• Study of the Lutheran Confessions, Wednesdays @ 5:30p

  • May 2017
    S M T W T F S
    « Nov    
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Sermons on YouTube

  • Post Categories

  • Recent Posts

  • Tags

  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 259 other followers

  • Blog Stats

    • 26,443 hits

Saints of God

1Seeing the crowds, [Jesus] went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him.

      2And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:

      3“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

      4“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

      5“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

      6“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

      7“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.

      8“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

      9“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

      10“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

      11“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

Matthew 5:1-12, ESV

A common misunderstanding of the word “saint” is that it only refers to someone who has already died.  Even among us, we may be more comfortable talking about the deceased as now being “saints” before God more so than any who are living.

 

In the Roman Catholic Church, the process of canonization, the road to sainthood, includes three components:

web-scroll-canonization-31 The candidate must have been dead for at least five years

2 It must be proved that the candidate lived an upright life, and

3 There must be evidence of a miracle or miracles attributed to the candidate after the candidate’s death as a

result of a specific petition to the candidate.

 

Such a process of canonization, first of all, attributes the possibility of sainthood only to the one who has already died.  This view most certainly advances the view that “saint” refers only to the deceased.

Secondly, the Roman Catholic Church necessitates a view that considers only the outward life of the individual in question.

Thirdly, because miracles must be attributed to the candidate after death, most would be excluded, especially as prayers must have been prayed to the deceased candidate prior to the miracle occurring.

The Roman Catholic teaching about sainthood is not everywhere believed or supported, especially among us, but it is a source from which many derive their understanding of sainthood.  As much as the world might want to distant themselves from the church generally, the world continues to take cues from the Catholic Church concerning what Christians believe, without making distinctions between what is true from what is false, not according to what any church body says, but according to what Holy Scripture itself teaches.

Having died, and having lived an outwardly “good” life, are two attributes that seem most to apply to that word “saint” as most understand the word.  And on this “All Saints’ Day,” such an understanding seems to continue.

The use of the term “saint” is much broader, however, and also narrower, in Holy Scripture than either the Roman Church or many inside or outside the church apply.

More broadly, in the Holy Bible, “saint” is the translation of the word for “Holy One” in the singular, or for “holy ones” in the plural (i.e. Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 6:1; 14:33; Philippians 4:21; June 1:14).  The word does refer to those who have died.  It also refers to those who are still living.  The definition of “saint” as only one who has died is not the whole picture.

For the Biblical understanding of the word “saint,” we cannot exclude the living from the word’s definition.  As Scripture speaks, so must we.  This means that we also are to distinguish, more narrowly, who a saint is and what a saint does.

The world and Rome depict a “saint” as one who “had lived an upright life.”  According to this definition, a saint was a “good person.”  An “upright life,” therefore, seems to equate to “being good,” but in the sense of outward behavior, not of the inward heart; external actions and not internal motives.

Our Lord, because He judges with “righteous judgment” and “not according to appearance” (John 7:24), does not look only at what a man does.  He looks at who he is.  God sees what is in the heart.

In Matthew 15, Jesus says that “those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defsin11ile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man” (Matt. 15:18-20, NKJ).

“Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man” (Matt. 15:11, NKJ).

Broadly, the word “saint,” Biblically used, includes both the dead and the living.

Those who have “died in the Lord,” having believed in Jesus Christ as their only hope and Savior, are members of the Church Triumphant.  These are they described in this morning’s epistle as “before the throne of God, and” who “serve him day and night in his temple…  16They shall hunger no more, neither thirst anymore; the sun shall not strike them, nor any scorching heat.  17For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of living water, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes” (Revelation 7:15-17).

Members of the Church Triumphant are now with the Lord awaiting the resurrection of their bodies.  They were formerly members of the Church Militant, of which we are now, as we continue to struggle in this sinful world, seeking to abide by the only Word that saves and remain in the faith of our Lord through which salvation comes.

Narrowly, the word saint applies only to those who are holy in the sight of God, and not because of what they do or have done, or how good they are or have been, as determined by the world, but who are “good in the heart” before God.

God determines and judges things differently than we and the world do.  We look at the outside of things to determine if it’s worthy of our consideration and of value in our eyes.  God, instead, “confers” worth and value upon the unworthy and to the detestable according to the eyes of the world and its inhabitants (LW 31, Heidelberg Disputation, Thesis 28).

God gives freely to the undeserving.  He is unconditional to the poor who can’t offer return.  Our Lord blesses those without merit.  He forgives the sinner and saves those who cannot at all help themselves.

Being “good in the heart” before God inwardly comes before living an “upward life” outwardly.

“Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit” (Matt. 7:17-18, NKJ).

Being a saint, being a holy one, doesn’t first have to do with how you live your life before God or before others.  It first has to do with what God Himself says, not what you think about yourself.

“Judge with righteous judgment” says our Lord (John 7:24).

A saint, a holy one, is not one who thinks that he is by virtue of his goodness, worthiness, or activities, either before God or before men.  Such a one is truly a hypocrite who believes himself to be worthy of God’s favor and blessing.  None are deserving of sainthood.  Our inability to keep God’s Holy Law reveals this.

“By the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20, NKJ)

A saint, therefore, is one who believes himself to be unholy, unrighteous, guilty before God’s Holy Law, condemned, and unworthy before God of anything but His wrath and righteous judgment.

Because the saint believes what God says of him, the saint finds no self-confidence of hope to stand before the sinless Judge.

Like the tax collector, the saint pleads, “God, be merciful to me a sinner!” (Lk. 18:13, NKJ).

To the Word of God concerning the corruptness of his heart, the saint says, “Amen,” it is so.  I am undeserving and unworthy to be called holy.  God so declares and has so revealed.  My condition is such that it cannot be undone.  What we confess is so, “I, a poor miserable sinner…”

“There is none righteous, no, not one,” declares the Psalmist and St. Paul (Psalm 14: 1-3 & 53: 1-3; Romans 3:10).

“There is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin” (Ecclesiastes 7:20).

These words we confess to be true.  And to you does our Lord now say, “You are forgiven.  I do not condemn you.  Your condemnation went on Another, on One who did not deserve to die the death that He died, on One who willingly sacrificed Himself in your stead on a wooden cross, on He whose blood cleanses you from all sin.”

Saints believe this Word of our Lord.  They believe that the righteousness reckoned to them is not their own, but Another’s—Christ’s—what we call imputed righteousness.  God calls you good because of His Son.  Jesus was, and is, Good, for you.  He is your goodness and righteousness before the Father.

Your works do not save you.  Christ’s do.  You do not merit God’s grace and favor.  It is gift, your own through faith in God’s only begotten Son.

saintsinner2You are sinner.  You are saint, righteous before God through faith in Christ.  Simul iustus et peccator, simultaneously sinner and righteous.

You have no confidence before God because of your own doing, but in Him who on the cross declared, “It is finished” (John 19:30).

Your certainty of salvation and confidence in God lies not in your experiences in this life, but in the blessings of God, revealed in Holy Scripture, blessings which are even now yours and blessings which are sure to come, as sure as Christ rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and will come again.

You are blessed according to the Lord’s Word, even if you don’t feel it.  Feeling and experience do not identify you as blessed.  God does.

The blessings declared by our Lord in today’s Gospel reading, often referred to as “The Beatitudes,” are not blessings bestowed upon those who “do” apart from faith, but upon those who believe the promises given apart from their works.

The one who is blessed is the one to whom the promise is given, the one who believes the promise.

So St. Paul, quoting the Psalmist, reveals that, “To him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin” (Rom. 4:5-8, NKJ).

Those whose lawless deeds are forgiven are blessed, as is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.

You, too, are blessed in this way, because your lawless deeds are forgiven you, and the Lord does not count your sin against you.

This is what it means to be a saint—To have God’s pronouncement of blessing.  You do, because of—and in-Christ, your hope and your certainty.  Amen.

all-saints-2

Some misrepresentation and confusion: Lutherans and Consubstantiation

Undestanding the Lord's SupperJust recently in a Sunday morning Bible class, the question was raised about the doctrine of consubstantiation.  Distinct from transubstantiation, which is the Roman Catholic teaching that the bread and the wine “turn into” Christ’s body and blood, the teaching of consubstantiation is often understood to be the Lutheran position by both Lutherans and non-Lutherans alike.  But is this claim correct?  A brief survey of non-Lutheran material shows that many indeed assume that the Lutheran teaching is, in fact, consubstantiation.  Moreover, even Lutherans themselves will sometimes claim this doctrine as their own.  However, other Lutherans confess differently, and not least of all, Dr. Luther and the reformers themselves.  To attempt to clarify the matter, I will briefly try to distinguish between what consubstantiation is from what it isn’t using various sources.  In doing so, I will show that not all who use the term (even Lutherans) are always consistent.  Because of this inconsistency, misrepresentation abounds and confusion remains.  Following this brief survey, I will speak about the importance of such distinctions and the significance of the Lutheran doctrine and her confession.

Right meaning, wrong word

In his Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine, H. Wayne House clearly characterizes the Lutheran position as that of consubstantiation.[1]  He indicates that Luther was the “founder” of this position, and that the major documents from which this teaching is derived are the Augsburg Confession and Luther’s Smaller Catechism.[2]  Interestingly, though, House correctly notes that, concerning the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, “The elements do not change into the presence of Christ,” (as in the Roman Catholic teaching) “but he is actually present in, with, and under the elements” (of bread and wine).[3]

Part of this latter “formula” does come directly from Luther’s Small Catechism, where Luther answers the question “What is the Sacrament of the Altar?” with the words, “It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and to drink.”  House is correct in attributing the teaching of Christ’s (“Real”) presence to the Lutheran position.  However, according to others, such a position is not what consubstantiation is.

Rose Publishing, Inc., like House in his Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine, also misrepresents the Lutheran teaching by claiming that it is consubstantiation.  Here is how AnyQuestions-3Rose Publishing describes the teaching of the Lutheran Church, “The Lord’s Supper remains truly bread and wine but also become truly Jesus’ body and blood.”[4]  Rose Publishing calls this teaching consubstantiation.

Thus far, both House and Rose Publishing correctly define the Lutheran position on the Lord’s Supper, but they do so by calling that position consubstantiation.  Likewise, on the back cover of the book, Understanding Four Views on The Lord’s Supper, the Lutheran view is understood to be the same.[5]

For anyone interested in correctly understanding the Lord’s Supper and it’s accompanying terminology, its easy to see how, just from the few examples above, confusion might exist, even among Lutherans.  The term used to describe the teaching of the Lutherans (i.e. consubstantiation) and the actual teaching of the Lutherans are not identical.

Consubstantiation and the actual teaching of the Lutheran Church

According to Dr. Scaer, consubstantiation “etymologically means ‘one substance by the side of another.’”[6]  Lutherans do not teach a “side by side” locale of bread and wine and Christ’s body and blood.  Rather, Lutherans teach what is called the “sacramental union,” which is the “Union of bread and body, wine and blood in the Sacrament of the Altar.”[7]  The elements of the Lord’s Table are not side by side.  Instead, Lutherans believe that the recipients of the Lord’s Supper truly receive Christ’s body and Christ’s blood.  Recipients also eat and drink bread and wine.  This includes not only those who believe that they receive Christ’s body and blood “in, with, and under” the bread and the wine, but also those who don’t believe it (See 1 Corinthians 11:27, 29).

Lenker defines consubstantiation this way, “View, falsely charged to Lutheranism, that bread and body form 1 substance (a ‘3rd substance) in Communion (similarly wine and blood) or that body and blood are present, like bread and wine, in a natural manner.”[8]

YesLutherans do not confess that a “3rd substance” exists.  Nowhere does Christ Himself say this in the institution of this sacred meal (Matthew 26:26-28; 1 Corinthians 11:23-25).  Lutherans do confess, however, that in the Lord’s Supper, bread and wine and Christ’s body and blood are received.  Neither do Lutherans teach that Christ’s body and blood are present in a “natural manner,” but in a supernatural one, according to Christ’s Word and promise.  Yet, Lutherans neither mis-spiritualize the sacrament or claim that bread and the wine only symbolize and represent Christ’s body and blood (both teachings are not according to the very words of Christ, to which we are bound).  Lutherans simply teach that Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper according to His Word, “Real Presence,” that He gives His own body and blood for us to eat and to drink, that we eat bread and drink wine as He instituted, and that by this means of grace (of the Lord’s Supper), Christ forgives sins and gives eternal life, “for where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also eternal life.”

Formula of Concord, Epitome, VII, “The Holy Supper of Christ”: 15 6. We believe, teach, and confess that with the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are received not only spiritually, by faith, but also orally — however, not in a Capernaitic manner, but because of the sacramental union in a supernatural and heavenly manner. The words of Christ teach this clearly when they direct us to take, eat, and drink, all of which took place in the case of the apostles, since it is written, “And they all drank of it” (Mark 14:23). Likewise, St. Paul says, “The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16) — that is, whoever eats this bread eats the body of Christ. This has also been the unanimous teaching of the leading Church Fathers, such as Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo I, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine.[9]

Why the big deal?

Such distinctions may sound confusing, and not least of all due to the confusion that already exists with many a teaching from one church body or denomination to another.  IfGod'sWordMattersw we all used the same words in the same way, and correctly attributed this and that word with the identical meaning, things would be different.  But regrettably, we do not.  Misrepresentations abound, as do assumptions and presuppositions, which may or may not be accurate.  People often speak past each other for these very reasons.  It is no different in the church.  Yet in the church, one shift in meaning or usage of a word and its meaning can do a great deal of damage (1 Corinthians 5:6; Galatians 5:9).  And if the right teaching is just a bit altered, salvation can be lost.

The teaching of consubstantiation is a term that is often used, but more greatly misunderstood and misapplied.  NonLutherans attribute Lutherans as holding this teaching.  Yet, Lutherans themselves, for the most part, do not claim this teaching as their own, at least as I am aware.  Either way, it is important to try to understand how a word is used and its meaning.  Especially when it comes to the Lord’s Word, which alone gives the true doctrine, is this necessary.  To not do so is not only not careful, it is not “rightly handing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).  Instead, it is adding to or subtracting from what the Lord has given (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:6).


[1] H. Wayne House, Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 124-125.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.,, 125.

[4] Rose Books of Bible Charts, Maps & Time Lines, “Denominations Comparison” (Torrance, CA: Rose Publishing, Inc., 2005), 173.

[5] John H. Armstrong (gen. ed.), Understanding Four Views on the Lord’s Supper (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan , 2007).

[6] Ibid., 87.

[7] Erwin L. Lenker, Lutheran Cyclopedia (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1975, rev.), 691.

[8] Ibid., 198.

[9] Theodore G. Tappert, The Book of Concord : The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2000, c1959.

 

 

Claims about Individual Interpretation of the Bible

That'sYourInterpretationIt is held by some that “The doctrine of Sola Scriptura originated with Martin Luther, the 16th-century German monk who broke away from the Roman Catholic Church and started the Protestant ‘Reformation.’[1]  Part of this is true.  Dr. Luther was a 16th-century German monk (of the Augustinian order).  However, the Roman Catholic Church excommunicated Luther for his teachings.

Claims about Individual Interpretation of the Bible

In referencing an understanding of the Bible at the time of the Reformation, Peters states, “As the confrontations between Lutheran the Church’s hierarchy ensued and tensions mounted, Luther accused the Catholic Church of having corrupted Christian doctrine and having distorted Biblical truths, and he more and more came to believe that the Bible, as interpreted by the individual believer, was the only true religious authority for a Christian.  He eventually rejected Tradition as well as the teaching authority of the Catholic Church (with the Pope at its head) as having legitimate religious authority.”[2]

Luther did, of course, accuse the Catholic Church of having corrupted Christian doctrine and having distorted Biblical truths.  Luther also did reject Tradition and the teaching authority of the Catholic Church (and Lutherans still do) as having legitimate religious authority (as such authority usurps the authority of God’s Word).  However, Peters is incorrect to say that Luther claimed the only true religious authority for a Christian is the Bible, “as interpreted by the individual believer.”

Luther did believe that God’s Word is the final authority (the formal principle) for faith and life, and that no church and no pope has authority over this authority.  Yet this claim that the Bible is the final authority did not derive from his own personal interpretation of Scripture.  Rather, this interpretation came from Scripture itself.[3]  In other words, Luther claimed that his preaching and teaching did not come from his own interpretation, but from what Scripture said itself.

For Luther, claiming a personal interpretation as authoritative was the same thing as placing oneself as the final authority over Scripture (the very same thing the Catholic Church, in fact, does).  Instead of placing himself as the master of the text (magisterial use of reason), Luther submitted himself to the text of Scripture (ministerial use of reason) as servant.  He himself was not the final say of what Scripture meant or did not mean.  The Bible itself was (and is) such a judge.[4]

For the Catholic Church to claim that tradition or the teaching authority of the Catholic Church has legitimate religious authority over Scripture, or is the only one who can rightly interpret it, really, is to apply the erroneous accusation against Luther to itself.  Whether it be an individual (i.e. the personal believer or the pope), the Catholic Church, or another church that claims exclusive rights to correctly interpreting Scripture, each of these places themselves above Scripture, and therefore, against Scripture.  To make the claim, “That’s your interpretation,” where the other simply states what Scripture states, is to do the same thing.


[1] Peters, 2.

[2] Peters, 2-3.

[3] 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:21.

[4] The hermeneutical principle here described is, “Scriptura Sacra Sui Ipsuis Interpres” (Scripture interprets itself).

 

 

Some misrepresentation and confusion: Lutherans and Consubstantiation

 

 Undestanding the Lord's SupperJust recently in a Sunday morning Bible class, the question was raised about the doctrine of consubstantiation.  Distinct from transubstantiation, which is the Roman Catholic teaching that the bread and the wine “turn into” Christ’s body and blood, the teaching of consubstantiation is often understood to be the Lutheran position by both Lutherans and non-Lutherans alike.  But is this claim correct?  A brief survey of non-Lutheran material shows that many indeed assume that the Lutheran teaching is, in fact, consubstantiation.  Moreover, even Lutherans themselves will sometimes claim this doctrine as their own.  However, other Lutherans confess differently, and not least of all, Dr. Luther and the reformers themselves.  To attempt to clarify the matter, I will briefly try to distinguish between what consubstantiation is from what it isn’t using various sources.  In doing so, I will show that not all who use the term (even Lutherans) are always consistent.  Because of this inconsistency, misrepresentation abounds and confusion remains.  Following this brief survey, I will speak about the importance of such distinctions and the significance of the Lutheran doctrine and her confession.

Right meaning, wrong word

In his Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine, H. Wayne House clearly characterizes the Lutheran position as that of consubstantiation.[1]  He indicates that Luther was the “founder” of this position, and that the major documents from which this teaching is derived are the Augsburg Confession and Luther’s Smaller Catechism.[2]  Interestingly, though, House correctly notes that, concerning the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, “The elements do not change into the presence of Christ,” (as in the Roman Catholic teaching) “but he is actually present in, with, and under the elements” (of bread and wine).[3]

Part of this latter “formula” does come directly from Luther’s Small Catechism, where Luther answers the question “What is the Sacrament of the Altar?” with the words, “It is theAnyQuestions-3 true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and to drink.”  House is correct in attributing the teaching of Christ’s (“Real”) presence to the Lutheran position.  However, according to others, such a position is not what consubstantiation is.

Rose Publishing, Inc., like House in his Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine, also misrepresents the Lutheran teaching by claiming that it is consubstantiation.  Here is how Rose Publishing describes the teaching of the Lutheran Church, “The Lord’s Supper remains truly bread and wine but also become truly Jesus’ body and blood.”[4]  Rose Publishing calls this teaching consubstantiation.

Thus far, both House and Rose Publishing correctly define the Lutheran position on the Lord’s Supper, but they do so by calling that position consubstantiation.  Likewise, on the back cover of the book, Understanding Four Views on The Lord’s Supper, the Lutheran view is understood to be the same.[5]

For anyone interested in correctly understanding the Lord’s Supper and it’s accompanying terminology, its easy to see how, just from the few examples above, confusion might exist, even among Lutherans.  The term used to describe the teaching of the Lutherans (i.e. consubstantiation) and the actual teaching of the Lutherans are not identical.

Consubstantiation and the actual teaching of the Lutheran Church

According to Dr. Scaer, consubstantiation “etymologically means ‘one substance by the side of another.’”[6]  Lutherans do not teach a “side by side” locale of bread and wine and Christ’s body and blood.  Rather, Lutherans teach what is called the “sacramental union,” which is the “Union of bread and body, wine and blood in the Sacrament of the Altar.”[7]  The elements of the Lord’s Table are not side by side.  Instead, Lutherans believe that the recipients of the Lord’s Supper truly receive Christ’s body and Christ’s blood.  Recipients also eat and drink bread and wine.  This includes not only those who believe that they receive Christ’s body and blood “in, with, and under” the bread and the wine, but also those who don’t believe it (See 1 Corinthians 11:27, 29).

Lenker defines consubstantiation this way, “View, falsely charged to Lutheranism, that bread and body form 1 substance (a ‘3rd substance) in Communion (similarly wine and blood) or that body and blood are present, like bread and wine, in a natural manner.”[8]

YesLutherans do not confess that a “3rd substance” exists.  Nowhere does Christ Himself say this in the institution of this sacred meal (Matthew 26:26-28; 1 Corinthians 11:23-25).  Lutherans do confess, however, that in the Lord’s Supper, bread and wine and Christ’s body and blood are received.  Neither do Lutherans teach that Christ’s body and blood are present in a “natural manner,” but in a supernatural one, according to Christ’s Word and promise.  Yet, Lutherans neither mis-spiritualize the sacrament or claim that bread and the wine only symbolize and represent Christ’s body and blood (both teachings are not according to the very words of Christ, to which we are bound).  Lutherans simply teach that Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper according to His Word, “Real Presence,” that He gives His own body and blood for us to eat and to drink, that we eat bread and drink wine as He instituted, and that by this means of grace (of the Lord’s Supper), Christ forgives sins and gives eternal life, “for where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also eternal life.”

Formula of Concord, Epitome, VII, “The Holy Supper of Christ”: 15 6. We believe, teach, and confess that with the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are received not only spiritually, by faith, but also orally — however, not in a Capernaitic manner, but because of the sacramental union in a supernatural and heavenly manner. The words of Christ teach this clearly when they direct us to take, eat, and drink, all of which took place in the case of the apostles, since it is written, “And they all drank of it” (Mark 14:23). Likewise, St. Paul says, “The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16) — that is, whoever eats this bread eats the body of Christ. This has also been the unanimous teaching of the leading Church Fathers, such as Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo I, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine.[9]

Why the big deal?

Such distinctions may sound confusing, and not least of all due to the confusion that alreadGod'sWordMatterswy exists with many a teaching from one church body or denomination to another.  If we all used the same words in the same way, and correctly attributed this and that word with the identical meaning, things would be different.  But regrettably, we do not.  Misrepresentations abound, as do assumptions and presuppositions, which may or may not be accurate.  People often speak past each other for these very reasons.  It is no different in the church.  Yet in the church, one shift in meaning or usage of a word and its meaning can do a great deal of damage (1 Corinthians 5:6; Galatians 5:9).  And if the right teaching is just a bit altered, salvation can be lost.

The teaching of consubstantiation is a term that is often used, but more greatly misunderstood and misapplied.  NonLutherans attribute Lutherans as holding this teaching.  Yet, Lutherans themselves, for the most part, do not claim this teaching as their own, at least as I am aware.  Either way, it is important to try to understand how a word is used and its meaning.  Especially when it comes to the Lord’s Word, which alone gives the true doctrine, is this necessary.  To not do so is not only not careful, it is not “rightly handing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).  Instead, it is adding to or subtracting from what the Lord has given (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:6).


[1] H. Wayne House, Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 124-125.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.,, 125.

[4] Rose Books of Bible Charts, Maps & Time Lines, “Denominations Comparison” (Torrance, CA: Rose Publishing, Inc., 2005), 173.

[5] John H. Armstrong (gen. ed.), Understanding Four Views on the Lord’s Supper (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan , 2007).

[6] Ibid., 87.

[7] Erwin L. Lenker, Lutheran Cyclopedia (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1975, rev.), 691.

[8] Ibid., 198.

[9] Theodore G. Tappert, The Book of Concord : The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2000, c1959.

 

 

What is Sola Scriptura?

Bible&CrucifixSola Scriptura is the Latin for “Scripture alone.”  Scripture alone means that the Bible, excluding the Apocrypha, is considered the “Only norm and rule for faith and life”[1].

Writing to St. Timothy, St. Paul the Apostle writes that the Holy Scriptures, “are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.  All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

Note that St. Paul references the purpose of the Holy Scriptures (the Old Testament, and then also, the New Testament writings) to be that of salvation.  Thus, does Jesus say to the people of His day, “You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me” (John 5:39).  Here, Jesus plainly says that the Scriptures (here, the Old Testament Scriptures, composed of the Law, the Writings (Psalms), and the Prophets bear witness to Him.

According to St. Luke, Jesus says to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, “‘O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!  Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?’ And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Luke 24:25-27).  Here again, Jesus draws attention to the truth that the Old Testament writings are of Him.

Also in this same chapter of St. Luke, Jesus speaks in a similar way to his other disciples concerning His death and resurrection as recorded in the First Testament, “‘These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.’  And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, ‘Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem’” (Luke 24:44-47).

Such references clearly show that the Old Testament testifies of Christ Jesus, by Jesus’ own admonition.  Jesus Himself bears witness to the centrality of the Christian faith—Himself, who “suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried” and “On the third day He rose again from the dead” (2nd Article of the Apostles’ Creed).

Throughout the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of the New Testament, this truth is clearly shown, that the Old Testament testifies of Christ.  Thus, the New Testament, too, bears witness to Christ and clearly shows that the entire Bible is about Him and salvation.

St. Paul writes in Ephesians 2:20 of having been, “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone.”  Here, Paul is writing to the “saints in Ephesus” (Ephesians 1:1), which included especially Gentiles.  The Gentile faith is no different from the faith of the Jews who also had believed in Christ, for the following words apply to both, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).

It is by God’s grace, apart from works, through faith, that anyone is saved.  This faith is founded on Christ Jesus, and is pure gift (see also Romans 5:1).  This, the Holy Scriptures teach.

The foundation of the apostles and prophets referenced above is nothing less than their preaching and teaching transmitted to us through their writings of both Old and New Testaments, with Christ at the center.

Add to, or subtract anything, from these writings, and the center is moved from Christ to something else.  Moving the center to something else leads to, and is “preaching another Gospel” (see Galatians 1:6-10) and carries with it the anathema of St. Paul, the Church, and Christ Himself (John 8:31-32; 14:21, 23-24.  This is why Sola Scriptura is necessary to retain and believe.

The writer to Proverbs writes that, “Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.  Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar” (30:5-6).

Adding to God’s Word does not lead to salvation, and only removes Christ from the centrality of the Christian faith.  Doing this is not according to God’s will and is not in accord with Christ and His Church, nor of Christian preaching.

Again, St. Paul writes, “We preach Christ crucified” (1 Corinthians 1:23).  Similarly, he repeats these words in his second letter to the Corinthians, “For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake” (2 Corinthians 4:5).

The Christian church keeps, retains, confesses, and rejoices in “Christ at the center,” in her preaching and in her teaching.  Adding to or subtracting from the Holy Scriptures, Christ’s church becomes something else, losing Christ its center.  What then follows is not the Gospel, but the Law and legalism, confession without Christian absolution, ritual without freedom, and the desire for salvation, but no certainty of God’s grace and favor.  Salvation then hangs on you and not alone on the risen Christ.  Such are the consequences of denying Sola Scriptura.

Generally speaking, Protestant churches retain Sola Scriptura, though not all faithfully adhere to it.  A growing phenomena today is that of referencing the Bible, but divorcing the reference from its context, and using the text to support one’s own position rather than deriving the meaning from the text itself.  We all are to be diligent here not to make the text say what we want it to say, but rather, “hearing” what the text actually does say and declaring the “amen,” regardless of like or dislike.

The problem here is that the Bible does say things “hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:16).  However, rather than trying to make the text make sense and placing ourselves over the Word as interpreters, we are to be servants of Scripture.  We are not lord over the text.  It is “Lord” over us.  The servant of the Lord does not seek to usurp God and His Word, but bears with it and seeks only to know Christ the Savior.  Keeping Sola Scriptura in tact and not adding to or subtracting from the text of Holy Scripture will ensure that Christ remains the center, as Christ remains the center of the Christian faith.[2]  Where Sola Scriptura is not held, there, other teachings will usurp Biblical doctrine, and another authority (or authorities) will insert his own teachings and doctrine as that to be believed.

This happens, for example, where reason is given higher authority than the Bible.  This occurs when human reason denies the Biblical text and “interprets” it in another way.  St. Peter, for example, writing about baptism, says, “There is also an antitype which now saves us — baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21, NKJ).  To deny that baptism can save or does save is to place human reason above the text of Holy Scripture.

According to Joel Peters, the author of Scripture Alone, “The Catholic holds that the immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church; the Church in turn takes her teaching from divine Revelation—both the written Word, called sacred Scripture, and the oral of unwritten Word, known as ‘Tradition.’  The teaching authority or ‘Magisterium’ of the Catholic Church (headed by the Pope), although not itself a source of divine revelation, nevertheless has a God-given mission to interpret and teach both Scripture and Tradition.  Scripture and Tradition are the sources of Christian doctrine, the Christian’s remote or indirect rule of faith.”[3]

In summary, the rule of faith for protestants (generally, though variously defined, and sometimes along side of reason) is Holy (Sacred) Scripture, the Bible, Sola Scriptura.  For the Roman Catholic Church, the rule of faith is not Scripture alone, but Scripture and Tradition.  In practice, though, the latter cancels out the former.  As we shall see, Holy Scripture and the (oral?) Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church (or of the Orthodox Church) are not compatible as authorities, for the latter will assume authority over the latter.

The differing rules of faith between (historic)[4] Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are not at all complementary or compatible.[5]  They are at odds with each other.  Recognizing this distinction reveals much about the differences and practices between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, not least of which is the centrality of the Christian faith—Jesus Christ, and the means of salvation—faith in Christ alone.


[1] Theodore G. Tappert, The Book of Concord : The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2000, c1959).  Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration: “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged and evaluated.” (The Summary Formulation (Basis, Rule, and Norm, Indicating How All Doctrines Should Be Judged in Conformity with the Word of God and Errors Are to Be Explained and Decided in a Christian Way).

 

[2] In a later section, I will address the clear disunity among protestant churches, and also the disunity within the Roman Catholic church.

[3] Joel Peters, Scripture Alone: 21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura, (Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.), p1-2.

[4] By historic Protestantism, I mean the first protestants, Lutherans, who “protested” against the Catholics regarding certain freedoms at the Diet of Speyer (1529).

[5] And neither is any rule of faith including Scripture and human reason.

 

 

Scripture Alone!

ScriptureAlone-Peters

A Lutheran response to Joel Peter’s booklet,

“Scripture Alone?  21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura”

 

Introduction

 

Sola Scriptura is one of the “solas” of the Reformation of the 16th  century.  It was not, and it is not, an obsolete teaching or doctrine.  Nor was it a novel invention of Luther.

Sola Scriptura remains today as one of the “solas” of Reformation churches the world over, not because it was a teaching of Dr. Martin Luther, but because it is the very teaching of Scripture itself.  Because this is so, it is necessary to properly distinguish what Sola Scriptura is from what it is not, especially in light of current attacks on said  doctrine.  The charge that Sola Scriptura is a “new creation” or that it has no basis in the church is not according to the text of Scripture itself.

In responding to the charges made by Joel Peters against Sola Scriptura in his little booklet entitled, Scripture Alone?  21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura, I wish to clarify what is true from what is not.  I also wish to defend Sola Scriptura, not only from Roman Catholic misrepresentation, but also from other similar characterizations.

In the next section, I will define Sola Scriptura, as well as distinguish what is regarded authoritative in much of Protestantism and the Roman Catholic Church.  I use the term Protestantism, not in its historical sense, but in its general usage today, meaning non-Roman Catholic churches of the Western church (in distinction from the church of the East, the Orthodox).

Some might genuinely ask if such an apologetic in response to 21 Reasons To Reject Sola Scriptura is necessary.  I believe it is, not so much because everyone accepts Peters’ claims, but because a number of his claims against Sola Scriptura are accepted as true by many Roman Catholics, Protestants, and nonChristians alike.

The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod – Commentary: Flunking the religious knowledge test

Gene Edward Veith–

“…It is regrettable when people are ignorant about other people’s religion.  But it is even worse when they are ignorant about their own religion.  Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine of Communion become the Body and Blood of Christ.  Only 40 percent of Americans realize that.  But only 55 percent of Roman Catholics are aware that this is what their church teaches, meaning that 45 percent do not!

But the most disturbing news from the Religious Knowledge Survey is how few Christians are aware that Protestants believe that salvation is through faith alone.  Only 16 percent of the general public is aware of that teaching, which is the same percentage (16 percent) of Christians who are aware of that teaching!  Only 9 percent of Catholics realize that Protestants believe that.

It gets worse.  Among Protestants, only 19 percent were aware that Protestants believe that salvation is through faith alone.  That includes 14 percent of the mainliners and 9 percent of black Protestants.  Among Evangelicals, whose name suggests an emphasis on the Gospel, only 28 percent know that Protestants believe in salvation through faith alone, which means that 72 percent do not…”

The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod – Commentary: Flunking the religious knowledge test.

%d bloggers like this: