of the Law. Jesus' sinless life has been imputed to us for all eternity, and not even Satan can take that away from us. Let us now steadfastly cling to out great Savior, our only assurance in this perishing world, and stand with confidence before God our Father, pointing to nothing but Christ and His cross.
Thesis 3 states that:
Although the works of man always appear attractive and good, they are nevertheless likely to be mortal sins.
Alright, at this moment I believe I've heard a "ker-plunk" in the reasoning portion of the blogosphere's collective mind. I can imagine people (even Christians mind you) saying that, "This isn't true, what could Luther possibly mean by this? Surely he's a fool!"
Well, Luther did refer to himself as "God's fool" many times, but he did so within the context of 1 Cor. 1:25 where it says:
"...the foolishness of God is wiser than men, ..."
So, as to the foolishness of God, let us all pray that we partake of God's unique and very different wisdom, trusting in nothing but what His Word tells us about us, Himself, and our relation to Him wholeheartedly, even if it's in spite of our reason.
Now, regarding what exactly Luther is saying here, it's very important to keep perspective. And, what's most important is that we, as much as humanly possible, try to lose our perspective and attempt to see things through God's eyes.
Mankind has made for himself a system of justice based almost in whole part upon a conglomeration of different philosophies and sciences from throughout the ages. This system is hardly a settled issue in any sense, for the pock-marked surface of human laws are hammered out each day in courts all over the world. Nor do mans laws agree in every land, and subsequently, confrontations have naturally occur based on what one tribe considers legal and what another one doesn't. Yet, man indeed does have a moral intuition given him by God (i.e. conscience), and from this moral intuition he sees the necessity in deeming certain acts good and other acts evil.
For example, when we saw the firemen that ran into burning buildings to save lives on the morning of 9/11, while recognizing that many of them payed the ultimate price in doing so, we easily understand this as a good, morally upright, and heroic act. And also, in another instance a little closer to home, a co-worker of mine recently received a badly needed kidney from his brother. Now, the owner of the company I work for-a Roman Catholic-has called my co-worker's brother, based solely upon his good work, a saint. Believe me, I'm not exaggerating in the least bit by saying that my boss believes his action has earned this man heaven itself. Although, I as a Lutheran do not agree with my boss or believe God's knighted him in sainthood based on his deed, I still do nevertheless naturally see virtue in his selfless act.
However, this is the very problem. I'm trusting in my nature and in the judgment of what I see, and if I were to let that carry me away beyond the safe harbors of sound Lutheran doctrine, then there's no doubt I'd stand in solidarity with my boss by thinking these great deeds have indeed earned all the men who performed them God's salvation.
You see, this is man's natural religion; if you do good deeds then you get rewarded, you do bad deeds you get punished, plain and simple! Anybody who questions this common sense notion is perceived to be silly, foolish, or even perhaps evil. However, and unfortunately, we don't see things as they really are.
This is how Luther describes our works in his proof for thesis 4, he states:
Human works appear attractive outwardly, but within they are filthy, as Christ says concerning the Pharisees in Matt. 23[:27]. For they appear to the doer and others good and beautiful, yet God does not judge according to appearances but searches "the minds and hearts" [Ps. 7:9]. For without grace and faith it is impossible to have a pure heart. Acts 15[:9]: "He cleansed their hearts by faith." The thesis is proven in the following way: If the works of righteous men are sins, as Thesis 7 of this disputation states, this is much more the case concerning the works of those who are not righteous. But the just speak in behalf of their works in the following way: "Do not enter into judgment with thy servant, Lord, for no man living is righteous before thee" [Ps. 143:2].
The Apostle speaks likewise in Gal. 3 [:10], "All who rely on the works of the law are under the curse." But the works of men are the works of the law, and the curse will not be placed upon venial sins. Therefore they are mortal sins.
In the third place, Rom. 2[:21] states, "You who teach others not to steal, do you steal?" St. Augustine interprets this to mean that men are thieves according to their guilty consciences even if they publicly judge or reprimand other thieves.
You see, since the time our first parents fell, we are by nature bound unto sin, and we can do nothing other. So, even when we do something we would otherwise judge as good, in God's eyes it is nothing but sin, for, that's all we're capable of doing. Yet, when we receive Christ's righteousness, when his virtuous works done here during his time on earth are applied to us, we are thus covered by it in everything we do, yes, even our sins, and this is what causes us to be righteous in the sight of God. And so, it basically boils down to this: if there is any good that comes about by the works we do, then God be praised; if there is any evil, whether great or small, intentional or unintentional, then we in whole part solely possess it.
Now, on earth we may act as judge and deliver sentences upon our fellow brothers to the very best of our ability, but we are unable to judge the hearts and minds of the defendants before us. This task solely belongs to God, and to God alone. He has given us the very scale upon which he has weighed what we consider our righteousness, namely by His Law, and He has found us severely wanting. Yes, even the firemen of 9/11 and my co-workers brother's works are nothing but wretched and vile sins, and yes, to make it abundantly clear, even these most heroic and life saving acts are but rubbish before God's eyes. However, the only reason they'd be rubbish, is when and if these men ever wore their works as feathers in a fancy cap, flouting them before God and thinking He was impressed by their pious attire.
You see, unless we fear that even our best works are mortal sins, salvation can never be granted us by God. Whatever good we believe we do, the praise really belongs to the one who has hidden our sin, by covering us in His righteousness. For, without God there is no good, and without Jesus we share no communion in God's goodness. He is what makes us good; we, left to ourselves, really have nothing to do with it at all. It's Christ who is our righteousness, and for God and His perfect judgment no other supposed pseudo, self-assured "righteousness" will suffice. We can now rest in the fact that all is done in Christ, and that we no longer need to labor under the torture of the Law. Jesus' sinless life has been imputed to us for all eternity, and not even Satan can take that away from us. Let us now steadfastly cling to out great Savior, our only assurance in this perishing world, and stand with confidence before God our Father, pointing to nothing but Christ and His cross.
...This excellent article by Pr. Stuart Wood called:
Taking the Mask off Calvinism
The Danger of Human Reason
by: Pr. Stuart Wood
(This article is republished with the author's consent)
Dear brethren of the ELCR, we live in a dangerous time. Today, more than ever before, Satan is trying to wipe true Christianity off the face of the map. We know that he cannot ultimately accomplish that, but we also know that he will not cease his efforts until the Lord comes. Jesus said, “No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.” (Mark 3:27). This binding of the strong man took place at the cross of Calvary. There our Lord rendered Satan powerless (Heb. 2:14). For the last two thousand years, He has been plundering his house, that is, rescuing poor lost souls who were formerly under his power. He has done this through the proclamation of the Gospel, how that “Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3). When a person hears this Word and receives it in true faith, he “hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24). He is “delivered from the power of darkness, and translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son” (Col. 1:13). But the Scriptures also tell us that this blessed time will come to an end. Revelation 20 speaks of a “little season” shortly before the Lord’s return when Satan will be loosed of his bonds and will make one last all-out assault on the Christian church. Since he is loosed, his house will no longer be plundered nor his goods spoiled. Rather, he will once again “keep his goods in peace”, that is, keep the lost in their deluded lost estate. From this we see that Satan will silence the Gospel during this “little season”.
Revelation 20 also tells us how he will silence the Gospel. He will do this by assembling together a vast horde of spiritual enemies from the four corners of the world to oppose and overwhelm “the camp of the saints”, “the beloved city”, that is, the true invisible church of Christ. The Scriptures call this horde “Gog” and “Magog”. According to St. Augustine, the word “Gog” means “a roof” and “Magog” means “from a roof”, and so the two terms have reference to “a house”. God is telling us that in the last days Satan will assemble his whole unbelieving house against the true Christian church. In every sphere of earthly power true Christianity will be marginalized, maligned, hated, and persecuted. Whether in the educational sphere, the scientific sphere, the vocational sphere, the economic sphere, the social sphere, the media sphere, the political sphere, the religious sphere, or any other earthly sphere of power, Satan will rise up as a multi-headed beast with a crown on every head. He will so vilify and malign the church, so thoroughly delude and prejudice the minds of the unbelieving, that few will dare or think to take her message seriously. The anti-Christian spirit will rule all earthly powers and will dominate and control the entire world.
Brethren, do we not see this anti-Christian spirit already in place? No matter where you turn today, the Word of God and those who truly stand with it are ridiculed and silenced. The world will tolerate anything and everything except the truth of God’s Word. And since God’s Word contains both His law and Gospel, those who rightly divide the Word are the special objects of this opposition and hatred. The world does not want to hear that they are lost sinners and it does not want to hear that Jesus Christ is the one and only Saviour from sin and death. The world seeks to kill the “two witnesses”, the law and the Gospel, who have tormented them for so long. Ultimately, due to Satan’s influence, it is the Gospel that they are most against, because Satan knows that the Gospel is the only truth by which a human soul may be saved. Satan hates souls because he hates God, the Creator and Lover of souls. He will gladly promote any religion, including all false representations of Christianity, if it is devoid of the Gospel because that does him no harm. All, except the true invisible church, will enjoy his nefarious smile and the earthly honors and treasures that go with it so long as they reject the Gospel.
One such religion that rejects and destroys the Gospel is Calvinism. Throughout this paper, I am speaking of that Calvinism that denies the universal atonement of Christ. For this reason Satan has raised it up and established it in its many forms. Its errors are subtle, reflecting the deep guile and great might of our old evil foe. The Scriptures describe the serpent as “more subtil than any beast of the field” (Gen. 3:1). The deadly danger of Calvinism is that it looks so much like true Christianity. It is a counterfeit that can easily pass as public tender. In fact, I would never have known or even have suspected the poisonous nature of this devilish lie if not for the writings of Martin Luther which taught me faith and delivered me from its terrible snare. You see, Calvinism is really a false religion, despite its appearance as an advocate for Biblical truth. It is a religion led of depraved human reason and not that true religion which belongs to the Word of God and child-like faith....Click here to continue reading this article...
As is explained in the conversation between Issues Etc., host Todd Wilken and his guest, Dr. Matt Phillips of Concordia University Nebraska, one can't really understand Roman Catholic theology without first understanding the philosophy of Aristotle.
Likewise, and in turn, one can't truly understand Luther and his diametric opposition to Medieval Scholasticism unless he first understands Luther's educational environment and its unspoken opposition to "scripture alone".
This audio is a good little introduction to Medieval Scholasticism, and Luther's reaction to the educational zeitgeist of the later 15th century, with "ad fontes", "or as translated "back to the sources". Up until shortly before Luther's time great strides had been made by many scholars of the same vein, in dissecting Medieval philosophy from ancient church theology. This "back to the sources" attitude regarding the study of God helped give birth to the reformation maxim "Sola Scriptura" which is so essential to Lutheranism and the legacy Luther's given us.
Listen and enjoy!
Also, thank God for the resource that is Issues Etc.; it's truly a blessing! If you've never listened to the program before, then please visit the site and lend your ear, there really is something for everyone, and the Gospel for everyone too!
Likewise, and in turn, one can't truly understand Luther and his diametric opposition to Medieval Scholasticism unless he first understands Luther's educational environment and its unspoken opposition to "scripture alone".
This audio is a good little introduction to Medieval Scholasticism, and Luther's reaction to the educational zeitgeist of the later 15th century, with "ad fontes", "or as translated "back to the sources". Up until shortly before Luther's time great strides had been made by many scholars of the same vein, in dissecting Medieval philosophy from ancient church theology. This "back to the sources" attitude regarding the study of God helped give birth to the reformation maxim "Sola Scriptura" which is so essential to Lutheranism and the legacy Luther's given us.
Listen and enjoy!
Also, thank God for the resource that is Issues Etc.; it's truly a blessing! If you've never listened to the program before, then please visit the site and lend your ear, there really is something for everyone, and the Gospel for everyone too!
Okay, in reference to the Heidelberg Disputation, if there's a wrong way to do theology, then what is the right way? Well, to answer that question one would have to refer back to the theologian of glory as being just but one path a theologian can take, the incorrect path mind you. Yet, before we can supply any answer about the right path some more things must first be explored a little more deeply, and there is no better example than in examining the life of the one whom God chose to bring about the Reformation: Dr. Martin Luther.
We must start with the educational climate of Luther's day. God's Word, as it is plainly written is in fact contrary in nature to human reason. One can easily find it filled with paradox and "bad" reasoning, at least by the Aristotelian/Thomistic Scholasticism of Luther's day (hang in there with me folks, my intent isn't to disparage the Bible, I promise!). Yet, of course, the sophists of Medieval and early Renaissance Christianity made every attempt to avoid the paradoxes of scripture, for in their thinking they presupposed that our minds and God's mind must be governed by the same laws. Therefore, our logic, as of necessity, must really be God's logic and was to a certain extent pure. Such is the nature of Aristotelian philosophy, one must always reason upwards-from the ground up-so to say. If our minds are governed by logic, then the cause of all minds, the Creator's mind, must govern affairs in the same manner, and, logically expects us to do the same as well. So, it stands to reason that their can be NO paradoxes or il-logic in the Bible whatsoever, at least by any scholastic standards.
Luther had a problem with this. He was educated in the scholastic tradition as well, and he was equally versed in Aristotle's Organon. When he applied the classical rules of logic to scripture he was perplexed, for some scriptures spoke to the fact that all men are saved by Christ's work on the cross, and yet other scriptures spoke to the fact that all men were dead in their trespasses in sin. Regarding the Bible and it's contrary nature, this was only the tip of the iceberg as far Luther was concerned. However, this very issue is what troubled the conscience of Luther the most, for the Bible, at least according to his reason, offered no assurance of salvation due to these inherent paradoxes. If he was to cling purely to his reason, then he knew he was lost. With his reason God's Word was and remained a closed book to him. At times, as he confessed, he hated God for the psychological terror regarding the salvation/damnation dilemma that God's paradoxical Word caused him. These episodes of despair were legendary. Unfortunately for him at that time, God's word, the very words of life, were nothing but words of despair.
Also, prior to Luther becoming a monk of the Augustinian Order he was trained in the university as a lawyer. He was well aware that if God was perfect, just, and omniscient, then no human action is hidden or immune from His righteous judgment. Therefore, we all stand naked before the eyes of our Lord. And so, Luther took Socrates maxim "know thyself" to a new degree by applying God's perfect Law to his inward motivations. What he found was that no matter how hard he tried to do a good work according to the Law, the work was always tainted by some selfish and evil motivation. Here's the reason, the Law is only truly performed when it is done with a pure heart moved by perfect love for God and neighbor. If the motivation to do the Law comes from a desire to please God, then the individual acting has already failed. For, if a heart is pure and sinless it does not worry whether God will be pleased or not, it will do what is natural to it, which is to love God and his neighbor perfectly. If there is a want of conformity to, or a desire for performing the Law for God's pleasure or appeasement, then, by necessity, it presupposes an impurity in ones heart, for if a heart were pure it would not desire such things, it would, by nature do them.
Here was another charge for Luther to bring against God, adding just that much more to his hatred of Him; why would a good God command him to do something that he was completely incapable of doing? Was it a joke? Was God sadistic? Fortunately, for us all and for Luther, he would eventually get his answer. Yet, before we get to that, we must address mens actions as Luther understood them after his realization of the biblical doctrine regarding total human depravity.
What he came to find, as far as the works of men were concerned, that when man acts to please or appease God he does not and cannot do it in the spirit of the Law. Mankind deep down knows this, yet, out of his guilty conscience he waters down God's Law to mere outward performances, and does not desire for his heart to be pure. All this he does so as to ease his conscience, which is merely the Law written on his heart accusing him. In so doing, he only artificially quenches his thirst for righteousness. However, God still requires perfect righteousness, and in the act of diminishing the Law he destroys his conscience, which depends on the clarity and absolute up-right nature of the Law, and ultimately makes shipwreck of his faith in doing so. In his depravity and defiance he turns to make an idol unto himself fashioned in the ways of the world. If he can obey this worldly wisdom and fool his brethren and subsequently himself into thinking he is righteous by his pious works, then so shall he be in the eyes of the world. From there he extrapolates that if the world thinks a work to be righteous, then God must think it is too, that he must use the same grading curve as us, so to say. However, what he fails to realize is that he has fully turned from God and acts as the heathen does, for there is no difference between the mentalities of both at this point.
Now, he may fashion the idol into intellectual abilities, worldly understandings of justice, physical stamina, etc., etc., yet ultimately it doesn't matter what it is, for in his mind he believes if he can maintain these man-oriented works then he is righteous in the eyes of his lord. However, his lord is not the Lord of lords; it is, in comparison, but a pale phantom of his own design.
And here was where Luther found himself, in a cloister of men performing man-made works of penance not prescribed by the Law in any fashion, realizing that he was but a pharisee, which were the very people Christ ridiculed and railed against in his own lifetime. He, yet once again, found himself on the wrong side of God.
However, God early on gave Luther a blessing in his father confessor Johann von Staupitz, who pointed Luther, during his periods of spiritual despair, towards the scriptures message of God not only being wrathful, but also of the message to know and trust God in his mercy. The Bible spoke both of these truths, but Luther's reason always gravitated to the God in his righteousness. God's mercy as found in Christ was foreign to him. His interpretation of God's Son in his holiness, at the time, was one of unapproachability. Luther could only see Christ as stated in the first half of Psalms 2:12 "Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little.", but he didn't very easily see the second part, "Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him." (NKJV)
Nevertheless Luther was a diligent disciple as well as an ardent student of Scripture. He was particularly taken with the Epistles of Paul, for he longed to understand them as Augustine had. Then one day there came a great awakening in him regarding scripture, here is Luther describing it in his own words:
I had indeed been captivated with an extraordinary ardor for understanding Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. But up till then it was not the cold blood around the heart, but a single word in Chapter 1 [verse 17], “in it [the gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed,” that had stood in my way. For I hated that word “righteousness of God,” which, according to the use and custom of all the teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically regarding the formal or active righteousness, as they called it, with which God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous sinner. Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, “As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the decalogue [Ten Commandments], without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!” Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience. Nevertheless, I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted. At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, “In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’” There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me.
We must start with the educational climate of Luther's day. God's Word, as it is plainly written is in fact contrary in nature to human reason. One can easily find it filled with paradox and "bad" reasoning, at least by the Aristotelian/Thomistic Scholasticism of Luther's day (hang in there with me folks, my intent isn't to disparage the Bible, I promise!). Yet, of course, the sophists of Medieval and early Renaissance Christianity made every attempt to avoid the paradoxes of scripture, for in their thinking they presupposed that our minds and God's mind must be governed by the same laws. Therefore, our logic, as of necessity, must really be God's logic and was to a certain extent pure. Such is the nature of Aristotelian philosophy, one must always reason upwards-from the ground up-so to say. If our minds are governed by logic, then the cause of all minds, the Creator's mind, must govern affairs in the same manner, and, logically expects us to do the same as well. So, it stands to reason that their can be NO paradoxes or il-logic in the Bible whatsoever, at least by any scholastic standards.
Luther had a problem with this. He was educated in the scholastic tradition as well, and he was equally versed in Aristotle's Organon. When he applied the classical rules of logic to scripture he was perplexed, for some scriptures spoke to the fact that all men are saved by Christ's work on the cross, and yet other scriptures spoke to the fact that all men were dead in their trespasses in sin. Regarding the Bible and it's contrary nature, this was only the tip of the iceberg as far Luther was concerned. However, this very issue is what troubled the conscience of Luther the most, for the Bible, at least according to his reason, offered no assurance of salvation due to these inherent paradoxes. If he was to cling purely to his reason, then he knew he was lost. With his reason God's Word was and remained a closed book to him. At times, as he confessed, he hated God for the psychological terror regarding the salvation/damnation dilemma that God's paradoxical Word caused him. These episodes of despair were legendary. Unfortunately for him at that time, God's word, the very words of life, were nothing but words of despair.
Also, prior to Luther becoming a monk of the Augustinian Order he was trained in the university as a lawyer. He was well aware that if God was perfect, just, and omniscient, then no human action is hidden or immune from His righteous judgment. Therefore, we all stand naked before the eyes of our Lord. And so, Luther took Socrates maxim "know thyself" to a new degree by applying God's perfect Law to his inward motivations. What he found was that no matter how hard he tried to do a good work according to the Law, the work was always tainted by some selfish and evil motivation. Here's the reason, the Law is only truly performed when it is done with a pure heart moved by perfect love for God and neighbor. If the motivation to do the Law comes from a desire to please God, then the individual acting has already failed. For, if a heart is pure and sinless it does not worry whether God will be pleased or not, it will do what is natural to it, which is to love God and his neighbor perfectly. If there is a want of conformity to, or a desire for performing the Law for God's pleasure or appeasement, then, by necessity, it presupposes an impurity in ones heart, for if a heart were pure it would not desire such things, it would, by nature do them.
Here was another charge for Luther to bring against God, adding just that much more to his hatred of Him; why would a good God command him to do something that he was completely incapable of doing? Was it a joke? Was God sadistic? Fortunately, for us all and for Luther, he would eventually get his answer. Yet, before we get to that, we must address mens actions as Luther understood them after his realization of the biblical doctrine regarding total human depravity.
What he came to find, as far as the works of men were concerned, that when man acts to please or appease God he does not and cannot do it in the spirit of the Law. Mankind deep down knows this, yet, out of his guilty conscience he waters down God's Law to mere outward performances, and does not desire for his heart to be pure. All this he does so as to ease his conscience, which is merely the Law written on his heart accusing him. In so doing, he only artificially quenches his thirst for righteousness. However, God still requires perfect righteousness, and in the act of diminishing the Law he destroys his conscience, which depends on the clarity and absolute up-right nature of the Law, and ultimately makes shipwreck of his faith in doing so. In his depravity and defiance he turns to make an idol unto himself fashioned in the ways of the world. If he can obey this worldly wisdom and fool his brethren and subsequently himself into thinking he is righteous by his pious works, then so shall he be in the eyes of the world. From there he extrapolates that if the world thinks a work to be righteous, then God must think it is too, that he must use the same grading curve as us, so to say. However, what he fails to realize is that he has fully turned from God and acts as the heathen does, for there is no difference between the mentalities of both at this point.
Now, he may fashion the idol into intellectual abilities, worldly understandings of justice, physical stamina, etc., etc., yet ultimately it doesn't matter what it is, for in his mind he believes if he can maintain these man-oriented works then he is righteous in the eyes of his lord. However, his lord is not the Lord of lords; it is, in comparison, but a pale phantom of his own design.
And here was where Luther found himself, in a cloister of men performing man-made works of penance not prescribed by the Law in any fashion, realizing that he was but a pharisee, which were the very people Christ ridiculed and railed against in his own lifetime. He, yet once again, found himself on the wrong side of God.
However, God early on gave Luther a blessing in his father confessor Johann von Staupitz, who pointed Luther, during his periods of spiritual despair, towards the scriptures message of God not only being wrathful, but also of the message to know and trust God in his mercy. The Bible spoke both of these truths, but Luther's reason always gravitated to the God in his righteousness. God's mercy as found in Christ was foreign to him. His interpretation of God's Son in his holiness, at the time, was one of unapproachability. Luther could only see Christ as stated in the first half of Psalms 2:12 "Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little.", but he didn't very easily see the second part, "Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him." (NKJV)
Nevertheless Luther was a diligent disciple as well as an ardent student of Scripture. He was particularly taken with the Epistles of Paul, for he longed to understand them as Augustine had. Then one day there came a great awakening in him regarding scripture, here is Luther describing it in his own words:
I had indeed been captivated with an extraordinary ardor for understanding Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. But up till then it was not the cold blood around the heart, but a single word in Chapter 1 [verse 17], “in it [the gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed,” that had stood in my way. For I hated that word “righteousness of God,” which, according to the use and custom of all the teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically regarding the formal or active righteousness, as they called it, with which God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous sinner. Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, “As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the decalogue [Ten Commandments], without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!” Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience. Nevertheless, I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted. At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, “In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’” There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me.
Luther’s preface to the complete edition of his Latin writings, Luther’s Works, Vol. 34 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1960), pp. 336-37.
In his searching, in his despair, in his hatred of God, Luther, unbeknownst to himself was being prepared and guided by God to actually receive the true Gospel for himself and to also deliver it unto the rest of the world. The new "face" of scripture he saw was one of complete and total mercy given us by God's grace through faith in Christ alone. What he initially understood of God was nothing but his righteous Law, yet, with this change of heart and mind he was able to comprehend the mercy given us in the beautiful work of Christ on His cross. Luther once knew God in his majesty, but now he knew Him as the Son of Man taking all the world's sufferings upon Himself for our sake. He found that the "righteousness of God", namely Christ's righteousness was ours, and our sin was His. Luther no longer had to fear God, for Christ on the Cross was the lightning rod attracting God's wrath against us, and Christ carrying the wrath with Him forever into the grave.
Luther's reason could only see God in his righteousness, but God frustrated and overcame his intellect to show him the key to interpreting scripture. He was to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified, and with this key, God's Word was now for him an open book. This is the way for the theologian of the cross, this is the way unto salvation.
Are you in despair under the impossible demands of God's taskmaster, the Law? Does your reason deceive you about the unshakable promise of God's Word regarding the salvation given us in Christ? If it does then repent, for God longs to forgive us our iniquities, and let us then confess true this opening line of the introduction to the Heidelberg Disputation when it says:
"Distrusting completely our own wisdom, according to that counsel of the Holy Spirit, "Do not rely on your own insight" [Prov. 3:5]..."
and let us walk in faith, trusting in nothing but our Lord and His Word.
Luther's reason could only see God in his righteousness, but God frustrated and overcame his intellect to show him the key to interpreting scripture. He was to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified, and with this key, God's Word was now for him an open book. This is the way for the theologian of the cross, this is the way unto salvation.
Are you in despair under the impossible demands of God's taskmaster, the Law? Does your reason deceive you about the unshakable promise of God's Word regarding the salvation given us in Christ? If it does then repent, for God longs to forgive us our iniquities, and let us then confess true this opening line of the introduction to the Heidelberg Disputation when it says:
"Distrusting completely our own wisdom, according to that counsel of the Holy Spirit, "Do not rely on your own insight" [Prov. 3:5]..."
and let us walk in faith, trusting in nothing but our Lord and His Word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
