(*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."
"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."
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.
*
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 perhaps 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.
*
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 2:
"Much less can human works which are done over and over again with the aid of natural precepts, so to speak, lead to that end."
What does this mean? Well, in reference to the first thesis, which states: "The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him.", we find that when man tries to perform perfect righteousness according to the Law of God, he only awakens an evil desire within himself, and is thus incapable of conforming to the demands of the Law. So, what this thesis is in reference to is the works of men apart from the Law.
In Romans 2:14,15; it states:
"...for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them..."
Therefore, the effect on man is essentially the same in man-made laws as it is in the Law of God, for these man-made works did not appear from nothing, there is a place they derive themselves, namely, the Law written on their heart. And, hearkening back to the first thesis, if a man can no more do the Law of God without help from his Lord because of the awakening evil desire within him made manifest by the Law, how can he possibly look within himself for any hope of doing the same by man-made works? This is the exact sentiment that Luther states in his proof of this thesis:
"Since the law of God, which is holy and unstained, true, just, etc. is given man by God as an aid beyond his natural powers to enlighten him and move him to do the good, and nevertheless the opposite takes place, namely, that he becomes more wicked, how can he, left to his own power and without such aid, be induced to do good? If a person does not do good with help from without, he will do even less by his own strength. Therefore the Apostle, in Rom. 3[:10-12], calls all persons corrupt and impotent who neither understand nor seek God, for all, he says, have gone astray."
So, what we find after the first two theses is that man, whether he attempts to perform works within the Law, or without, that his actions are nevertheless still under the wrath of God. Furthermore, since these man-made works find their ground in the Law written on our hearts, the attempt of performing them with hopeful accordance in righteousness will still awaken an evil desire apart from the Law anyway. If we were to live in righteousness, the only pure way to do it would be to live by the Law of God, if we are incapable of doing that by nature, how can we possibly take comfort in any good works we do apart from the Law?
If we put our trust and faith in ourselves and what we are capable of, then we are building upon a foundation of sand. Our castle will fall, and our fort will be overtaken. The works we perform are never good enough for God, and even though we may believe they are, we are merely appreciating our works as a blind person would appreciate the Sunset, in short, it can't be done. If we could actually see what our works looked like from God's perspective, we would see them as the prophet describes them in Isa. 64:6:
"But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags..."
So, let's set aside our "filthy rags", and put on Christ's robe of righteousness. It is in him that we shine radiantly before the eyes of our Lord, and not in the paltry attire we're accustomed to. If you quietly take comfort when examining yourself in the things of your heart, your temperament, your way of life, then you are not in the faith, for you are not resting your conscience on the true source of our sinlessness which is none other than our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If you are this person, then repent, for God longs to forgive us our iniquities, and then follow Christ, the sole author and perfecter of our faith.
Thesis 1:
"The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him."
The Law of God is good. It tells us how our heart should be towards our neighbor and towards God Himself. However, when we examine our hearts by God's Law we not only see it accusing us of our sins, but we also see that it awakens an evil desire within us. Therefore, the more we practice the Law, and the more we attempt perfection in the light of Gods law, the more our flesh in evilness struggles against our will to do good.
We find ourselves in the same predicament as the wretched man in Romans 7:7-24:
"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good."
"Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?"
Luther offers this following passage as the proof of his thesis, it states:
"This is made clear by the Apostle in his letter to the Romans (3[:21]): "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law." St. Augustine interprets this in his book, The Spirit and the Letter (De Spiritu et Littera): "Without the law, that is, without its support." In Rom. 5[:20] the Apostle states, "Law intervened, to increase the trespass," and in Rom. 7[:9] he adds, "But when the commandment came, sin revived." For this reason he calls the law a law of death and a law of sin in Rom. 8[:2]. Indeed, in 2 Cor. 3[:6] he says, "the written code kills," which St. Augustine throughout his book, The Spirit and the Letter, understands as applying to every law, even the holiest law of God."
Man's reason looks at God and His demands and believes that God wouldn't give him something he wasn't able to perform. And so, he concludes that he must do these things primarily to be in God's good graces, yet, if he is honest with himself, he will find that the closer he comes to God's Law, the further he gets from actually fulfilling it. The more he practices righteousness, the more he actually practices wickedness. This frustrates his reason and he questions, "what must I do to be saved?"
It is here where God is finally ready to meet him, for in the end, the wretched man finally cries out, "who will deliver me from this body of death?" This is exactly were God wants everyone of us, for the wretched man in the very next sentence finally sees the despair of his own works and clings to the One who has fulfilled the Law in his place. He states in verse 25, "I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord", for it is by Him and Him alone that we are righteous in the eyes of our God. It is in him and him alone that we have the life everlasting.
Are you tired of the weight of God's Law on your shoulders? Does it seem that no matter how hard you try to keep it, that you were always worse off then when you started? If you are tired, then repent, for God longs to forgive us our iniquities! Let Christ take the weight of your sin from off of you, and put on his robe of righteousness, for "his yoke is easy, and his burden is light", so "come to Him, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and He will give you rest."
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 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.
In surveying Luther's theses of the Heidelberg Disputation, three things come to mind: counter-intuition, reason over turned, and mental stumbling blocks. When one reads them, as was the intent of its author, one can't help but feel frustrated by the seeming "il-logic" behind them. However, when one accepts these theses true, as any Christian should (considering how closely they're aligned with the one true Gospel) one will have his reason in its "right" place. Let me illustrate.Now, imagine, if you will, a moon-less midnight, standing at one end of a grand and level playing field. Now, just run as quickly as possible to the other side without falling; if you fall, no worries, just start again. The task is relatively simple. The field is fairly flat, plenty of room in either direction to go slightly off course if need be, just stand up straight, keep balance, and run to the other side. No problems, right?
Wrong! You didn't think it was going to be that easy, did you? Well, what you don't know and can't see for that matter is that for every few feet of field, a trench is dug in such a way so as to trick those who look at the field from one of its ends into thinking it even and steady terrain ahead. Surprise! Now run! But remember, don't fall, lest you wish to start again!
That's the kind of experience one has when reading through the theses of the Heidelberg Disputation. We use reason like our body, we expect, with all things being equal, that we, like with the football field, should be able to negotiate simple propositions before us. However, what may look simple, unbeknownst to us, is really laden with ankle twisting snares, things that frustrate and hinder our "progress". What's even more deceiving, is to come to an understanding, a peace with the fact that those ankle twisting snares are there for our own good. Without them, we wouldn't be humbled, we wouldn't fall to our knees and cry to the Lord, "have mercy on me, a sinner", we wouldn't see our fallen nature as God wants us to see it.
This is Luther's purpose. In the Heidelberg Disputation he displays two paths for a theologian. The first is the theologian of glory (hereafter referred to as TOG). He is a proud creature. Inclined towards works righteousness, TOG believes that he's capable of earning God's favor by his good deeds. Also, as one who relies primarily on his own understanding of things, he judges God's favor with him by his five senses. If things are going well, God must love him, however, if things are going bad, then God is judging him for not doing things right.
What truly confounds the reason of TOG is when he does all the things right that he's supposed to (in TOG eyes, of course), yet, God clearly shows his disfavor as displayed by TOG's poor circumstances. It causes him frustration and boldly he cries out to his maker, "why do the righteous suffer while the wicked prosper?" When he receives no answer, he assumes God must be testing him, and if he survives the test to the end, then he, and God of course, are proud of a job well done.
However, there is something that equally confounds TOG's reason, why are things going so well when privately he's consumed by his pet vices? Surely God see's his evil deeds, why hasn't he punished him yet? TOG assumes God must be saving up his wrath to unleash on him in a torrent of punishment unlike anything he's ever seen before. TOG, out of fear must appease this wrathful God by doing an equal amount of good works (if such a thing were possible). His life is a balancing act, balancing the weights of God justice with good works for evil ones. He walks a tight-rope with Hell on either side. One mis-step and all is lost.
When TOG reads scripture he finds Law in Gospel passages, and Gospel in Law passages. Words of comfort bring him terror and dread. Stern words of Law bring him comfort. You see, the Gospel tells him his salvation depends on somebody else. All of TOG' s actions revolve around himself, for he is the only one he can trust. How can someone elses works be accredited to him. Does God really expect him to put all his trust in Christ's work, doesn't God want him to do good things too? Ah, the Law! Now, the Law is something he can get behind, because he knows if he does his best, if he does what's in him, God will meet him in the middle and reward him for his efforts. God has never explained this to him, as a matter fact, this kind of idea is no where to be found in scripture. In fact, scripture points in the other direction. But, he knows this by intuition, he knows in his heart of hearts this is true. Let his heart be true and everyone else, including God, be a liar.
If the Heathen raises rational opposition to TOG's God, he is quick to make God's actions reasonable. If the Heathen asks how a good and omnipotent God could allow evil to take place, TOG will go on an endless theodicy to justify God's actions. He fears the Heathen's judgment. He fears there is a "ring of truth" in the accusation, for deep down he knows it doesn't square with his reason either, and can't accept that his God, could very well be a devil. Inflicting pain and suffering on innocent people, what good and all-powerful God would do such a thing? TOG's reason, er...that is...God must be defended at all costs.
Most importantly, TOG looks at the cross with confusion. How can Christ gain victory in defeat? How can the murder of such a righteous man ever be called good? No, he'd rather concentrate his theology on Christ's resurrection and skip over all that unpleasant mess of the Cross. He'd rather focus on the gloriousness he shares with Christ than the hideousness Christ shares with him in his sin.
The truth is, we are all TOG! In the heart of every one of us lies a Pharisee. A self righteous hypocrite who longs to water down God's Law and tread the Gospel underfoot so as to appease our personal "impression" of God instead of the true and living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We who desperately want to understand God outside of His chosen method of revelation are also the same persons who upon claiming great knowledge of God in His glory, would attempt to correct even God Himself if He were to show us a different way. We are people who make idols of our own reason instead of submitting our reason to God's Word. We are people who pretend to look upon the glorious hidden things of God, His private councils, His wisdom, and claim to go on and continue living.
The funny thing is I don't doubt TOG, we do indeed look at glorious things. I have no doubt that what we claim to receive is from none other than "an angel of light". However, we know what the Bible says about such things (2 Cor. 11:14, Rom. 11:33-36).
The question I leave you with is simple, are you a theologian of glory? Do you long to know the glorious things of God, instead of letting God be God and taking your rightful place under his grace and mercy given us in the cross of Christ? Did you feel uncomfortable while I described the theologian of glory and his sinful ways? If you did, then repent for the Lord our God is merciful and longs to forgive us of our iniquity. However, we must accept the image God gives us of ourselves, we must submit ourselves to the image of the man on the cross, so that the image of God can be restored in us.
