"Over against all that reason suggests or would measure and fathom, yes, all that our senses feel and perceive, we must learn to cling to the Word and simply judge according to it."


- Martin Luther




Luther's Rose


I wish most importantly to state a case for Christ and His Cross for the unbeliever, but I also wish to make the case for both the unbeliever and the "blessedly inconsistent" towards the true apostolic and catholic teachings of the blessed and orthodox Lutheran Church.



SOLI DEO GLORIA




If you read an article and wish to comment, then please do.


Do not worry about the date it was written.

I promise that I or the articles author will answer.


Showing posts with label reason. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reason. Show all posts




Anybody who reads my blog should have ascertained by this point that my regard for natural, unaided human reason as it relates to theological knowledge is not very high. So, indulge me in a little thought experiment to show you why.

Jesus is “Theanthropos”, meaning, both God and man. Plain and simple. (Well, maybe not so simple.)

Now, some attributes of God are (but are not limited to):

  1. Eternality
  2. Immutability
  3. Incomprehensibility
  4. Omnipotence
  5. Omniscience
  6. Omnipresence
  7. Transcendence
  8. Self-existence
  9. Self-sufficiency
  10. Sovereignty
  11. All-just
  12. All-loving
  13. etc....

The attributes of man are (but are not limited to):

  1. Immortal, yet Earthly finite
  2. Comprehensible, yet not entirely comprehensible
  3. Potent, yet under authority
  4. Knowledgeable, yet ignorant without limit
  5. Fixed in space-time
  6. Subsistently-existent
  7. Subsistently-dependent
  8. Ruled by greater power
  9. Largely unjust
  10. Mostly self-loving
  11. etc....

Here the line is marked between man and God as regarding some of their respective attributes. Now, I wouldn't say that the attributes of man are exactly antithetical to Gods, they're not; however, they are antithetical in this one aspect: God is unlimited, and man is limited to an almost infinite degree!

These are two truths that can never be confounded, for to confound them, to confuse them in any way would cause a contradiction in terms. All that the word “God” conveys would be emptied of any clear meaning if God was found to be limited in some way. Likewise, all that the word “Man” conveys would be emptied of any clear meaning if man were found to be unlimited in some way.

What I have said here is very logical, in that, logic's “law of contradiction” is preserved by not confusing the terms “limited” and “unlimited.” If they were confused, this would break logic's “law of identity” by muddling the definitions of each with the other. In order for our minds to work properly, these two laws must always be immutable, for if they were mutable in some way, then we couldn't make sense of anything we observe, nor would we ever be able to effectively communicate our knowledge gained by observing.

Therefore, we ought to reject anything that violates these laws (at least says the reason of man).

Aha, now we have it! We can go merrily on our way knowing that are knowledge of God and man is secure, logical, and true. Nothing to worry about. That is, until you read this scripture in Luke 2:52, it says:
...Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

For Jesus to increase in wisdom and stature would imply that these were things not with Him from the beginning.

Wait a second....what? I thought Jesus was God? Should we then reject Him?

It is true that He is one-hundred percent God, and yet one-hundred percent man. How that can be is beyond me, but, when we are exposed to something which affords us no insight, such as the incarnation of Christ, we are to rest our reason with God's Word, just as Jesus emptied His glory while Emmanuel (God with us). For, as it says in Phillipians 2:5-7:
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
So it is that Jesus was a child once created in the "likeness of men", helpless and defenseless, at least by the sight of human eyes and man's fallen reason. Yet Jesus, in His lifetime, expressed fondness for children. His fondness, however, was not anything we might think fond about children. In two instances He said:

in Mark 10:14-16:
But when Jesus saw it [i.e. his disciples withholding children from Christ's presence], he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.

and in Matthew 18:6:
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
The verse in Matthew is rather harsh, but shows his deeply held convictions regarding children. We look at children and admire them for their cuteness, their naivety about the world, etc., but to admire them for their ignorance is something else entirely.

This means there is something beautiful in the ignorance of man. Not that ignorance in itself is beautiful, it's not, but the fact that ignorance is something supposed to be beautiful and it's not, exposes a problem within ourselves.

When I speak of ignorance, I am not speaking of it in the sense of someone being belligerently profane. No, I speak of ignorance in the sense of someone being profanely humble. Not that being ignorantly humble in and of itself is profane, but if the world is given the choice between power and humility, power seems to win out more, whereas ignorance is used as an invective against somebody considered to be stupid; weak; inferior. And, where something is used as an invective, it intentionally betrays the insultor as someone who has the fear of being considered ignorant.

In other words, the secular world considers humility, that is in relation to ignorance, as something offensive to it's sensibilities. So much so that the westernized nations pride themselves on the strength of their public education system. A system designed to liberate children from the oppression of ignorance.

So here we have two contrasting views of children. The one of Christ, and the other, the worlds. Why are they so drastically different?

It would have to do with the differences in ignorance as regarding what sphere, would it not? That would be the right question. Of course our reason is a gift from God, and should be used as an end unto itself in all Earthly matters. In this sense the western educational ideal, i.e. a liberal education, is of great importance. However, when applied to the sphere of things spiritual it must restrain it's liberality, and be bound to the Word of God. This is the import of what Luther always tried to convey in many of his writings, in that reason is used within two spheres: the magisterial and ministerial use.

The magisterial use of reason applies to the goings on in this world. So, if you are trying to balance your checkbook, if your trying solve a math problem, or trying to discover the Higgs-Boson particle at CERN Switzerland, all these things require the use of reason as a guiding light in an otherwise dark world.

However, the ministerial use of reason applies to the goings on in the Bible. Not that all reason is surrendered to sacred Scripture, i.e. reason can't be used at all, but that its worldly authority should not predicate dominance over God's Word. So, when reason is in relation to God's Word it surrenders all authority over to the Bible. Reason in this sense is bound, tethered to the good Book as it were.

So, when we look at God, it is hard to not to think of Him as being anything but powerful. His power would be displayed in His "God-like" attributes, such as: omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, etc., and humility would be the last thing we'd expect to find. But so it is with Christ, the living paradox. Two antithetical truths in tension in one person. God's sovereignty and God's humility are bound, but not confounded in the person of Christ. The finite contains the infinite. The eternal bound by space-time and eventual death. The unlimited bound by the limited.


Who can understand it?

Relax, we're not supposed to. We are to let God's foolishness be wiser than man's wisdom, to let God be true and every man a liar. So, in that spirit, let's embrace the little Christ Child in infantile faith and be fools together in the riches of God's Kingdom. Let the world scoff us, but pray that one day those who are not  forgiven in Christ will find the atonement He has won for them on His cross and join our merry gang of fools.

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
  Romans 7:7-12
I actually learned something of value this semester in college. You see, I learned about physics, a subject about which I had only a passing knowledge of, however it is a subject key to my area of study: Engineering. When I learned some of the "meat and potatoes" of physics I was invigorated. Sometimes I would walk out of class with a quickened pulse. I'd sit in my car afterword, and for the whole ride home I listened to nothing but the excited thoughts in my head. Radio off, car kinetically moving, and my head in the clouds (or was it in the movement of particles). In any case, I really like the knowledge I gained this semester, and the feeling of satisfaction that went along with it. Yet, physics wasn't the thing of value I learned (although it's a part of it), it was something far greater.

So one of the times I was floating home a thought occurred to me. How many times in my life had I this, "quickening of the pulse" only to find the flame quenched later upon recalling it? Why wasn't this feeling, a feeling I enjoyed mind you, attached with me every time I reflected back on a particular profound thought, subject, or idea, what have you? What was this feeling anyway?

In relation to my Christian life up till now, I've had similar experiences with theology. I remember reading C.S. Lewis', Mere Christianity, (and I believe it was in this book, however, I might be wrong) where he stated that theology was not the thing itself, i.e. Christ and His cross, but merely a road map, a place to guide you in times of spiritual weirdness.

At the time I was attending a PCUSA church that was bitten by the bug of "American Evangelicalism." Everything was about mission, and not only the mission of evangelism (although that is what they considered it all to be), or assisting the poor (although that was apart of their mission budget), but this was something different altogether. Their mission was about getting people in the door by whatever means possible. One could think this a good thing, especially if the pastor ministered the Law and Gospel from the pulpit, but that never seemed to happen. What's funny, is that I am now reminded of Walther's words from his great book, Law and Gospel, where he says:
But suppose some one could truthfully say, “There was no false teaching in my sermon,” still his entire sermon may have been wrong. Can that be true?...Note this well. When you hear some sectarian preach, you may say, “What he said was the truth,” and yet you do not feel satisfied. Here is the key for unlocking this mystery: the preacher did not rightly divide Law and Gospel, and hence everything went wrong. He preached Law where he should have preached Gospel, and he offered Gospel truth where he should have presented the Law. 
(The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, Thesis II, C.F.W. Walther)
Almost all the sermons were about becoming a better person, with a little Gospel thrown in the mix for good measure. Mentioning sin with too much emphasis, or lingering on the real problem (i.e. original sin) for too long was considered something of a bad idea, because it would drive people out the door you see. Something about this way of practicing Christianity seemed suspicious, underhanded even, for when I compared what was going at the pulpit, to that which was going on in my Bible, two different pictures emerged.

It was around that time I began reading Lewis, especially Mere Christianity, and saw that the problem I was having regarding the different representations of Christianity, and everyone's apparent blindness to the problem, had to do with the knowledge (or lack thereof) regarding ancient theology and scripture in the modern Church. I became of the opinion that many mainstream Protestant Churches had drifted terribly off course, and were far from their father's theology. So, at that point I began devouring everything "theological" in sight. I was reading materials by Calvinists, Baptists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, and Catholics even, because I wanted something deep, not the surface mumbo-jumbo I was being fed from the pulpit each Sunday.

My father had, at that time, been going through some theological exploration of his own. He was raised a Presbyterian, and in the years to come became overtly Calvinistic in his theology. However, his Calvinism was causing him some issues of his own, mainly with double predestination and the assurance of salvation. By a fortuitous trip to England he and I had taken, where he scored some "out of print" Luther's Works, and also by a friend at his work who suggested he go to a LCMS Church, things began to change for him. It was then he began mining the riches of Lutheran theology, which was a great challenge to his Calvinism, yet Lutheranism won out in the end. I'm happy to say that he's been assured of his salvation ever since, praise God!

Likewise, he kept feeding me Lutheran materials he had printed from the internet. Three-ring binders full of material, one after another he gave me, along with a copy of Luther's Small Catechism which I began to read daily. This flow of material from many different streams of theological sources were beginning to do my head in due to the apparent contradictions between them, but yet, I pressed on.

Also, around this time I had been going through a lot personal turmoil and soul searching due to the circumstances of my life. One day, when everything felt like it was lost, I read an issue of Modern Reformation (a magazine which claims to be an ecumenical journal for all churches born of the reformation, but whose center of gravity, nevertheless, is thoroughly pitted in Geneva), and the subject was about suffering in the world, and God's role in it. This was about a year or so after 9-11, so it seemed an appropriate subject still fresh on everyone's mind.

This issue was pretty good because it appeared every theological discipline whose roots where from the reformation were represented. Also, I'd be remiss in not mentioning that up until this time, there were some aspects of Lutheranism I couldn't quite get through my thick skull, such as: the Lord's Supper, Baptismal Regeneration, were they (that is, Lutherans) Arminian or Calvinistic in their attitude towards a sinners role in salvation (as if these were the only two options), etc.

However, one article (it's a good article, you should give it read) in particular caught my attention, written by Pastor Bill Cwirla, a Lutheran pastor of the LCMS Church, and it was about suffering and the "hiddenness" of God in suffering (i.e. theology of the cross). Also around this time I had read Luther's, The Heidelberg Disputation, something which left my head spinning. Yet, this article seemed to make sense of it all.

I can't explain to you what it was like, because I can't explain it to myself even, but everything seemed to fall into place with the cross of Christ and His suffering at the center; the Lord's Supper, Baptismal Regeneration, the bondage of the will to sin, etc. It was a like a torrent of understanding mysteriously aligned everything in my head regarding Christianity in general, and Lutheranism in particular, and there were no more loose ends. It was from that moment forward I knew I was home, I knew I was Lutheran.

Now, my experiences this semester weren't quite on par with that one, but the feelings which sprung up from within were definitely from the same well. However, it is seven years later, and do I still have the same intensity of feeling in regards to Lutheran theology? No. Don't get me wrong, I love Lutheranism because it delivers me the Gospel better than any other denomination I've been to, but the intensity of that original feeling is definitely not there. And so, I suspect also that the intensity of my feelings for physics at this time will dissipate as well.

What is this feeling?

Passion would be the only way I could describe it. Not passion in the sense that we sacrifice some things for other things we love (we all do that everyday to a certain degree), no, what I'm talking about is a feeling so strong for something, that you would withhold sleep to take it in more completely because there isn't enough hours in the day to satisfy yourself. It is your waking thought, and  it is in the last flutterings of your mind before you sleep.

Some might think it extreme to talk like this, and it is in certain sense, but our passions are extreme. Look at a drug addict, a young couple in love, a mother or father's love for their child, an over-devoted employee, an obsessed care-taker, an over-acheiving student, what have you, all of these different walks of life have something in common, they are all passionate to the point of personal detriment. Now granted, some of these walks of life are more productive than others, I don't mean to judge them in such a manner, I only wish to point out that their feeling of passion is relative to each other.

Well then, who is it really hurting?

Interesting choice of words, because passion has been know to cause pain. Heck, the root of the word passion is "passio", which in Latin means "to suffer." So, when I speak of passion, I also speak of suffering. But what am I suffering if I obsess my thoughts upon physics, theology, or the pursuit of knowledge in general? Here follows my profundity (tongue firmly implanted in cheek).

In the beginning of a thing I feel intense passion, for instance; when I met my wife (then girlfriend), I couldn't keep my mind off of her. Yet, as time wore on, the passion that was once there, unfortunately, is not as strong as either of us would hope for now. However, why would we hope for such a passion after these few years? After all, I love my family, you could say I am compassionate for them, and the love is still there even if the intense passion is gone. Well, I'll tell you why we search for such passionate intensity, because it feels good. It motivates us, it brings our hearts to life, it quickens our pulse.

One might ask, "what's wrong with that?" I would answer, where is that intensity after a lengthy period of time?

You see, in physics there is something called entropy, and according to the free internet dictionary it defines it as being:

1. Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
3. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.
So, entropy is the subtraction of heat (i.e. what is caused by the electromagnetic force of friction as it effects molecules in motion) from an isolated system. The perfect example is something like a cup of coffee left in a moderately temperate room, eventually the heat will dissipate from the water because the intense motion of the water molecules will be slowed down by the cooler temperature of the room. Hotter things dissipate because of colder things because colder things invade and slow down hotter things. This will happen until there is an equilibrium between the coffee in the cup and the atmospheric temperature outside of it. In a grander sense, this is a fate that will meet us all, because the universe is cooling rapidly (at least rapidly in an astronomical sense) and all of the elements in the universe will end in a state similar to iron (iron is the measurement of equilibrium for the universe). You might call this a "heat-death" of the universe.

This is similar to the passion in us all. Initially it is intense and moving furiously within us, compelling us to do things we wouldn't normally do, then, it dissipates with time, usurped with other passions later on in life. Our passions are dying a "heat death" all there own.

Why? What is killing them?

Well, as St. Augustine said, "Thou hast created us for Thyself [i.e. God] and our heart is not quiet until it rests in Thee." In us all there is a God shaped void. We are restless until it is filled, thus, we fill it with these passions, with idols of our own creation, and, for a time they suffice. But they do not suffice in any everlasting sense.

Why?

St. Paul in the book of Romans, 7th chapter, says:
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
What does he mean here when he speaks of the Law?

The whole of the Law can be summed up in these two things: love the Lord thy God with all your heart, mind, body, soul, and strength; and love thy neighbor as thyself. One is the first table of the Law, and the other the second. The first table addresses mans relation to God, and the second addresses mans relation to his fellow man. However, both tables lead to the same source, you might even say the most supreme commandment of them all, namely:


Thou shalt have no other gods.
What does this mean?
--Answer.
We should fear, love, and trust in God above all things.
(Luther's Small Catechism)


All of the Law leads to this, whether it is known by anyone or unknown. This Law was woven into the very fabric of creation, and the only reason anyone's ignorant to it is because of the curse of original sin. However, the motivations of our hearts are unto this end continually, and, as St. Augustine says, "our hearts will not rest until they rest in thee."

Besides, ignorance of the Law is no excuse, for if anyone operates as under the Law, yet does not fulfill it, they too are under its curse. If we do not "fear, love, and trust in God above all things," we are ruined since all things are unto this end. This is why our passions are dying a heat death as it were, for the things we are passionate for, even if we are faithful Christians, are never for the "fear, love, and trust in God above all things." So by our passions, by our lusts in the material things, or in wisdom, or in strength, whatever it maybe, it is always rooted in ourselves and never in God, and thus it kills us.

Does this make God's Law evil?

The answer is an emphatic no! Here is why:
Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

Romans 7:13
Yet, why would God want to make us exceedingly sinful, wouldn't he be causing evil so that good may come?

I would say from a human perspective that would be correct, however, what we should be concerned with is not a human perspective, but a divine one (or at least as much as we are capable in a human sense). You see, what we consider good for us, and what God considers good for us are two different things.

For example, what if a patient who has a cancer, that is on the verge of becoming terminal, that is unless the patient is treated right away, whose doctor told them that everything is okay, go on, drink and be merry; would that be a good thing for the doctor to do? No. They should tell the patient as it is.

So it is with God, except that the patient (us) is terminal with original sin and is completely convinced, regardless of everything he feels, that he's fine, that he doesn't need to take God's direction.

Does a family member tell a drug addicted sibling that their behavior is alright, go on, keep doing drugs? No, they pull the bottom out by doing an intervention so that the drug addicted family member can finally see how artificial and empty their lives have become.

So it is with God, by letting us know that we are "addicted" to sin, so to speak.

And, in many cases He lets us come to the utter end of ourselves to show us that we are not infinite and in control, but that He is God and we are not. That we are completely out of control and defective to the core of our being by our sinful depravities. But in all this, He only does it for our own good. He only does this to bring us to the foot of the cross to learn from our Savior how depraved we actually are. It is there on Christ's cross where the fruit of our labors is on display for everyone to see. It is there were Jesus payed an infinite debt to his father in our place, a debt we could never pay. And, in the end it is at the throne of the slain Lamb in judgment that ALL shall see what their sinful works, good, bad or indifferent, which they have rendered.

However, none of this should frighten us too long, for all of Christs works are now ours. God in his mercy and long-suffering gave us the perfect life Christ lived (and still lives) out of His love for people who by nature hate Him

Go in peace, but know that your passions also wound Christ, even passions that lead to good things. Only good people can do good things, and evil people evil things. No one is good, not one, and all our deeds, the good, the bad, the ugly are evil. However, our Father has made us good by the deeds of Christ. It is in Him, By Him, and through Him that any good is done in the world. Thanks be to God!


On my post, Why I Lean Towards Traducianism, I received an interesting and extremely telling comment by an evident atheist.

His response was pedantic and condescending in tone, but he laid out his argument against the soul by saying:

...I have often wondered how anybody could be stupid enough to believe in a soul, which is invisible and has exactly zero evidence for it.

I guess there's nothing too childish for the brainwashed masses to believe.


For the sake of argument I'm going to assume that he's a metaphysical naturalist. For those interested on what that is please visit this link for a nutshell explanation. It's also safe to assume he believes that scientific evaluation, and only scientific evaluation can give you any true knowledge. This belief is called scientism, scientism is explained in the Christian Cyclopedia as:

Thesis that factual knowledge based on rational interpretation of sensory evidence is the only valid knowledge. On a broader base it includes some nonsensory data drawn, e.g., from introspective observation. Excludes moral, aesthetic, and religious experience. Proponents include representatives of logical* positivism.


So basically this person believes that his ability to observe and reason from that observation is good enough to comprehend his reality. Therefore, if anything is incapable of being measured by some metric of some sort is then essentially unknowable.

With that said, I'd like to switch gears a bit and express my fondness for Christopher Hitchens. I know that may come as a shock to some, but I think he's provocative, intelligent, funny, and a delight to listen to. That is not to say that I don't disagree with him vehemently, and that I do, but for as much as I know him, which is very little, I like him.

In a somewhat recent debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson held at Westminster Theological Seminary—Philadelphia; Hitchens gave a uncharacteristically revealing reaction to a statement given by Wilson. Towards the end of their exchange Wilson said to Hitchens, “I have faith in the Bible, you have faith in reason.”

Hitchens responded with, “No, I don't have faith in reason; I'm inclined to doubt something if its truth will be something that suits me. We [i.e., atheists] don't love the idea that we will be annihilated; we don't indulge in wish-thinking. We don't assume what we're asked to prove.” He then goes on to say, “You're a man of one book.”

Then Wilson quickly shot back, “You're a man of one thought!”.

The audience laughed; however, the audiences laughter seemed to perturb Mr. Hitchens. He quickly reprimanded the audience with this statement,

If you laugh at that, you're like Bill Mahr's audience, you'll laugh at anything. I don't like being told that my arguments aren't as good as his because he has divine information that I don't have. There's an assumption with which I will dispense before the inquiry - there is no supernatural intervention in this argument. Like LaPlace, I don't need the god-hypothesis. If he does exist, he is incompetent, absent-minded, capricious and cruel.


His cadence along with way he uttered it out, with such an uncharacteristic sour tone as opposed to his normal triumphant tenor really caught me by surprise. It seemed that perhaps Wilson got Hitchens' mind close to grappling a unique and special bond between the theist and atheist, that is; they both believe certain things to be true—a priori—which means that people must assume the truth of something before concluding its validity. In logic this is known as the fallacy of petitio principii, or circular reasoning, and also otherwise known as begging the question. With Wilson his die-hard trust in the Bible begs the question, and with Hitchens his unrelenting trust in reason begs the question: equally.

Now, the atheist/agnostic at this point can claim that the Bible is a book of myths and has been proven unreliable in many circumstances, and, therefore, intellectually shaky as a starting point, and they are certainly free to make this objection (although I don't agree). However, this also means I'm just as free to say that if a conglomeration of neurons, neuro-chemicals, and cognitive faculties, mixed in a certain way, has the ability to give a reliable comprehension of reality, then why can't a different mixture of neurons, chemicals, and cognitive faculties also give us an accurate comprehension of reality as well? If this were the case what would be the difference between the intellect of a person with a Phd, and a person on LSD? What would be the difference between a college professor, and a person with schizophrenia?

G. K. Chesterton, author and Catholic apologist, while speaking of mad-men in his book Orthodoxy said:

To the insane man his insanity is quite prosaic, because it is quite true. A man who thinks himself a chicken is to himself as ordinary as a chicken. A man who thinks he is a bit of glass is to himself as dull as a bit of glass. It is the homogeneity of his mind which makes him dull, and which makes him mad. It is only because we see the irony of his idea that we think him even amusing; it is only because he does not see the irony of his idea that he is put in Hanwell [a London insane asylum] at all.


So, what does make reason reliable? Majority rule? Societal norms? Predictive ability? Well, majority rule is a group of powerful people imposing their power on others, and that doesn't speak to somethings validity or not. Societal norms change with time; what was once considered reasonable decades ago, can now be viewed as ancient and irrelevant by todays standards. An insane person, in the height of their mania can be every bit as predictive as any “sane” person regarding the world outside them, granted that their condition remain constant. However, it is no matter the constancy of their condition, for their perception of reality is as every bit true to them as the next mans, given that the set of presumptions about brain chemistry and cognitive function being a good judge of reality true as well. Yet, that is the question isn't it, why is our brain chemistry and processes in such-an-such a configuration reliable?

You see, this question can't be answered conclusively; it can only be assumed true with a hope for better future insight. And, as such the premise of the question is included in the conclusion. This is petitio principii. Circularity, begging the question, etc., is the best humanity can do, and so, we are smart enough to realize this, but not always honest enough to admit it.

So, what am I getting at with all of this? Well, let's just be honest about our starting points, our assumptions, and our best guesses at the outset. Let's give them a fair comparison to other ways of thinking and viewing the world, instead of dogmatically accepting our unprovable assumptions as something so “self-evident” it needs no defense.
.
.
.

Today we shall look at Luther's fifth thesis in the Heidelberg Disputation, which states:

The works of men are thus not mortal sins (we speak of works which are apparently good), as though they were crimes.

Oops! It seems I did thesis six before doing thesis five, and subsequently labeled it thesis five as well. Please note the correct order (which makes more sense) when reading through these articles.

Anyway, onto thesis five! Both this thesis, and thesis six are once again inverse reflections of each other. Thesis five basically states that from our perspective, when we speak of any “good works” of man in any active sense being evil, we do not mean that they are abhorrent crimes such as murder, theft, adultery, etc. We, from our terrestrial perspective can easily see a difference in acts that seem altruistic and beneficial for many, versus acts that seem selfish and only beneficial to the criminal, so to speak.

However, when contrasted with thesis six, we find that when God works through us, the deed in appearance may seem to be good, for certainly nothing but good comes from God, and to our senses we can easily perceive and comprehend this, yet the acts is, nevertheless, not a sinless act for man, because man, even after his salvation and renewal in Christ can only sin in an active capacity, and consequently, regardless of the acts appearance, good or bad, is still nothing but sin as far as mans involvement is concerned. For further clarification on thesis six please read this article.

Committing crimes is simply man violating the laws of his land or what is simply accepted as common decency. Now, that is not to say that they do not come from God, for the laws of man derive themselves from the Law of God as written in his heart. This use of the Law of God, at least according to Lutheran theology, is what is know as the “curb”, or the second use of the Law. That is, the Law of God as written on the hearts of all men bearing witness that it is good for him to live in civility with his neighbor, and the best way for that to happen is for man to obey his conscience in outward actions so as to achieve the best outcome for all. This is what some would call altruism, and this thought is common or “common sense” to all civil people.

However, what makes a sin mortal is not necessarily what is so obvious. Here is what Luther has to say about it in the proof for this thesis, he states:

“For crimes are such acts which can also be condemned before men, such as adultery, theft, homicide, slander, etc. Mortal sins, on the other hand, are those which seem good yet are essentially fruits of a bad root and a bad tree. Augustine states this in the fourth book of Against Julian (Contra Julianum).”

What Luther is saying is that crimes are something which are obviously wrong, for it is just as easy for one man to see and understand a crime or evil deed than another man. However, here Luther introduces what makes a sin mortal. What does make a sin lead unto death? I bet it's not what you think.

St. Paul says in Roman 7:5,6:

For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

As Luther stated, “For crimes are such acts which can also be condemned before men,...”, which is in full agreement with Paul in regards to the Law awakening evil desires in us, and this basically means we know what's obviously wrong, which causes us to repent, that is unless our heart is hardened, with little to no resistance. What makes sin a sin is obvious, however, what about sins that are not so obvious? According to Luther (which is affirmed by God's word through Christ and his condemnation of the Pharisees) good works are also sin, and not just sin, but a deceptive sin, the type of sin the devil loves to tempt us with, because we can so easily fall into it and are so blind to what a “good work”, at least from the human perspective, actually is.

The evil that is awakened in the heart by God's Law is not always one which lusts after that which it cannot have, but lusts for a righteousness other than the one provided for us in Christ, the only righteousness our Father wants us to have or will accept for that matter. When our hearts accuse us of our sinfulness by God's Law, we, in turn, respond with a “will” to make ourselves right naturally with God. Yet, the only thing we can will in our life on earth in any active capacity is sin, so even our righteousness which we attempt to flaunt before God, is really us attempting to wave our filthy rags at him. This type of sinning is compounding sin upon sin making us doubly guilty. This is nothing but an abomination in his sight, for the moment we do this, we are very far from what God actually wants for us, and far from a saving faith.

So, what does He want for us? Well, He wants nothing for us to do, but wants us to believe much in His Son who has done everything for us already. You see, Christ died on the cross in our place atoning for our sins, and has made available his righteousness to be our own possession made available through faith in Him and His atoning work. However, this line of thinking is antithetical to our natural reason, for we trust only ourselves and our reason most certainly, and to give credence to something greater than ourselves is an abomination to us, but we must surrender this stubborn tendency within us and let the Lord of Lords reign supreme in our hearts in hopes of gaining the life everlasting!
.
.

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.


.
.
(This story was originally found in the "Toledo Blade" publication:)

Meet Rev. (or I guess now Father) Daniel Hackney.

Photo

He is not what would be considered a "high-rank" Lutheran converting over to the Eastern Orthodox tradition so to speak, however, his case does give us an object lesson into how the deep-roots of heterodoxy in ones past can easily influence one to stray from true apostolic Christianity, such as the kind found in orthodox Lutheranism. (I will abstain from any distinctive critique at the moment in saying that he was apart of the LC-MS, which could possibly mean he never valued orthodox Lutheranism, but that for now is neither here nor there, because of my personal ignorance to aspects of his life and the inconsequential nature of such a thing to the ultimate moral of the story.)

In his early life he was raised as an "ecumenical mutt", a term he affectionately applies to himself, and his life was not unlike many "boomers" his age. Here's a brief biography provided by David Yonke, religion editor of the Toledo Blade:

"...his parents were Baptists who attended church with his older siblings but had lapsed after he was born."

'"The first time I stepped foot in a church was a Lutheran church when I was 10 years old for a wedding," he said."


"As a teenager, he started a chapter of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes at his public high school, then became involved in the Jesus movement, a counterculture revival that started in the 1960s and lasted into the 1980s."


"He enrolled at Southeastern College in Lakeland, Fla., which is run by the Pentecostal Assembly of God denomination, and majored in biblical studies with a minor in Greek and Hebrew."


"Father Daniel graduated from Concordia Lutheran Seminary in St. Louis in 1998 and served as a Lutheran pastor for 10 years at parishes in Mississippi, Florida, and Missouri."


"As a Lutheran pastor, he organized numerous mission trips, organized youth activities, and led a capital program to build a $1.5 million parish hall in Palm Bay, Fla."


His affectionate self-description as "ecumenical-mutt" is pretty accurate given his personal history, but, for now pay close attention to the Pentecostalism of his background and just keep that fresh in you minds as I shall return to it later.

It is also evident that he was ambitious in "deeds-oriented" evangelicalism, yet, unfortunately, the article does not touch on anything regarding the evolution of his stance on theology, in that, at a certain point in his life, one of couple of things may or may not have occurred in his Christian walk so as to perhaps drastically change his views, theologically speaking of course.

Here is what I'm driving at, first, it's hard to know if he ever left behind any of his affiliations with Pentecostalism, and the Jesus Movement oriented Christianity of his youth, I mean, did he choose Lutheranism because he saw it as being more conservative, grounded, what have you, than the "hocus-pocus" nature of Pentecostalism; or, was he one of those who believes it's possible to strain out and keep the good "stuff" from the kettle-top of such heterodox organizations while being able to dispense the rest easily down the drain? Alas, we shall never know! However, depending on what path, if either he took, there are two profound conclusions of dire warning to all Lutherans who are not careful when playing "footsie" with other denominations.

The first warning is to beware of sources from church bodies other than your own! Not that this is any guarantee against heterodoxy, for liberalism is rife EVERYWHERE, however, you have, in my opinion, a better chance at staying true to your own confession by viewing everything outside your tradition with a jaundiced eye no matter what time in your life you read it, or have read it. Yet, that is not to say that everything within Lutheranism is beyond reproach, or everything without to be leavened with error. At this point though, it must be said that the best attitude is always that of the Bereans, to test everything in light of the scriptures.

In Rev. Hackney's case, he was turned on to Orthodox Christianity when:

"...he was in high school and read a book by Bishop Kallistos Ware titled The Orthodox Church."

In his opinion this really, "whet [his] appetite..."

And, we all know the rest of the story regarding his "spiritual" upbringing and life history. Yet, if we were to map out the devil's strategy in the life of a believer we would be astounded by the fact that he doesn't always build roadblocks in the path of a Christian, but that sometimes he builds bridges.

The bridge can serve as the second warning to be gained by Father Hackney's story, which is really the same as the first; beware of sources outside of orthodox Lutheranism!!!

You see, early in his life he was turned onto the Orthodox Church, and he then seemingly went in a different direction by embracing Pentecostalism and the Jesus Movement tripe of his youth. All the while he was interested in church history and was a student of it in one form or another. Then, in the middle of it all he embraced Lutheranism; so much so that he became a Lutheran minister in the LC-MS for ten years. Only to embrace the Orthodox Church after his lapse from the LC-MS. Little is said about his thoughts on Missouri, and it's shame that the interviewer didn't ask, yet what we have is what we have.

However, the real kicker is that beside the formalities, theologically speaking, there really is very little difference between the "juvenile" Pentecostalism of his youth and the "mature" Orthodoxy of his current years, for one of the main tenants of both Church bodies theologically speaking is that revelation and authority are capable of being given outside of scripture.

Now, granted, the way that each of these faiths present this facet of their theology is different; with the Orthodox it's about tradition and the consensus of the Father's (ie. Church Fathers), and how that tradition and consensus jives with Scripture. Where it does not jive, it is open to interpretation as long as it doesn't coherently contradict any other theological or traditional dogma as agreed upon by the Fathers. This ultimately means that Scripture is not solely the rule and norm of all things Christian, and the only Scripture that is authoritative is that which is in agreement with the Fathers and prior Church traditions.

It is different, yet similar to Pentecostalism in this sense; Pentecostalism believes that there is human authority outside of scripture like the Orthodox Church, but that this human authority can only be trusted if they are the Lord's "anointed". This "anointing" is proven by signs and wonders like healing the sick, speaking in tongues, prophesying, et. al., and the "anointed ones" are capable of prophesying things as direct revelation from God outside of His Word. This revelation is expected to be, and accepted as authoritative for their parishioners.

Also, with the Orthodox, both the relationship with Christ and the Holy Spirit are essentially two different things, and not necessarily one dependent upon the other in the order of triune procession. According to the Orthodox, they both proceed from the Father, but it is not the Son proceeding from the Father, and the Spirit proceeding from the Son, thus they are subsequently related, yet mutually independent entities only related by the Father. So, if one were to take this to it logical consequence, one would be forced to admit that the Trinity, at least by human understanding, is related, is even of one essence, but is not in any way unified. This disagreement between the Western and Eastern Church is one that goes all the way back to the 879-880 Council of Constantinople where the filioque controversy was anathematized by the Eastern Orthodox Church.

While the Orthodox view of the Trinity is definitely not in line with Scripture, they at least still affirm a Trinity, where Pentecostals affirm what only could be called a "modalistically-uncertain" concept of our Triune God. Now, depending upon the "type" of Pentecostal, for it's hardly a unified Church body, I have heard everything affirmed about the Trinity from, Jesus was just a really good "Dude" adopted by the Father because of his goodness, too, there was God the Father at first, and then He came as the Son on Earth, and now He is the Holy Spirit. There are iterations upon iterations regarding everything in between those two spectrum's, but hopefully you get the point, which is, as regarding the Trinity, they are obviously way out there in left field far from any sound Scriptural teaching.

Most of the problem, as usual, has to do with human reason's need to understand something that's basically beyond all comprehension. How can God be three in one and one in three; how could Christ be God, while praying to God the Father, etc.? It doesn't make sense, that is at least according to human reason. But does not the Orthodox as well suffer from this worship of reason, for when we seek to put man as the authority over God and His Word, all sorts of errors are bound to spring up like Lillie's in April. Human reason always demands supremacy, even, unfortunately, over the Lord our God.


While, admittedly, these two Churches are different, there are similarities between them, and one can see that it wouldn't be too hard for a deceiver like Satan to bridge the errors of both, that is if one still harbored a soft spot in their heart for the heterodoxy of their youth.

Now, that is not to say that this is what happened to Rev. (or now Father) Hackney. I don't know the man personally, and I wouldn't want somebody speculating about me when they had no idea who I was, or what the circumstances of my life were personally. Yet, his story I believe is an excellent springboard for discussion on this strange phenomena of people with a liberal past all-of-a-sudden embracing Eastern Orthodoxy, or Roman Catholicism based on superficial reasons, such as:


"...[he] felt drawn by the history and continuity of Orthodox Christianity."

(this one is hard to understand, the age of the Church lends to its authenticity? If so, how?) or that,

"Most people come into contact with God through the worship services. Most people don't read their Bibles, really,...And so [he] wanted to be a part of something whose worship transcends categories such as traditional and contemporary, something that remains the same so that [he] can have the assurance that [his] children and their children will be praying the same prayers, singing the same hymns, and worshiping in the same way."

(excluding his statements about reading Bibles and transcendance, could the rest not be achieved in confessional Lutheranism?) or that,

"...there was a desire for something else..."

(I suspect another desire for something else will perhaps arise in time, but then again who knows?) or that,

"[He] found in the Orthodox Church a richness in their daily prayer lives,...They had a structure. They had offices of prayer that are easy to follow. And by daily commemorating the saints that have gone before us, [he is] now connected with them in a way that has found its fullness in the Orthodox Church."

(once again, excluding the statement regarding commemoration of the saints and his connection to them through the Church, couldn't he have had just as rich a daily prayer life with the offices of prayer found in pastoral service books, or hymnals, etc.?)

However, if there is one ray of sunshine in regards to Father Hackney it is this:

"I'm committed to religious pluralism, and by that I mean everyone has a right to worship as they deem necessary according to their conscience," Father Daniel said. "This does not mean that we have to accept what everyone believes, we have the right to disagree." [emphasis mine]

I do not share his same enthusiasm about religious pluralism, however I do agree that we don't have to accept what everyone believes, and in that spirit I do not accept what Father Hackney believes. Perhaps one day he and others like him will see, and I pray it happens sooner rather than later, that what he and others like him are looking for, this style over substance, this personal fulfillment over the resignation of our will unto God's, this restless heart that we feel must be tamed by what pleases us, will one day find rest in the comfort given us by the pure doctrine of the Lutheran Church, something he already had in his hands and unfortunately let slip away.
.
.

*

Today we'll examine the fourth thesis of the Heidelberg Disputation, it states:

Although the works of God always seem unattractive and appear evil, they are nevertheless really eternal merits.

If the last thesis jarred your head a bit, this one should definitely put many wrinkles in the old noodle. This thesis is more of a reflection, or perha
ps the inverse of thesis three, for its structure and propositional content is essentially the same but only inverted. You see, mans works appear good, but, are in fact evil; while God's works appear evil, when they're in fact “eternal merits”.

Now, when we pious folk think of God, we think of nothing in him but goodness and light. And this is a right way to think of God; indeed it's most certainly true, however, God, when he works in his creation, does not always work in a way that is attractive to us, reasonably speaking, of course.

This is where many atheists have made their stand against the idea, and existence of an all powerful god. The argument goes something like this: if "he/she/it" exists, why would a good and omnipotent god allow evil to go on unabated? Do they not have the power? If not, then there really not omnipotent, are they, nor are they subsequently god for that matter, right? Well, it's a good argument, and I suppose worthy of meditation, yet, this is only the case if you allow for the premises to stand unchallenged. You see, this question really does not apply in Christendom, for in Christianity, under its own premises the question should really be: if there is a good God, then why does he let any of us evil people go on living and committing more atrocious behavior amongst ourselves? However, the atheist will not give ground for this argument because we're essentially and admittedly starting from two different vantage points; the atheist is seeking for some non-identified "god's" existence all the while believing they have a solid case in claiming the amorphous "it" evil, and therefore non-existent, on the other hand, the Christian presumes God's existence and questions his justice, and in so doing, is unwittingly claiming God to be evil as well, whether the believer is aware of it or not.

(nah, not really)

However, when most believers feel their reason begin to "connect-the-dots" regarding their perception of how unattractive their God appears, many will "shoo" away such thoughts and attempt to make their God's actions reasonable. This is because their “god” is actually their reason, thus many theologians will bend themselves backwards to make God appear good, but only result in twisting themselves into philosophical pretzels. In doing this they appear as fools to the learned and wise. Unfortunately, these futile attempts at theodicy, so as to make Christianity seem like the wise option, are completely unnecessary, for it is the work of the Holy Spirit to deliver the renewal of mind given solely by the power of the Gospel. Evangelizing is not equivalent to winning reasonable arguments; Evangelizing is bringing God's Word of the Gospel to broken people who despair of themselves. This work in “breaking” is not ours; this work is Gods and Gods alone!

Luther best shows the case for this in his proof of thesis 4, which states:

That the works of God are unattractive is clear from what is said in Isa. 53[:2], "He had no form of comeliness," and in 1 Sam. 2[:6], "The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up." This is understood to mean that the Lord humbles and frightens us by means of the law and the sight of our sins so that we seem in the eyes of men, as in our own, as nothing, foolish, and wicked, for we are in truth that. Insofar as we acknowledge and confess this, there is no form or beauty in us, but our life is hidden in God (i.e. in the bare confidence in his mercy), finding in ourselves nothing but sin, foolishness, death, and hell, according to that verse of the Apostle in 2 Cor. 6[:9-10], "As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as dying, and behold we live." And that it is which Isa. 28[:21] calls the alien work of God that he may do his work (that is, he humbles us thoroughly, making us despair, so that he may exalt us in his mercy, giving us hope), just as Hab. 3[:2] states, "In wrath remember mercy." Such a man therefore is displeased with all his works; he sees no beauty, but only his ugliness. Indeed, he also does these things which appear foolish and disgusting to others.

This ugliness, however, comes into being in us either when God punishes us or when we accuse ourselves, as 1 Cor. 11[:31] says, "If we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged" by the Lord. Deut. 32[:36] also states, "The Lord will vindicate his people and have compassion on his servants." In this way, consequently, the unattractive works which God does in us, that is, those which are humble and devout, are really eternal, for humility and fear of God are our entire merit.”

You see, we humans, since the fall of our first parents, have been trapped by the lie of the serpent. After Eve had told the snake what God said regarding the penalty of death for eating the fruit, the serpent responded in Gen. 3:4, by saying:


You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”


Unfortunately, since then little has changed. We still judge God by our reason, because we'd rather trust in our own little “self-god” we're accustomed to, thus not solely relying upon His Word as Adam and Eve should have done. And now that we no longer commune with God in our natural selves, which is original sins consequence, we all the more do not understand him and his ways which is attested to by St. Paul in Rom. 11:33-35, it states:


Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
“For who has known the mind of the LORD?
Or who has become His counselor?”
“Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?”


However, our Lord has not left us high and dry, for His Word forever abides with us in the promise of His redeemer Son, Jesus Christ, and by the guarantee of His Holy Spirit. It is by the Law and the prophets that God, as testified by Christ,overtakes our intellect, and puts reason in its right place so as to apprehend our Savior for all eternity. It is by the Law and prophets that our agitated and restless mind can shake off its arduous burden so as to cling comfortably in “child-like” faith onto God's Word alone. It is in Christ and Christ alone where our reason, nay even our whole selves find our final rest in regard to God and His “hidden” ways.


For example, when Joseph's brothers were ready to throw him in a well and leave him for dead, where was God? When his brothers sold him instead, and as a result he was put under the cruel bondage of slavery, once again I ask, where was God? When he was falsely accused of adultery by Potiphar's wife, and was subsequently jailed for many years, where was his God? It's a valid question, because as anyone can see of the Old Testament saints, none was as sterling in character as Joseph, and yet, he was completely mistreated and suffered horribly. Why? Where was God? Why was such a righteous man treated in such a wretched manner? Did God not foreordain this evil to befall his holy and upright servant? Surely God should have known how much he suffered?


However, after Josephs days of great woe were behind him; after he was transformed into a king governing the mighty gentile nation of Egypt, his brothers were to appear before him unaware of this now older-looking and made-over younger brother they had once left for dead. Here Joseph utters a profound truth concerning God's work in his life through his brothers actions, in Gen. 45:4a-8, he says:


"I am your brother Joseph, the one you sold into Egypt! And now, do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you. For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will not be plowing and reaping. But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.”


"So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He made me father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler of all Egypt.”


According to Joseph his brothers weren't to blame for his calamities, God was! You see, when God has set us aside to suffer it is never without purpose, yet, in the midst of such suffering, whether we've brought it upon ourselves, or we are afflicted from without, we, of our own natural ability are unable to understand that this too is the will of God meant for our own good, and as well for the good of others.


The greatest and clearest example of this in God's Word is in regards to the events of Good Friday. What could possibly be good about that day? Man, unaided by God in any manner was and is completely unaware of what actually happened on the cross.


Jesus' friends and disciples were in a state of complete and utter shock. Here was the most innocent, perfect, Godly, and holy person they had ever known, who was now condemned to death as a criminal by one of the cruelest means imaginable. All they had known, all they had understood was lost, was over, and was to never be again, at least according to their reason.


To the common Jewish citizen on the street, this was the very person they had welcomed into town as the great Messiah King to deliver them from the oppressive Roman magistrates just days before, who now hung powerless and forsaken of God upon a cross.


To Christ's enemies, who came to see if His supposed “Father in Heaven” of whom He so boldly spoke would save Him from this most humiliating death. And as He suffered, as it became utterly clear there would be no intervention from God, they mocked Him all the more because their reason couldn't dream of a Messiah who would ever allow Himself to be treated in such a manner, who would be totally powerless over his captors.


Yet, little did they know, that Jesus, like Joseph was to suffer but for a little while. Little did they know, that Jesus, like Joseph was to attain life for many people by his suffering. And, little did they know, that Jesus, like Joseph would come again to show his brethren that he was not only king of them, but over a vast foreign nation as well. Yet, Joseph is only a shadow or a type of Christ in the Old Testament, for by God working through the life of Joseph he was able to help many people avoid famine by becoming a prudent king over a small portion of the world, but in Christ how many more were helped?


Christ in his suffering took upon himself the sin of the world, the evil power of death, and the wrath of God we so justly deserve. Yet, it is not only that, for in His resurrection He became victorious over sin and death with its ghastly power, and in so doing has promised that we one day will do the same through the gift of faith, given us by God, in this holy work of love done for our sake. Who could have possibly known without divine revelation what exactly took place during those three days? I dare say, even now, as someone who both knows and accepts this most holy truth, I'm still completely incapable of understanding why God had to do things in such and such a manner, yet, nevertheless, I'll rest my reason with God's Word; let Him be true, and every man a liar.


You see folks, the basic lesson and teaching of this thesis regarding our natural judgment of God and the way He does things is this; empirical observation isn't what it's cracked up to be, at least when it attempts to judge God and his works. As Nietzsche once alluded to in response to the logical positivists of his day, there is no such thing as the “immaculate perception”, and so it is amongst us Christians, just because we possess the Holy Spirit doesn't mean that we can see into the “hidden” will of God either. So, when our reason seeks to understand and judge God according to it's ability, it is here where we must suspend it and let God be God.

*

Have you read...

...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...