A friend posted something on Twitter this AM that reminded me how little the two traditions understand each other today. In the 16th and 17th centuries our traditions were involved in intense, frequent discussions and interaction and we understood each other more clearly than we do now.
Our mutual ignoring and ignorance of each other’s traditions has led to much confusion and misunderstanding about our own traditions. E.g. I get the impression that some Lutherans believe that Lutherans “don’t believe in election.” That would be a shock to Martin Luther, whose doctrine of unconditional election was so clear Erasmus wrote a critique prompting Luther to write Bondage of the Will (1525) in response. It would also surprise framers of the Book of Concord, where the doctrine of unconditional election is clearly and explicitly taught and it would also be a shock to the founders of the LCMS, for whom unconditional election was a decisive doctrine.
We have differences on predestination and reprobation and perseverance, which are related to election, but not, as far as I know, on unconditional election.
From the Reformed side, I still read and hear Reformed folk writing and talking as if the very act of distinguishing between law and gospel is something that only Lutherans do. How Reformed folk could possibly think such a thing in light of the enormous primary source evidence to the contrary in both our theologians (e.g., Olevianus) and confessions (see Ursinus’ lectures on the catechism where he explains this explicitly) is beyond me but it continues.
I think I understand a little bit why Lutherans have difficulty getting to grips with what Reformed folk actually confess. They confess that Reformed folk are “sacramentarians.” A sacramentarian is one who holds that the Lord’s Supper is no more than a symbol. In practice Lutheran confessionalists tend to think of all sacramentarians as “Reformed,” which means that in their broad usage, “Reformed” denotes virtually all non-Lutheran, non-Roman evangelicals.
Further, Lutherans seem to be confessionally committed to the notion that the Reformed are, to put it delicately, dissemblers. In article 7 of the Solid Declaration, they confess:
Although some Sacramentarians strive to employ words that come as close as possible to the Augsburg Confession and the form and mode of speech in its [our] churches, and confess that in the Holy Supper the body of Christ is truly received by believers, still, when we insist that they state their meaning properly, sincerely, and clearly, they all declare themselves unanimously thus: that the true essential body and blood of Christ is absent from the consecrated bread and wine in the Holy Supper as far as the highest heaven is from the earth
It is not as if the Lutherans make no distinction between kinds of sacramentarians. They distinguish between “gross” (obvious) sacramentarian and “subtle” (sneaky) sacramentarians:
…there are two kinds of Sacramentarians. Some are gross Sacramentarians, who declare in plain (deutschen), clear words as they believe in their hearts, that in the Holy Supper nothing but bread and wine is present, and distributed and received with the mouth. Others, however, are subtle Sacramentarians, and the most injurious of all, who partly speak very speciously in our own words, and pretend that they also believe a true presence of the true, essential, living body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, however, that this occurs spiritually through faith.
In Article VII of the Formula of Concord the Reformed are characterized as “astute” and “crafty” sacramentarians for saying that we believe in the “true presence” but not in the local, bodily presence (Schaff, Creeds, 3.136).
Thus, it really does not matter what the Reformed actually confess, that in the Belgic Confession we confess that, regarding the supper,
we say that what is eaten and drunk by us is the proper and natural body and the proper blood of Christ. But the manner of our partaking of the same is not by the mouth, but by the Spirit through faith (Article 35, Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3.430 [emphasis added]
Thus, in both cases, what is eaten is the “proper” (that which is and belongs to Christ’s humanity) and “natural” (not imaginary) body and blood of Christ. The difference is in the manner and the location of the body. We confess that we cannot say exactly how the Spirit does this—how are we rationalists if we appeal to the mysterious operation of the Holy Spirit?—but that is not enough to keep us from being under suspicion.
So, the goal of this post is to further understanding. I guess, since our confessional Lutheran brothers and sisters are confessionally bound to regard us with suspicion, and since it seems unlikely that we shall persuade them to revise their confession, we cannot really expect much progress on that front, at least not corporately but Reformed churches do not confess such suspicion of the Lutherans. We should be aware of the areas where do confess differences:
- Christology (implicitly also God and man in certain respects)
- Sacraments (baptism and the supper)
- Soteriology—The Reformed have a more developed covenant theology and we confess the doctrine of reprobation and the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints
- Ecclesiology—I think Lutherans have historically been more indifferent to the form of church government than we
- Worship—The Lutherans and Reformed confess two distinct principles of worship. I wonder why more Reformed folk aren’t more wound up about the degree to which Reformed worship has come to look like Lutheran worship. It seems that their concern about “becoming Lutheran” is quite selective.
There are other differences (e.g., in the way the two traditions talk about the canon of Scripture) but these are the major differences that come to mind.
This has been a frequent topic on the HB, principally because of the controversy provoked by the Federal Vision/New Perspective(s) errors, but the continued assertion by some that there is a distinctly Reformed doctrine of justification suggests that a resource round-up might be useful so here it is.
We (Lutherans – and I’m painting with a broad brush) do believe that Christ is actually present in Baptism and the Supper. We also do not claim to know how, only that Jesus said, “this IS my body, this IS my blood…”
And, when He commands something of us, he is always there in it, acting for us, doing His gracious will…to us.
We do believe that Christ died for all…because the Bible tells us that, and in many different ways. We couldn’t imagine telling someone that Christ may have died for you’.
And we really detest all of the internal examination stuff to gin up any assurance that we really belong to Him. We just can’t trust in any of that since “the devil can come all dressed up as an angel of light”, and since our faith and seriousness isn’t really all that serious. You worry warts (like me) know what I mean.
So, for us, the external Word is the ground of our assurance. And something that we can count on, no matter how we feel. Or what we do, or don’t do. Or even what we say or think. There is real assurance in this sort of view and real freedom. The kind of freedom that is so scarce in most churches today…including a great many Lutheran churches who have fallen off the horse on the left side of ‘social gospel’…and those who have fallen off the right side, of ’3rd use’ and inerrant Bibles (words), and fencing off the pure gospel to an unhealthy level (because they alone know the truth).
For us it truly is Christ alone…with NO add-on’s whatsoever. There aren’t too many of this type of Lutheran still out there…but we are there, and we rejoice with Christians of any stripe who join us in the finished work of Christ…add nothing.
Thanks.
(what was the question
– sorry for going on a bit)
Thanks for another great post Dr. Clark! This was very helpful, especially the link to all the evidence for the Reformed use of law-gospel distinction. When you pointed out the difference in soteriology is that the Reformed have a more developed covenant theology than the Lutheran system, do you think that this means that so many today who want to claim a Reformed position, but reject our covenant theology, are actually closer to the Lutheran position? I think mainly of the so called “young, restless, and Reformed” who still hold mainly dispensational hermeneutics, but one could also ask this about someone such as John Murray (Someone’s head just probably exploded with that suggestion though).
No, we aren’t closer to dispys or the Reformed theologians who tend to flatten out the distinctions. We interpret the Scriptures, old and new, through Law and Gospel. Christ is at the center of it all. If you’d like to see this in action, you could pick up the Lutheran Study Bible or the Concordia Commentary series. Both would give some inkling of how we go about interpreting these things.
I’m sorry if I implied that I was asking something about Lutherans. I was asking if some who claim to be Reformed, but reject our covenant theology, would actually be closer to Lutherans than the Reformed.
I understood the question, and the answer is still no. The Reformed who reject Reformed covenant theology are not, by virtue of their rejection of Reformed covenant theology, closer to Lutheranism.
Well, I guess we disagree on what Reformed means then. Since the Westminster Standards include a pretty specific form of covenant theology, it’s hard for me to imagine how someone can be Reformed if they do not believe what Reformed people have confessed to be Reformed doctrine. I assumed that your reference to “we” meant Lutherans since you cited Lutheran sources. Maybe I have misunderstood you. My position is, however, that there are no Reformed people who reject Reformed covenant theology. If they reject it, they are not Reformed.
I agree that people who reject the Reformed confessions are not Reformed. My only point was that those people who reject Reformed covenant theology are not closer to Lutheranism.
Harrison,
Well, the FV fellows hold a view of baptism and perseverance that is much closer to the Lutheran confessional view than it is to the Reformed view. This is why I’ve always been amused to have FV guys call me a “Lutheran.”
The YRR folk are mostly Baptist in their sacramentology/ecclesiology so I don’t know if it works to align them with the Lutherans. They have an implied covenant theology but it isn’t ours.
Mr Murray was attempting to revise Reformed covenant theology but I think we wanted to work within a broader Reformed framework.
Thanks for your response Dr. Clark. That was very helpful in thinking through how to see these issues.
Dr. Clark,
There is a fairly crucial element that I think needs to be mentioned if we’re going to point out such a superficial similarity between FV and Lutheranism. They reject the law/gospel distinction and we affirm it. That makes a world of difference when we’re talking about things like the nature of baptism and apostasy.
Oh, and when one understands the Lutheran sacramental position, that God is constantly forgiving our sins in absolution and the Supper, any superficial similarity with FV disappears.
Nate,
What exactly do you mean by this?
“God is constantly forgiving our sins in absolution and the Supper”??
Also Dr. Clark wasn’t saying that FV is Lutheranism, but the similarities in terms of perseverance (falling away) and similar in baptism (the mysterious connection between justification and the sacrament)…you probably got it, but he wasn’t referring at all to you rejecting the gospel like FV.
Trent,
Thanks. That’s true. I don’t mean to say at all that confessional Lutherans = FV but there is a strong similarity in their view of baptism. In the FV baptism is said to be so objective that it ex opere operato creates a temporary, conditional “election” and “union with Christ” and “justification” etc so that faith is really useless. In the FV scheme, we are told that we must cooperate with grace given in baptism in order to retain it (“get in by grace, stay in by works”). “Apostasy,” they say, “is real.” Baptism has united us to the vine but we must do our part to remain connected. If we do, then the conditional benefits conferred in baptism will be retained our conditional election will become eternal or it will turn out to have been eternal.
In the Lutheran scheme, baptism is said to confer certain benefits (“salvation”) objectively (which seems a lot like an ex opere scheme) but since grace is resistible (as in the FV scheme) it becomes necessarily conditional. In the past when I’ve discussed this what I usually get is yelling, “Baptism saves!” Okay, but grace is resistible, right? “Yes, but we don’t think/talk about that.” Okay, but that isn’t really a coherent answer. If grace is resistible, then it’s necessarily conditional.
The reason the confessional Lutheran scheme doesn’t become FV is that confessional Lutherans are probably practically more committed to the law/gospel, sola fide, justification on the basis of imputation aspects of their system than they are to the resistible grace aspect of their system so that practically they are protected. If the sola fide aspect, however, ever weakens, then the conditional aspect latent in resistible grace and “objective” baptism will take its toll.
To anticipate Steve’s charge, “You Reformed are subjectivists! You look inside yourselves for assurance!” No, the promises are objective. The preached Word is objective. The promises embedded in the sacraments and made visible b in them are objective. They are received through faith (resting, receiving, trusting, leaning, those are the qualifiers we confess re faith in the act of justification) alone. Arguably, we have a stronger view of sola fide because we let faith do what it alone can do, be the sole, unique, receptive instrument (which was Luther’s way of speaking about it) of justification. Baptism isn’t faith. Baptism isn’t, per se salvation any more than the flood waters saved Noah. Christ saved Noah and the Christ is the ark. Noah was saved from the flood and through the flood but not by the flood. He was saved (delivered from judgment) by Christ, through faith and that salvation was signified and sealed by the water just as the judgment upon the unbelieving world was signified and sealed by those same waters.
Do confessional Lutherans have any place for baptism as a judgment on unbelief? I think they do regarding the Supper since consistently confessional Lutherans fence the table very closely (Lutherans only).
Hi Trent,
I mean that God forgives our sins through means. When Herman Bavinck says in his dogmatics that grace is essentially the forgiveness of sins, I agree. And when Jesus tells his disciples in John 20 “if you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven…” we say “that is a means of grace.” So in the absolution, we receive the forgiveness of sins through faith. Actually, really, the forgiveness of sins. That is what is promised and given in absolution, and it is received by faith. In the Supper, Jesus says “drink of it all of you, this cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins” (yes, that’s a composite of the different Gospels and Paul). We see there the promise of the forgiveness of sins, and so we believe that God forgives our sins in the Supper, received by faith. Luther taught this in his Small Catechism under the third article of the Creed, “In this Christian Church, He daily and richly forgives all my sins and the sins of all believers.” Lutherans believe that we receive the forgiveness of our sins every week (at least!) of our Christian lives.
As for FV, we Lutherans could say that they are not heretics for saying that baptism saves and apostasy is possible. That would make everyone prior to the Reformed tradition heretical. That doesn’t mean, however, that we agree with them on any of the specifics, such as ex opere operato (see C. F. W. Walther’s The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, thesis 21), etc. Hope that helps.
“Do confessional Lutherans have any place for baptism as a judgment on unbelief?”
Yes.
We actually believe that the last judgment was already held (for you), at your baptism.
“Do you not know that all of you who were baptized, were baptized into a death like his?” Romans 6.
Judged guilty. Sentenced. And executed.
Dr. Clark; Nate,
I understand, but would they exclude one going to God in private prayer and saying, “Lord, I just sinned forgive me”?
How do they go together?
Trent,
Certainly you may and should go to God privately! I’m not sure to what you’re responding but my general point is that the public proclamation of the Gospel, the announcement of the good news, the announcement of forgiveness (the declaration of pardon to believers, sometimes called the absolution) is logically prior to private acts of piety. In the evangelical world, the private is thought to be most important but I think the Reformed piety wants to reverse this order. We want to say that the public ministry comes first and it results in or even overflows into private prayer and bible reading, which are most important. I’m just trying to set priorities.
Hi Trent,
Absolutely you can and should go to God privately and confess your sin and ask for His mercy. That’s good, right, and salutary. But if you need (and we all do) an external word to trust, go to the public absolution. There you can hear the Gospel: “I forgive you all your sins in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” And if you find yourself doubting that and thinking “yeah, sure, that’s great for all those people, but if he only knew what I’ve done…” then go to private confession and absolution (Augsburg XI). There’s no mistaking that the Word of forgiveness is for you when your pastor places his hands on your head and absolves you. Go to the Sacrament and hear Jesus’ words, “given and shed for you,” and believe it.
Mr Clark says;
“So, the goal of this post is to further understanding. I guess, since our confessional Lutheran brothers and sisters are confessionally bound to regard us with suspicion, and since it seems unlikely that we shall persuade them to revise their confession, we cannot really expect much progress on that front, at least not corporately but Reformed churches do not confess such suspicion of the Lutherans.”
Belgic Confession Article 35
“Therefore we reject as desecrations of the sacraments all the muddled ideas and damnable inventions that men have added and mixed in with them. And we say that we should be content with the procedure that Christ and the apostles have taught us and speak of these things as they have spoken of them.”
After explaining that we receive this by the hand and mouth of the soul the above statement calls anything else muddled ideas and damnable inventions. This would make our belief that we eat and drink physically the body and blood of Our Lord muddled ideas and damnable inventions.
Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
(Matthew 26:26-29 ESV)
The procedure, given by Jesus, is to eat and drink physical bread and physical cup. Not by faith but by physical actions.
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
(1 Corinthians 10:16-17 ESV)
St Paul teaches one eats bread and body, wine and blood. Those are physical elements with which we interact physically. Scripture knows none of this mouth of the soul or faith eating.
Mr. Clark: I fear this the goal of this post is struggling uphill from the start. We cannot expect reasonable conversation when it is claimed the Lutherans have all the confessional suspicion but the Reformed do not.
God’s peace is with you. †
David, if I may,
You drawn inference which, in teaching the Belgic for a number of years, it has never occurred to me to draw. The reason I haven’t drawn that inference is that it doesn’t exist. The paragraph immediately above the final paragraph, which you quoted, says:
The Belgic doesn’t stipulate exactly which errors it has in mind but we should interpret Art 35 in light of Art 29, where we distinguish between true churches (that have three marks of a true church, the pure preaching of the gospel, the pure administration of the sacraments, and the administration of discipline) and false churches (which lack these marks) and sects. The Belgic’s chief concern is the Roman doctrine of the propitiatory, memorial, eucharistic sacrifice. The only other sacramental error stipulated in detail is the Anabaptist denial of infant baptism.
There is an implied disagreement with the Lutheran Christology in the Heidelberg Catechism but I don’t know that the Reformed confessions ever speak directly or even impliedly to the Lutheran churches. There’s certainly nothing in the Reformed confessions, of which I’m aware, that approaches the Lutheran confession that the Reformed are, in effect, lying sacramentarians.
Look at Calvin’s correspondence with Melanchthon in the 1550s. Calvin didn’t regard Melanchthon as “other” or some sort of heretic. If you’ll read the links I provided, you’ll see that the Reformed have historically held a kinder, more fraternal view of the Lutherans than than the Lutherans have had of the Reformed. Calvin regarded Melanchthon as part of the same church. As the Lutheran confessionalists turned up the heat after the Consensus Tigurinus (which was the basis for the denunciation of the “subtle” or “craft” sacramentarians in the FoC) Melancthon essentially abandoned Calvin as a political liability but I don’t think it changed Calvin’s his estimation of Melanchthon and Calvin had the highest estimation of Luther, whom he regarded as the founder of the Protestant churches.
I’m glad that is agreed. Where do you think we should place those people in relation to Reformed theology then when thinking through these issues?
That sounds like a question for someone who subscribes the Reformed confessions.
I think this short sermon is a very good representation of Lutheranism.
http://theoldadam.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/getting-back-to-grace-again.mp3
It’s gets going about 5 min. into it (the whole thing is 17 min).
If you hear something that starts to make you a little nervous, then you probably hit upon an area where Lutherans think a little differently about the Christian life.
And believe me, there are times when some of this stuff makes me nervous.
Dear Dr. Clark,
Wouldn’t it be fair to say that the Reformed party were just as suspicious of Lutherans (though not, of course, in their confessional documents)? After all, we know how Wolfgang Musculus reacted when he witnessed the lex orandi corresponding to the Lutheran lex credendi on the Supper (at the Wittenberg Concord, of all places, where all parties were ostensibly set to agree on these things!). Of course you’re right that Lutherans have viewed other confessions of the Supper with suspicion, but Luther himself apparently did the same from the disagreement with Karlstadt onward, didn’t he? Anyway, interesting things. Appreciate your post, as always.
Nate,
Yes and no. Yes, the Reformed did express criticisms of the Lutherans but they also referred to them in fraternal terms. It wasn’t unusual for the Reformed orthodox in the 17th century to refer to “our Lutherans” for example. There were polemics too but I would wager that Reformed criticism of the Lutherans paled in comparison to the way that the Lutherans spoke to each other!
As you imply in your question, I made a distinction between the private opinions of the theologians and the public, ecclesiastically sanctioned documents, i.e., our confessions were we speak corporately and officially and with ministerial but binding authority.
I can certainly attest to Lutherans regarding anyone who was non-Lutheran with suspicion. Growing up in an LCMS church I was given the impression that only Lutherans were enlightened. Lip service was given to the fact that Lutherans were not the only true Christians, but I had my doubts by the way I was taught. Since leaving the Lutheran tradition, exploring evengelicalism, and settling on the reformed position theologically, I have certainly gained a renewed appreciation for the Lutheran tradition and my upbringing. Thanks, Dr Clark for this weathly of information. While I don’t consider myself Lutheran theologically I am still fond of the Lutheran confessions and am amazed at how close the Reformed and Lutheran confessions are at most points yet differ at some other very important points.
I too, have found many in the LCMS to believe that they ALONE know the truth. But, of course, it certainly isn’t all of them. And my own denomination has more than it’s share of serious problems and goofball ideas about the faith.
I’m fortunate to be in a congregation, and to have a pastor who is centered on Christ and His work for sinners. And not in one that has gone over the edge on either side. One of our members drives an hour and a half, one way, and passes dozens of Lutheran churches on the way to worship with us.
Eric,
Interesting comment. Thank you.
Having come the opposite direction I appreciate your candid critique of the LCMS. I was members of several different Reformed congregations and I found both patient and impatient sinners in all them. This is not an excuse but a reason that all churches struggle against this sin. Christ have mercy!
I would love to chat with you further. I have not had the opportunity to ask questions of why one leaves Lutheranism for the Reformed. I read some articles but that is not quite the same thing. My email is available through my name.
You are in God’s peace. †
This is certainly interesting, but I don’t really recognize the Lutheranism that you’re describing. The Lutherans I have experienced, who know their own theology, absolutely refuse to judge the salvation of anyone.
But if we’re talking the truth or falsity of confessional documents, sure, Lutherans believe that our confession is true and confessions that contradict it are false. That’s simply the nature of holding any form of truth claim.
David,
I would love to chat more, but I could not find an email address at your blog page. My email is ericnordquist@centurytel.net. I would also find it interesting to talk with someone who left the reformed for the lutheran church.
I too would like to participate in any ‘Reformed-move-to-Lutheran’ exchange (rflooke@yahoo.co.uk)
I was Reformed first, but was then attracted to Luther when I was teaching him alongside Calvin. However I remained in the Reformed tradition and it was only after many years that (in my view) I saw that they were not teaching the same thing on the law. Everyone saw me as antinomian and madness was only prevented by moving back to a Luther-ite position (ie Luther, not later confessional Lutheran) which is really not present at all in the UK – send reinforcements!
I do believe that, in England, the Institutes have been used to produce a judaistic evangelicalism (I don’t know but is this like your Neo-Calvinism?) but I am still open to persuasion (I think) that this is a misuse of Calvin rather than a direct extrapolation. (This erroneous English evangelicalism is nevertheless understandable as an attempted bulwark against rampant liberalism)
Right on, Nate.
As a Lutheran for 15 years now, I have witnessed some Lutherans who believe that they will be the only ones in heaven. But usually it is those who erroneously believe that there is such a thing as ‘pure doctrine’, and that they, of course, have it.
Because history plays a role in doctrine, it cannot be “pure”.
But there is a ‘pure gospel’, and that is something that we hold up, for assurance and freedom.
Steve Martin wrote: “Because history plays a role in doctrine, it cannot be “pure”.
“But there is a ‘pure gospel’, and that is something that we hold up, for assurance and freedom.”
GW: So, doctrine cannot be “pure,” but the gospel is “pure”? But isn’t that a false dichotomy? Doesn’t the gospel itself involve many doctrines or doctrinal truths (Jesus as Son of God Incarnate, the atonement, the resurrection, justification by faith alone, and so forth); truths that remain unchanged in spite of historical developments in the confessional formulation of such doctrines? Would it not be better to say that some formulations of doctrine are “impure,” and admit that there are varying degrees of doctrinal purity even in true churches (whether Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, or whatever)?
As a confessional Reformed & Presbyterian Christian I like how our Westminster Confession of Faith addresses the issue of “purity” in the church (in ch. 25.5): “The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will.” Perhaps this was close to what you were trying to say in your comment.
Geoff,
The gospel is pure gift, from God, “Your sins are forgiven for Jesus’ sake”.
Doctrine necessarily involves man and therefore is subject to the frailties that sinners bring.
I do think that the WCF says pretty much that, in a slightly different way.
Thanks for that.
Not to say that good doctrine is not important. It surely is. It acts as warning signs for attempts to add onto the finished work of the cross…alone.
‘Evangelicals’ in the UK are conservative (Reformed) or charismatic, and I think my wife and I might be the only ‘pre late Melanchthon’ Lutherans, having moved to this specifically because of Calvin’s ‘THIRD USE’ position.
We are very puzzled to read that Luther and Calvin differed on ‘predestination, REPROBATION, and PERSEVERANCE, but will be reading through the various weblinks you provided. Surely we are all reprobate until/unless saved, so double predestination is really terminological; and both sides surely agree on perseverance? (I am certainly unhappy with the prevailing notion that lack of ‘sufficient’ moral improvement must mean you are not a Christian – this puts as much un-grace-like pressure to perform as if you had to earn your salvation in the first place. (And it put me into hospital). Heb 6 is oft not read closely and therefore misinterpreted
We have found Gerhard Forde immensely helpful on the SUPPER. Luther is known for his (correct) stand against Zwingli’s memorialism, but that is not to say he still espoused Roman transubstantiaton or even consubstantion. For him, surely, everything turned on the eyes of the spirit in faith, not on a sophist debate about accident/substance as if God was not actually present at the Table. For us, the issue is not a major one, but correct me if it is otherwise.
Please pray for us in the UK, and send MISSIONARIES – we are a dry and desolate land, and sadly our best men come over to work in the US
Richard,
I’m not sure if you’re commenting on the post or something else. I did not intend to communicate that there were such differences between Luther and Calvin but between the Reformed confession and the Lutheran confession. When the Reformed and Lutherans met at Montbeillard, when the discussion came to predestination, Beza stood up, held up his copy of De servo and said, “We stand with Luther.” That was the end of the discussion. They went on the next point. The historical truth, as I understand it, is that the confessional Lutherans abandoned Luther on reprobation (the second half of predestination) and perseverance. We stand together on unconditional election (so much so that C F W Walther had to spend years defending himself from the charge of being a crypto-Calvinist!), as far as I know and as much as that irritates the confessional Lutherans.
Dr Clark
Thank you very much for that (and apologies if my comments were too broad in nature)
I ‘confess’ I was not looking at the confessionals, but at the two original Magisters themselves. Looking at them
1. I increasingly think Calvin’s THIRD USE does set him up against Luther’s Law v Gospel (UK evangelicals all follow Calvin)
2. I am not quite clear whether you say there is a real (non-terminological) difference between the two on REPROBATION, and on
3. PERSEVERANCE (some in the Reformed camp here start to undermine assurance not by denying but by qualifying perseverance)
What worries me a lot, over here, is apparent wide-spread agreement on unconditional election but which is then undermined by preaching a legalistic/neonomian/Galatian/’arminian’/free will/synergistic sanctification morass (if lumping that lot together can make sense). Luther, Calvin AND Beza would all be horrified!
Richard,
1. I’m convinced that Luther taught the substance of the third use. I don’t think it explains him well at all to say that Calvin taught it but he didn’t. Calvin didn’t see any tension between his view of the moral law and Luther’s. Remember, Luther had to battle antinomianism in the 20s already. See his exposition of the law in the Large Catechism. It’s not much different from the Reformed or Calvin’s.
2. Confessional Lutheranism rejects the doctrine of reprobation and perseverance. The Reformed affirm both. The classic Reformed account of both is the Canons of Dort.
3. My experience of British evangelicalism was rather different but I get the sense that things have changed quite a bit. Our first congregation was in what is now the EPCEW and then, when that folded, we went to St Ebbes in Oxford where the rector was David Fletcher and he was marvelous.
4. In your addendum, I’m not sure what #3 means. I think Luther and Calvin taught substantially the same doctrine of law and gospel. Calvin was not conscious of any great difference.
Dr Clark
I think we’ve boiled the problem down to your paras 1 and 4, and I’ll endeavour to reply in the next day or so (I dare say Calvin thought he was agreeing with Luther but I am not sure that Gerhard Forde or Steve Paulson would agree)
I know St Ebbe’s and also David’s brother Jonathan. I fear things have moved away from the gospel warmth that you saw in David
Addendum
rereading your kind reply, I think my point is that
1. Current UK Reformed preaching does not match Calvin and subsequent Reformed ‘confessions’
2. Modern Lutheran expositions in the US that I have come across seem much closer to Luther (and therefore paradoxically to Calvin) than ever is UK evangelicalism or of course Lutheran confessions
3. But there does remain a Luther/Calvin Law/Gospel difference, and Calvin’s third use has given rise to the sorry state of UK evangelicalism
Hi Richard,
I think Dr. Clark is right that Luther taught the third use of the law. See this book from CPH for some of the research on that:
http://www.cph.org/p-19257-friends-of-the-law-luthers-use-of-the-law-for-the-christian-life.aspx?SearchTerm=friends%20of%20the%20law
However, there might be a difference in our “third use” doctrines that Dr. Clark may be able to clear up for us. When Lutherans talk about the third use of the law, they mean that the Holy Spirit uses the law. I think we ought to be clear about that, because in reading some Reformed people (not necessarily Dr. Clark, but maybe?) it seems like they believe that the preacher is the one who “uses” the law. Any help on this Dr. Clark?
Well, as I understand it at, when the minister reads the law, it’s the Word of God that the Spirit uses to accomplish his purposes. Sometimes we read it intentionally to aim it at unbelief, in the elenctic use (the numbering varies) and sometimes, in the liturgy, we read it in the third use, intending it to be the moral norm of believers.
Nevertheless, we recognize that when the law and gospel are read and preached the Spirit uses that Word in multiple ways simultaneously. To the believer it is never condemning. For the unbeliever setting aside the civil use, it is never anything but a condemnation. For the believer, the law is only now a norm for life, which, even in that use teaches us our sinfulness and drives us back to Christ and his grace.
Dr Clark (and ref Nate’s post of 21.38)
Some nuances are emerging which might be helpful, and I think the distinction between the Holy Spirit using the Law, and the preacher using it wrongly, might lie at the heart of it
A. The Law is taught to the believer to teach him about his God. He knows the Gospel and wants to learn the Law as a picture of his God – Gospel followed by Law
B. Law and Gospel together are preached to the (complacent) believer to remind him about his God in a way that calls forth more life and love, but will not condemn again (lest we ‘crucify the Son of God all over again’ – Heb 6). This is the hardest job facing the preacher
C. Law is preached to the unbeliever and it condemns him. (and we must immediately continue on to the gospel – Law followed by Gospel).
D. Law is explained persuasively to the civic authorities for civil use
In those terms, I think Luther and Calvin would agree and I think we can too.
I also suggest Paul was primarily engaged in A. He reminds his listeners and then tells them about their God. However we tend to see our job as primarily B. Since the congregation are believers we use the techniques of A – we use Gospel (glossing quickly because they know it) followed by the Law (at length because they are resisting it). The net effect is that we have preached the condemnatory half of C.
This is of course counter-productive, especially when spread out over several weeks such that they have forgotten the early ‘gospel’ part of the epistle by the time they get to the later ‘commands’.
Phrases like ‘moral norm’ or ‘being what you are’, or ‘surely you want to show your gratitude’, or more crassly ‘you ought to be grateful’ also all worry me. They sound like A but in practice can be a form of C. Calvin’s Third use is so often taken like this, often evident in the use of tenses – Jesus/the Holy Spirit has, so you will – rather than the Holy Spirit/Jesus for both.
I call this ‘Gollum Theology’ after the little critter who coveted the ring but denied doing so. We can be ‘legalistic’ until challenged, and then back off with reassuring gospel noises till next time
The Anglican church here is still so imbued with its catholic origins that its liturgy, and the parallel sermons, give the impression that we have almost certainly apostasied in the course of the week and need to start again. I can’t help but think this is a form of narcissistic mock humility consistent with Heb 6 v 6b. (Fortunately, in my view, v 8 is not about apostasy and final judgment; it is about a refining fire – but when you have lived through one, it feels very like a final judgment)
Steve Martin wrote: “The gospel is pure gift, from God, “Your sins are forgiven for Jesus’ sake”.”
GW: Agreed that the gospel is a pure gift from God (Divine monergism). The only caveat I would add is that God in Scripture reveals the gospel in doctrinal, propositional form. I.E., Christ died for our sins (atonement) and rose again for our justification (1 Cor. 15:3-4, Rom. 4:23-25, etc.). The gospel is God-given doctrinal truth (proclaimed in the Word, read and preached, and symbolized/ signified in the Sacraments). While the crowning element of justifying faith is the fiduciary element of personal trust in Christ, justifying faith also involves knowledge of and assent to basic gospel doctrine (Rom. 10:9, for example). The church’s doctrinal formulations of Divinely-revealed doctrine may be mixed with error and impurities, but this does not mean that we can dichotomize gospel and doctrine.
Dr. Clark,
Yes confessional Lutherans are meanies of grace. But salvation by grace through faith is so vital to understand for our continued faith. To compromise how this gift is given in such an obvious way can be troubling to the hurting soul.
In the valley hours and days we need strong and sure evidence of our standing with God. These gifts come to us through the Sacraments and the distinctions are most important.
One may object that we have faith and that faith will point us to Christ. The Reformed Confession will point to the promise the means of grace delivers and cast doubt on it using spiritual terms. When a person is in a faith crisis it does absolutely no good to point him to his faith. That is the crisis point.
Can you confess, Dr. Clark, strongly and unambiguously that one is saved by Christ resurrection through Baptism. And can you confess in the same manner due to the words of Jesus one receives the gift of the forgiveness of sin in the Supper of Our Lord?
Great conversations here.
You are in God’s peace. †
David,
The most frustrating thing about Reformed/Lutheran conversation is that it always comes down to one thing: the problem with the Reformed is that they chose to express many of the same truths in a different way therefore they are ipso facto wrong. What Lutheran confessionalists too often defend, ultimately, is not the substance of the truths of the Reformation but idiosyncratic, reactionary positions carved out for historical reasons and defended to the death since 1577.
I think I understand what the Lutheran confessions are trying to say, on their own terms, and I think some here seek genuinely to understand what the Reformed are trying to say, in their own way, but some seem unable or unwilling.
What you ascribe to baptism, David, we ascribe to faith. The Reformation was interested in sola fide not sola baptsma. The reality that both confessions/traditions experience is that baptized persons fall away. How should we account for that reality. Lutheran confessionalists (since 1577) say that grace is resistible. We say, however, that those who fall away were only ever externally related to the covenant of grace, that they were never in union with Christ.
The Lutheran confessional position creates uncertainty (“might I fall away?”) that is masked blessedly by the law/gospel distinction and gospel preaching. Have Reformed folk stopped looking at the promises and Christ and turned to introspection? Sure! Have Lutherans turned to sacerdotalism? Sure.
You should, however, try to read the Reformed confession on its own terms. That’s the charitable thing to do and we confess that assurance is found not by introspection but but in the objective promises of the gospel, which are manifested (made visible) in the sacraments. That’s our confession. You may think that we do not have a sufficiently objective view of baptism but we think you’re view of baptism is quasi-sacerdotal. So there you have it.
“The Lutheran confessional position creates uncertainty (“might I fall away?”) that is masked blessedly by the law/gospel distinction and gospel preaching.”
I think this is very accurate, and not just on perseverance in itself. Objective, or universal, justification is another of the Lutheran doctrines (which rarely gets an airing) that tends to create an uncertainty which is, as you put it, blessedly masked. I remember having a discussion with a Lutheran friend about objective justification which resulted in an afternoon of total distraction trying to work out how I could know that I was actually a believer. Then I looked back at the gospel promises and my baptism and was assured.
Lutherans don’t like to talk about it, for obvious reasons, but if I were in their shoes I’d ditch it altogether.
Dr. Clark,
We could go around and around on this, and never get anywhere. And that is why I have my doubts that Reformed people are serious about reading Lutheranism charitably.
I said it over at my blog, and I’ll say it here: God gives the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation in Baptism. That gift is received by faith. You may not like it, but that was Luther’s confession and that is our confession. I have yet to see a Reformed person read that position charitably.
The Lutheran doctrine of apostasy creates doubt? Huh? Which Lutheranism are we talking about? In the realm of shockingly bad descriptions of another confession, that is up there. I have yet to see a Reformed person read that doctrine charitably either.
If all we mean by “perseverance” is that the elect will be saved, we’re there. If we mean by it that the person who truly has faith can never fall away, we demur. That was Luther’s confession, and that is our confession, and it need not create doubt.
Nate,
Why is it wrong to say “In baptism God promises the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation” rather than to say, as you do, “God gives the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation in Baptism.”
You don’t say, do you, “The preaching of the gospel God gives the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation in Baptism”?
We say that God uses the preaching of the gospel to create new life (regeneration) and to create faith and through faith he gives the benefits of Christ.
Baptism is the visible gospel, it announces the good news, what Christ does for all who believe.
Is it better if I say, the Lutheran doctrine of resistible grace should create doubt. If grace is resistible, and if we’re fallen and bent toward sin and apostasy, then how can one not doubt? How could one ever be certain that one will not fall away?
I understand that confessional Lutherans don’t like to think of it this way but why is it wrong to think of this way?
I agree that the elect will be saved, but does confessional Lutheranism really say this? The elect are elect unconditionally but does Lutheranism say that the unconditionally elect cannot fall away? If so, then Lutherans don’t really confess resistible grace? If so, why were the confessional Lutherans so critical of the Synod of Dort—which was convented principally to preserve the gospel of justification sola gratia, sola fide.
I’m not looking for a fight. I’m looking for a calm, reasoned explanation.
Thanks Dr. Clark, I appreciate this. I’m not sure we’ll be able to get anywhere, but I’ll try to explain the best I’m able.
Sure, we could say that forgiveness, life and salvation are promised in Baptism, but Luther goes further than that in the Small Catechism, and we follow suit. Incidentally, we stand with all the Fathers on this as well. And the Nicene Creed, “one Baptism for the remission of sins.” The gift is given in Baptism, and received through faith. I realize that it sounds shocking to Reformed ears, but there it is. “Come and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins…,” “rise up [Paul] and wash away your sins…,” etc.
I don’t see why we wouldn’t say that God gives the forgiveness of sins through preaching. The Spirit and the Word are joined, inseparably, so when the Word goes out the Spirit is with it. Yes, it is possible to resist this. How is that possible? I don’t know, but it is. When my pastor preaches, “your sins are forgiven for Jesus’ sake,” I believe it.
I think it would be better to say that for a Reformed person, the Lutheran doctrine of apostasy seems like it should create doubt. Doubt is the opposite of faith, and we are constantly receiving the forgiveness of our sins, which creates faith. Could I fall away, hypothetically (since I’m not contemplating doing so)? Sure I could. I could walk away from it all and say “to heck with it.” But you could too. Anyone could. The reason that doesn’t create doubt for a Lutheran is that our confidence isn’t in our ability or inability to fall away (that would be trusting in ourselves), our confidence is in the forgiveness of our sins in Christ (which, for us, happens all the time). Forgive me, but I think this is simply an instance of a Reformed a priori (that apostasy must create doubt).
Yes, confessional Lutheranism agrees that the unconditionally elect will be saved. We confess resistable grace, but grace is also (in a sense) irresistable. We don’t cooperate with grace in conversion, and when someone perseveres to the end God gets all the credit. We confess divine monergism. I’m not familiar with all the Lutheran literature on the Synod of Dort, but I’d hazard a guess that they didn’t like headings 2 and 5. Heading 5 contradicts Article XII of the Augustana, and heading 2 contradicts Article III.
Hope that helps.
David Cochrane wrote: “One may object that we have faith and that faith will point us to Christ. The Reformed Confession will point to the promise the means of grace delivers and cast doubt on it using spiritual terms. When a person is in a faith crisis it does absolutely no good to point him to his faith. That is the crisis point.”
GW: The Reformed Confession, properly conceived, does not point the believer having a faith-crisis to his own faith for comfort and assurance. On the contrary, it points him to Christ, the Faithful One. We Reformed don’t preach “faith in faith.” While our sense of assurance of salvation can be deepened and strengthened as we discern the work and fruits of the Spirit in our lives, our foundational assurance comes by looking to Christ as revealed in Word and sacrament (i.e., it is objective and focused on Christ and His saving work). We Reformed confess that saving faith is “extraspective” — it looks outside of itself to Christ alone — not introspective (though admittedly some Reformed and Puritan were overly-introspective in their preaching and writing).
As the rebellious children of Israel who had been bitten by poisonous snakes were healed simply by looking at the bronze serpent erected by Moses, so any sinner who by grace looks with the eyes of faith to Christ crucified and risen as their only hope of salvation is immediately justified and saved from the moment they first believe the gospel message (Jn. 3:14-16); and this is true of sinners who hear and believe the gospel even before they receive holy baptism (just as Abraham was justified by faith alone in the bare promise of God even before he received the old covenant sacrament of circumcision – Rom. 4:9-12).
I don’t mean to butt in, but what about the Canons of Dort, First Head, Article 12?
The elect in due time, though in various degrees and in different measures, attain the assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things of God, but by observing in themselves with a spiritual joy and holy pleasure the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God – such as, a true faith in Christ filial fear, a godly sorrow for sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc.
“By observing in themselves faith in Christ…” seems pretty clear, but maybe there is a different explanation?
Geoff Willour
“The Reformed Confession, properly conceived, does not point the believer having a faith-crisis to his own faith for comfort and assurance.”
Indeed I would never charge them with that teaching. However, that is the result due to its giving the promise of salvation in the Sacraments but then taking it away by saying it is received by faith. So one is left with the question of whether the faith is correct, deep enough or even valid.
Trying not to appear popish it was written to bypass the abuses of that system. In taking care to contrast with Rome they remove the clear promise that Baptism is God placing his name, adopting, the sinful wretch.
Indeed we are also saved by preaching of the Gospel. We are saved through the waters of baptism which is the Gospel preached connected with water. We are saved by the words of Jesus in the Supper of his which is the Gospel connected with bread and wine.
Our wonderful Lord keeps on gifting us with the forgiveness of sin, life and salvation!
God’s peace is with you.†
Nate,
As you say, we’ve been round this pole. Once more for clarity. The Canons, in particular, we’re written ad hoc to address a particular set of questions, not as a comprehensive account of the Reformed faith. Nevertheless, the Canons, if read as intended point us first of all Christ and his promises as the objective ground of assurance.
The Reformed theologians and confessions, do, however, also say that Christians may secondarily find encouragement by considering Spirit-wrought sanctity evidence of faith.
This may be a place where you and I must agree to disagree. I’m not sure that the two traditions are at odds in the way you suggest, however. I suspect that I could find language similar to Heidelberg 86 in Luther and other writers.
Question 86, however comes 85 questions after #1 and the many other places where we are first directed to Christ and his promises. The same is true of the Belgic and the Canons.
Nevertheless, we do believe that the Holy Spirit does work in us and that we can perceive the consequences of his working and be encouraged that when we say, “I believe” it is not a lie.
It’s not a subtle or crafty sacramentarian trick to suggest that there is more unity on this than you say. I take my cue from Paul Althaus’ The Theology of Martin Luther, p. 272 (see the footnotes) where he suggests that there is more continuity between Luther and the HC than is sometimes acknowledged. He was addressing the location of the decalogue in the HC but I think that continuity can be found elsewhere.
Which subjectivist sacramentarian wrote the following words?
Why that subjectivist was Martin Luther (from the 1531 lectures/commentary on Galatians). Here we see him talking about the inner life of the believer and the Spirit’s work in the believer as an encouragement to the believer. The Reformed read widely in Luther and were deeply influenced by him and took their cues on these sorts of things from him. Remember, Ursinus was Melanchthon’s student for something like 7 years. Olevianus was deeply read in Luther and their works make allusions to and quotations of Luther much more frequently than we might expect today.
Hi Dr. Clark,
I see nothing in Lither’s quote that is objectionable, especially coming from his theological framework where 1. Baptism saves; 2. The atonement is universal (nicely taught even in this quote, I might add); and 3. Apostasy is possible.
By the way, our confessions and our hymnal also teach that good works are evidence of faith.
But that is completely different from the theological necessity to discern one’s own faith created by CD 2 and 5. It’s all about Luther’s “for you.”
Also, the elephant in the room is that the majority of modern Reformed churches are with Edwards more than Ursinus. And he’s not going away any time soon. I realize you’ve done good work to combat this, Dr. Clark, but it’s out there.
Nate,
Exactly, I don’t the Reformed appeal to the ongoing work of the Spirit materially different from what Luther wrote.
As to subjectivists, You do realize don’t you, that formally Pietism has its roots in the Lutheran tradition?
So, both of our traditions have their lsubjectivist elements.
Dr Clark – yours of 2.42 pm – “I don’t see the Reformed appeal to the ongoing work of the Spirit materially different from what Luther wrote”
Sadly, among evangelicals in England, the appeal to the ongoing work of the Spirit is now perilously distorted by adding footnotes including
1) at best a synergistic view (with Phil 2.12 interpreted accordingly)
2) more often, a call to action in one’s own strength that is somehow made holy by using ‘not my strength but his’ as a mantra, or even
3) ‘an action makes a habit, makes a character, makes a destiny’
One famous Brit used to say (echoing a Puritan) ‘the Law sends us to Christ and Christ sends us back to the Law’ (unhelpful at best)
But I am open to persuasion that this is not what Calvin would have meant or wanted
Richard,
I don’t quite know what that expression, “Christ sends us back to the law” means. It’s certainly not true re justification. The moral law is unquestionably the fixed moral norm for the Christian life, but it cannot justify and it was never intended to justify.
Dr Clark, thanks
I too do not know what is really meant/intended by ‘Christ sends us back to the Law’ (C2L) and I prefer evangelicals not to use it!! Its ambiguity worries me – in the arena of sanctification
I agree nobody can rightly advocate C2L for justification, and I also totally agree that the lex Christi is the moral ideal/telos (I prefer that to ‘norm’ which again rather assumes we can reach it). To deny a moral ideal/telos is to be antinomian.
The problem for me is that C2L takes our eyes off Christ and focuses us on his law. Jer 31 moves subtly from ‘I will myself write my law on their hearts (that obedience will flow naturally out of relational love)’ to ‘I will make my law very clear to them so they can go out and obey it, not to win my love but to prove their love to me’. It becomes a Martha operation not a Mary one with, incidentally, the same potential for griping that Martha displays.
C2L then becomes the Galatian heresy – which I do not believe is solely about justification, but initially about sanctification but such that a wrong approach to sanctification could undermine our justification – were that possible (I totally agree with perseverance of the saints without which there is no lasting assurance)
Dare one say it, obedience to the law becomes an idol, in the same way that focusing on God’s good gifts rather than seeing them as pointers to the Giver is also idolatrous. Obedience to the law needs to be more dynamic/holistic; indeed I suspect our unconscious obedience is more pleasing to God than is our self-conscious obedience.
In a useful book in which Gerhard Forde replies to Sinclair Ferguson’s Reformed view, Forde affirms Ferguson’s description of the sanctified state (holiness if you will), but he disagrees with Ferguson’s method for achieving it. Forde says preaching the law to arouse a guilty conscience in believers effectively re-establishes in them some of the old man that was crucified with Christ.
Sadly too many English evangelicals do that (Scotland, Wales and N Ireland are all much sounder). Certainly they preach a solid sola fide but, to avoid ‘grace abuse’, they then preach the Law. As I said in other post here, if that were to educate believers about their God, that would be fine, but it slides into something more ominous, which at best simply confuses the believer with inconsistencies from one sermon to the next (‘must I ink in the salvation that God has pencilled in for me?’ – see also chap 1 in CS Lewis’ ‘Pilgrim’s Regress’), or at worst tells him that, if he is not showing sufficient moral improvement, then he may well not be a believer. (nb this maintains a lip service acknowledgement to perseverance of the saints)
This stress on moral improvement engenders an enormous psychological pressure to perform akin to Islamic obedience, and makes the NT covenant harder to bear than the OT one.
In my view, it all depends on whether we can trust the Holy Spirit to fulfil the Jer 31 promise, or whether we feel we need to assist him to do so. One’s reading of Phil 2 v12 is very indicative
Addendum
Gerhard Forde also says that sanctification is getting used to our justification. Simplistic maybe, but insightful
I take it that, even if “Baptism saves” and “Apostasy is possible”, Luther would not have meant either of these to be taken as reasons for undermining faith, as they often are?
The (conservative) Reformed churches here in England, UK would sadly give only lip service to your Jonathan Edwards. For them the fight of faith is to overcome your affections – with cold showers if necessary. (This is probably what the British are best known for!)
There’s a crucial difference Dr. Clark. A Lutheran would never put the teaching on good works being the evidence of faith under the topic of predestination. Why is that?
Yes, pietism came from Lutheranism. Sorry for that. But pietism is essentially a rejection of Lutheranism. Valentin Ernst Loescher showed that in the early 18th century. Can the same be said for the Reformed version? I realize you’re not Dr. Horton, but he seemed ambivalent about it a while back.
That we are capable of Apostasy, is one of the reasons that Luther was so strong on the sacraments.
That we could have assurance based on an external Word, totally apart from anything that we say, or do, or feel, or think.
Off to church.
Thanks!
I think I am behind the loop on ‘Luther and apostasy’
Reading Gerhard Forde recently, I understood Luther’s emphasis on the Supper to be a reminder that God’s promise was not just for everyone with faith, but for you personally in your faith. It increased faith; it did not rescue from apostasy
Have I missed something here?
Steve
Can you please enlighten me?
Where does Luther set out the possibility of apostasy of believers (real not nominal of course)?
What passages/texts did he derive this from?
Dr Clark,
Thank you again for the kind response.
“What you ascribe to baptism, David, we ascribe to faith. The Reformation was interested in sola fide not sola baptsma.”
That is where a real disconnect happens. One does not have a means of grace here and faith located elsewhere. Faith is the gift of the Holy Spirit. Scripture shows Jesus has located the gift of the Holy Spirit in baptism. John 3:5-6 as being born of water and Spirit. Peter shows the gift of the forgiveness of the Holy Spirit in baptism. Acts 2:38-39 Paul shows baptism as the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit. Faith, trust in the promises of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus for salvation is most definately key. For without faith one is not receiving the fruit of the cross and we are justified by faith.
Faith also comes by hearing the words of Jesus. Yes faithful preaching will create faith. The Holy Spirit wields the sword of the word of God. It is not the eloquence, faith or anything else of the preacher. We do not say Pastor X saved my by his wonderful preaching. The wonderful preaching brought the word of Christ to the ears and people believe. Do all people believe? Sadly no. Do all who confess Jesus remain in the faith? Tragically no. Were they ever really saved? They thought they were. We thought they were and Romans 10:9-10 says they were. That is the mystery of apostasy. Not at all can we doubt the person was truly saved. If that is done how do we determine we are really saved? Hence the gifts of the Supper of our Lord and the doctrine not of I was baptized. It is I am baptized. Trusting the promises connected to those gifts by Jesus words.
“You should, however, try to read the Reformed confession on its own terms. That’s the charitable thing to do and we confess that assurance is found not by introspection but but in the objective promises of the gospel, which are manifested (made visible) in the sacraments. That’s our confession.”
I was raised in Calvinism. Starting with the Baptist Confession. I wanted to be a preacher so I began to be consumed by a study of church history. Then I was convinced, by the study of patristics, of infant baptism so I dug in deep to the Westminster Standards. Due to life changes I became Dutch Reformed and was consumed in the study of the three forms of unity. Another life change and a Lutheran church was the only one available that was the least bit tolerable so there I went and proceeded to be consumed by study the Book of Concord. I have also studied the Catholic Catechism, Confession of the Anglican Communion and Eastern Orthodoxy.
Yes studying any confession on its own term is charitable and the only way to fly. By the way. I love these discussions. My intention is not to convince anyone of anything. But I do find it refreshing to find believers who work to be the most consistent Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic etc.
God’s peace is with you. †
Steve,
Of course the reformed churches confess the “do use of ordinary means.” We are fully committed to the notion that word and sacraments must always be connected. To divorce the two is to lead either to rationalism or fanaticism.
There is, however, a material difference between the Spirit using the preaching of the Gospel as the means of grace Whereby new life Is granted and to claim that the spirit uses baptism to do the same.
In our confession baptism is called the sign of initiation into the covenant community. The Lord’s supper is called the sign of nutrition or renewal of the covenant of grace.
Baptism is not the sign to which the Spirit has clearly or unambiguously attached the promise of conferring new life.
To be sure, holy Scripture often connects new life and the other benefits of Christ closely to the sacrament of baptism. In literary terms this is a synecdoche, apart for the whole.
That however is in the nature of a Sacrament. It is our job not to confuse the sign for the thing signified. This is exactly what the Judaizers did in the New Testament. In the past when I have asked you how circumcision differs from baptism you haven’t really addressed the question.
It seems to me that what you say about baptism is not terribly different from the claims the Judaizers made about circumcision and which the apostle Paul categorically rejected in Galatians.
Can you say exactly how baptism differs from circumcision so that you’re not doing the same thing in baptism that the Judaizers did with circumcision?
The Judaizers? Really?
Have we forgotten that the Judaizers were telling Gentile CHRISTIANS that they needed to be circumcised and follow the other ceremonial laws in order to be saved? How is that anywhere near saying that Baptism gives the remission of sins? The Apostles clearly, unambiguously, taught the latter.
I don’t see a single instance in Scripture where anyone says that the problem with the Judaizers was that they confused the sign and the thing signified.
If we’re Judaizers, so were the Holy Fathers gathered at Nicaea. “One Baptism for the remission of sins.” So were the Apostolic Fathers.
I’m going to steer clear of the baptism issue but, on Galatians…
were they really guilty of a false view of justification, ….or a false view of sanctification that was ‘confusing’ them (1 v7)*…
but which was so serious that ‘were it possible’ (3 v4b – alternative interpretation) could lose them their salvation
* Peter’s error (2 v11) was clearly not that he was trying to get saved, but surely that he was beginning to go back under the law in order to achieve the ‘goal’ of finishing the race. So too for the Galatians who had started with the Spirit (3 v3) – nobody seemed to contest that, not necessarily even the judaisers who were themselves muddle-headed believers.
I know this is not the majority view
Nate,
What I mean is that it seems judaizing to conflate the thing signified (Christ and salvation) with the sign itself. Isn’t that part of what the Judaizers did?
Baptism is only a sign. It isn’t the thing itself or every circumcised person would have had what it signified but they didn’t. Thus, I take it that sacraments don’t work that way. I don’t see that the new covenant sacraments are fundamentally different in that regard.
If Judaizing doesn’t help explain my concern, what about the “New Perspectives”? If Baptism per se saves, so long as we don’t resist, then how is it not essentially “in by [baptismal] grace, stay in by not resisting”? Isn’t this a soft form of NPP?
RS Clark,
“Baptism now saves you”
In Baptism we “receive the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit.”
Paul says in Romans 6 that we were “put to death in Baptism, and raised anew in it” (paraphrased).
“Those of you who were baptized have put on Christ”
Paul was a smart guy. He knew the language of symbolism, and he doesn’t use it.
Richard,
Us Lutheran types believe that justification and sanctification are two sides of the same coin.
They (the Galatians) were guilty of both. St. Paul didn’t say to them, “now please let Christ be the One to complete in you the work that He started, otherwise it will set you back in your sanctification”…
but rather he said to them, “You want to play this game? Then you sever yourself from Christ?
Steve
Thank you. I totally agree and apologies if I implied otherwise. Yes,
your 1. Yes, justification and sanctification are indivisible
your 2. If I meant anything it was ‘let Christ complete his work in you, otherwise it will undo your very justification (were that possible)
your 3. Yes, ‘so sever yourself from the Law’. Incidentally most evangelicals over here don’t see the Galatian heresy as ‘dangerous additions to the gospel’; they see it as dangerous additions to the Law (ie drinking and dancing should not be condemned). They are very happy with the Law!
Thanks, Richard. I very much appreciate your comments.
The radical nature of the Reformation understanding of Christ alone, is not too popular…anywhere.
If God is not going to be merciful to sinners…then we are all in big trouble.
I just got home from work, so please forgive me jumping in again…late.
I’ve only had time to scan some of the comments.
One thing that struck me was that some say Luther advanced a “third use of the law”. Actually, Luther never spoke of the “third use”.
For a great many of us Lutherans, there is no “third use” of the law. It is for civil righteousness (as best is possible)…and it is to expose the sinner and show our willingness to skirt the law.
Melancthon, who was more of a humanist and proponent of Aristotelian thought, was a “third use” guy. Luther…no.
Asa good as the Lutheran Confessions are, they are NOT Holy Scripture. And were written at a time of some compromise. They are good. They could have been better, were not for some of the political hinderances of the day.
Here’s the rule for Christians, “Christ is the end of the law, for all those who have faith.”
The so-called guide is already contained in the first two uses. We know what to do. We just flat out refuse to do it.
__
This is from the Heidelberg Disputation:
The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him.
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.
Many of us Lutherans are not shackled by the so-called “third use of the law”.
Exactly! (yours of 22.41)
“The so-called guide is already contained in the first two uses. We know what to do. We just flat out refuse to do it.”
To the unbeliever we should preach the gospel; to the believer….we should also preach the gospel. It is only the ‘expulsive power of the new affection’ that will melt our flat-out refusal.
Pronomians (to avoid the pejorative term ‘legalists’) do not have a high view of the Law but in fact a low, diluted view. ‘Be ye perfect’ becomes ‘Try to be perfect’ becomes ‘Do your best’ becomes ‘Avoid major sins’ becomes ‘Confess them when you commit them’.
As I understand it, Luther saw the Law (qua Law) as terrifying to both unbeliever and believer alike, and something we could only run from, though, as a Promise of what God will do, as unbelievably exciting – we would want nothing less from Him
Why be opposed to the “third use” of the law?
It lets the fox back into the henhouse.
Does that not place you in direct opposition to the book of Concord, Melanchthon, and Martin Luther?
What I quoted above (in the Heidleberg D., is from the pen of Martin Luther.
There are things that I do not agree with when it comes to Melancthon. And, as I said earlier, the Book of Concord could have been better, and it certainly is not Holy Scripture.
“Christ is the end of the law…”
Luther said many things at many different places along his faith journey. Many of which seem to be very ‘unLutheran’.
I like this quote from Swedish theologian, Einar Billing:
“Anyone who is but a little familiar with Luther knows that his different thoughts are not strung together like pearls in a necklace, united only by the bond of a common authority or perhaps by a chain of logical argument, but that they all lie close as the petals of a rose about a common centre, they shine out like the rays of the sun from one glowing source: the forgiveness of sins. We should be in no danger of misleading the would-be student of Luther, if we expressly gave him the rule: Never imagine you have rightly grasped a Lutheran idea until you have succeeded in reducing it to a simple corollary of the forgiveness of sins.”
_
Where Luther and Melancthon held up Christ alone, and His finished work on the Cross, we say ‘amen!’ Where they may have let the old Adam slip in now and then, we don’t put a lot of stock in those words.
Here’s another one that reflects the very “Lutheran” principle that I was alluding to above:
(by Luther):
“All upright sacred books agree on one thing, that they all collectively preach and promote Christ. Likewise, the true criterion for criticizing all books is to see whether they promote Christ or not, since all scripture manifests Christ. Whatever does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even if Peter and Paul should teach it. On the other hand, whatever preaches Christ is apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod should do it!” (LW 35:396)
Late to the party here, but here you can download audio from three in-person discussions between Lutheran and Reformed pastors, on the topics of:
Christ’s presence in Communion
Baptismal Regeneration
Images in worship
RubeRad,
Although I didn’t have time to listen to the audio links you provided, I did go and read the comments made about those audio links.
It seems to me the Lutheran side operates with a more ‘grace centered’ theology…and not from a biblicistict, wooden, reading of the texts.
When one hears that ‘they are forgiven’ and they believe it. But then as they live and look at themselves and their actual behavior and maybe doubts start to creep in, there’s a great comfort if they can return to a concrete, tangible act, done by God (God is the One who baptizes, and who freely gives in the Supper) to them. Where they can return to over and over again…as the Jews returned to Shekum or Shiloh.
This is why, we believe that the Lord commanded Baptism and His Supper. For assurance and freedom.
If I wanted you to remember me and the promises I made to you, I could just ask that you do so, and hope that you are able to. Or I could give you something tangible, to hold onto, to keep with you…a special coin, a ring, or a card. And when you looked at that, or when you held it in your hand, you would be brought back to the promises that I made to you, and given comfort and assurance. This is how we Lutherans view the sacraments. God giving Himself, in ordinary earthen vessels, working his grace and faith in our lives, through these external means of grace.
Steve
your ” ‘And when you looked at that, or when you held it in your hand, you would be brought back to the promises that I made to you, and given comfort and assurance’. This is how we Lutherans view the sacraments”.
‘ Brought back to the promises’ I would call this Zwinglian memorialism which Luther opposed but which English Reformed evangelicals advocate.
Yes, faith is central to the Supper but surely it is question of whether it is more than memorialism
I can understand why people would want to believe an overrealized sacramentology, but when Lutherans argue for it, all I hear is wishful thinking.
Your example of “a special coin, ring or card” is not helpful, since those would not have anything to do with the means of fulfilling the promise, but are arbitrary tokens to jog the memory. That leads to a memorial view which is in the wrong direction from Calvinism if you want to get to Lutheranism.
As for biblicist, wooden, let’s take a look at Calvinist vs Lutheran interpretations of the prooftexts: “This is my body” and “this baptism now saves you”…
Dr. Clark, (@ 9:46pm Dec 12)
First, is this a question of what you think we actually teach? Or something you think we must or should teach?
Second, I don’t see that critique of the Judaizers anywhere in the NT or in the post-Apostolic era (or really, anywhere in the Church until today). I also don’t see in the NT any indication that the Judaizers taught that circumcision conferred salvation. Am I missing something?
I think there is a fundamental difference between Baptism and circumcision. I don’t see any promise of the forgiveness of sins attached to circumcision, whereas it is clearly attached to Baptism. Do the Reformed confessions have room for that fact? I seem to remember something in Calvin’s Institutes about the differences between Baptism and circumcision, but maybe I’m thinking of something else.
The sacraments are objects of faith. See Luther’s Large Catechism on Baptism. “Faith needs something external to which it holds…” and “faith clings to the water, and believes that Baptism is pure life and salvation.” Does that help at all? It still seems like you’re assuming that if the sacraments save it must happen ex opere operato. See Walther’s Proper Distinction thesis 21 on this.
Issues Etc. had N. T. Wright on the program last year. Did you catch it? Did it seem like they agreed? Again, are you asking what we actually teach, or what we must teach? All I can say is “in by grace, stay in by not resisting” is not an accurate description of our theology. It rests on an assumption (a priori) that there must be one single answer to the question “why are some saved and not others?” We don’t have one single answer to that question because it is actually two separate questions. Hope that helps.
I thank all of you for such an exemplary discussion. Truly, it is refreshing to read such an exchange that is totally void of rancor and vitriol.
In any case, I have been trying to counsel a dear brother who struggles horribly with morbid introspection. 1 John 2:3 “By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments” (NASB) is his verse of torment. I believe he has fallen into what may be rightly termed as pietism, but I don’t know enough of the history to be sure.
The Lutheran case made here – that of tying assurance to absolute externals – this is attractive to me having tried 1,001 times to assure him that he is saved. I point out that he has believed Christ, and that he has desired to follow Him ever since. I highlight the changes in his life, and he simply finds more sins to focus upon.
I fear I may have heightened his introspection at times, but then how do we interpret and apply Scripture like that which I quote above?
Grace,
JE
Justin,
That sounds like the situation in the first part of Bo Giertz’s excellent book The Hammer of God. Sorry to hear it. The best short intro to pietism that I know is a book called Pietism and Lutheranism, available here:
http://www.shop.logia.org/Pietism-and-Lutheranism-PL3.htm
God’s peace be with you, and your friend.
Justin, thank you for your encouragingly kind words about this post that I too have just joined. Two points if I may,
1. There is of course a danger in pointing him to his belief since he will introspectively wonder whether he has believed enough/properly/sincerely. This replaces one introspection with another. Both, although seemingly humble, paradoxically involve a form of pride, since they are both ultimately based on what we have done. To avoid this DIY Messiah approach, we must live more lightly and ‘rejoice in our creaturely smallness’.
2. Dr Martin Lloyd Jones, well respected in the UK, realised late in life that his early and published sermons on 1 John were wrong. He had taken the epistle to be prescriptive; in fact it is descriptive of what the believer will ultimately look like, and should engender excitement not fear. John wrote it to increase faith, saying also ‘he who says he is without sin..the truth is not in him’ (why descriptions are often set in the form of commands would need to spelt out in another post)
3. To illustrate this, if we are told ‘dogs chase balls’ (believers do x), and we want to be a dog, we don’t simply run around chasing balls – for a human to do that is absurd. We go back to God and ask him to make us a dog.
4. Similarly if we conclude our tree is devoid of fruit, we do not buy apples at Walmart and stick them on; ludicrous! We go back to God, abide in him, and he will bring the fruit.
5. James’ comments on dead works are often used to encourage visible works but this is the Walmart option (we know that everything that is not of faith is sin). Instead we go back to God to plead for a more fruitful faith
6. Keeping our eyes on Him is ‘easy’ compared with the necessary corollary of taking our eyes off ourselves! The latter is denying self. Fighting (usually simply repressing) sin is full of keeping one’s eyes on oneself. The fight of faith is to keep our eyes on him; this is how we subdue our members. To do otherwise is like Peter faltering on the water
7. It is much more likely that when we get to heaven, Jesus will say ‘Why did you dear thing not take me at my word that it is all of me?’ than that he will say ‘I did not expect you to take me at my word quite so much, so literally!’
Justin,
As you know from experience, if one turns first to the test of sanctity for assurance, it never arrives because sanctity is never sufficient.
For my money the answer is not, as has been suggested, to make the sacraments an object of faith! Christ is the proper object of faith. What your friend must do is to stop looking at himself altogether. He is no proper object of faith. When he looks at himself all he will see is failure, sin, and death. He must trust Christ and his promises.
Notice I didn’t say “How much do I believe?” but rather “Do I believe?” This is a binary question. The answer is either yes or no. There is no other answer. If he isn’t sure then the reply is:
In order to understand 1John, which has been described as a series of “tests of law,” which, properly understood, seems right. Nevertheless, it is common to take verses from 1John out of context. This might be true here. He needs to start with 1John 1:9:
He must read 1John 2:1 in that context. Next, he (and we all!) must understand that John was dealing with a particular problem here, namely the denial of Christ’s true humanity. He hints at it in 1:1ff and makes it clearer as the epistle goes on (see 2:18ff). This doesn’t mean that 1John may not be applied by inference to other sins, it may, but we should be clear that 1John is addressing particular questions and sins.
Second, as becomes clear when we compare 1John 1:9 with the verses that follow 2:1, John writes with a degree of hyperbole. He says in 1:9 “if anyone does sin” and then says in 2:5 “the love of God is perfect.” Well, which is it? Perfection or sin? It’s both. 2:12 says that our sins are forgiven for his name’s sake. Evidently we still sin. Thus, he doesn’t intend that we take the language of perfection in an absolute sense.
The truth is between morbid introspection and arrogant presumption. He illustrates the pattern that he intends to communicate in chapter 3:fff. Notice how he relates “whoever makes a practice of sinning” (ESV) with “by this we know” or “by this it is evident” (hence the tests of life):
Notice that almost as soon as he gives a test, i.e., the particular that illustrates the general pattern, he gives us the gospel. Clearly we are to test ourselves but he knows that believers will see right away that they have not fulfilled the law as they ought and so we need the hope and encouragement that Christ has come, died, been raised for us and for our acceptance with God.
I might also note that we do not see John appealing to baptism even once as relief, if you will, from the tests of life. He appeals to the gospel truth but never to baptism. This does not mean that baptism is not relevant to assurance, not at all, but it does counterbalance the way some of our friends in this discussion have used baptism as a rock of assurance in every instance and have rejected any and all introspection. Clearly John teaches that there are indicators of belief and unbelief. They are not subtle indicators. If someone is a murderer (whether with the tongue or the hands is not indicated but James speaks to this). They are rather obvious nevertheless, John wants us to make deductions from the obvious he does clearly use these as indicators as to whether one’s claim to believe has credibility. This is why Reformed churches often talk about a “credible profession of faith.”
I hope this helps.
Brothers, thank you for your helpful responses. I do believe that the biblical response to morbid introspection is a clinging to Christ by faith. For my friend, he has prayed incessantly for a strong sense of fulfillment and peace in Christ, and has yet to find it. He has begun to wonder aloud if the Bible is not tricking him.
I simply cannot imagine pointing him to baptism and communion as a primary means of assurance. Indeed, the gospel truths are held out as our hope and rock in time of struggle; but it is in trusting the living Christ as Himself in the flesh, at the right hand of the Father where we find our rest.
The fruits will flow from abiding in Him, yes. Thanks for that Richard.
Grace,
JE
Dr. Clark,
First of all, thank you for that excellent discussion of 1 John. Quite helpful indeed.
Second, to trust in the gifts Jesus gave to His Church is to trust in Christ. To believe Jesus’ words “given and shed for you” in the Sacrament is to believe in Christ. To trust Jesus’ word “I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is to trust in Christ. Now, if you know (again, a priori) that it must be either Christ or the sacraments, then there’s no use having this discussion. But if it is possible that Jesus distributes the salvation that He won for all on the cross here and now through means, well then, we may just have the Lutheran position. It’s a false dichotomy to separate Jesus from His gifts.
Third, I know you don’t like this, but to say “do you believe?” is just as bad as the more crass version of “look at your progress in sanctification to know if you’re really a Christian.” Is the answer to “do I believe?” a revealed truth, or no? If so, how was it revealed to you? If not, why are we looking there for the answer to the question of our salvation? Why not simply say “Jesus won full, complete salvation for me on His cross. I am baptized into His death and resurrection for the forgiveness of all my sins.”
I agree that ‘do you believe’ invites further unhelpful introspection. Nor is belief binary at the subjective level: ‘Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief’. But to switch to externals, especially the externals of the sacraments surely cannot help. Justin’s friend will doubt whether he is receiving the supper in faith or whether he is drinking condemnation onto himself.
Belief in something personal to me (my inner belief or my outer receipt of the sacraments in faith) is, at the end of the day, belief in belief. It remains destructively ‘positive’. At one level, the subjective essence of gospel faith is surely negative – we simply, like Peter, have nowhere else to go. I am simply not good enough for the other religions.
Put another way ‘I have simply tried and tried to do something to aid my salvation, but it simply has not worked and I am exhausted and fed up. Indeed I now give up. I gather Jesus died for pathetic people like this. That means he must have died for me. Well, I never would have believed it. That is indeed amazing grace’
PS – If there is to be a necessary, sacramental element, I would need to ask – is baptism effective ex opera operato? In which case, Jesuits baptising Chinese rice Christians brought them into heaven. Or is baptism effective by virtue of the faith of the believer? If it is because of that faith, then why do we need the baptism as well, other than as a witness? That said, I am happy to remain a paedobaptist on the grounds that the one baptised can later reflect with awe that God’s promises were spoken over him at such an early stage. But baptism does not ‘achieve’ anything salvific
I cannot help thinking that Luther, Paul and Jesus were talking about baptism in a very different way – baptism in the spirit (nothing experiental intended) to which water baptism was an earthly sign – I think we just get too caught up about the earthly stuff in the way that the Catholics get caught up about Mt 16, 18 (rock, keys etc). The earthly stuff is not relational stuff; it is simply not ‘coram deo’
I don’t know if your familiar with “The Marrow of Modern Divinity” but I’m near the end of the book and have found it extremely helpful on these matters. It would at least be a helpful discussion peace, if your brother in the Lord is willing to read books with you. I would also recommend Lutherans read it if they want to get an older Reformed perspective on many issues where they think we – the Reformed – must be rationalizing.
Well done for your ‘perseverance’! I found the Marrow hard going!
Can you give us a couple pointers how the book would illuminate our thinking?
thanks!
Hi Richard,
If you’re looking for a theological “system” that is devoid of pangs of conscience, it doesn’t exist. The question, ultimately, is what the Scriptures say.
The reason the sacraments provide assurance is that God has promised to forgive our sins through such outward, earthly things. To quote one of your countrymen, “God likes matter. He invented it.” You and I are embodied creatures, not ghosts in corpses. Hence it should not surprise us that our Creator uses such earthly physical things in dealing with us. All that is to say that when the Scriptures attach such great promises to outward, physical things we do well to bow the knee and go along with it. So the sacraments are only worthless in this matter if the forgiveness of sins is worthless.
I’ve said several times that the sacraments do not save ex opere operato, please peruse my other comments on this thread. The gift is objectively given in the sacrament, and received through faith. Faith looks to the gift Jesus gives which, ultimately, unites that believer to the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Luther certainly didn’t have in mind some disembodied “spiritual” baptism, and I’m convinced he was in lock-step with Paul on this matter (not to mention John, Peter, and the rest of the Church throughout Her ages).
Dr. Clark,
I see no indication that Jesus is asking this question as a manner of determining whether or not one is “in” and therefore can never fall away, as things go in the Reformed system. Look at how simple the whole thing is. He (standing right in front of her) tells her who He is, and she responds in faith. How is that similar to the way this question is asked in the Reformed context of attempting to gain personal assurance? My objection, again, is that it sends the believer inward in order to find salvation. Jesus certainly wasn’t doing any such thing.
I have responded to this claim in your second paragraph as well, Dr. Clark, but I’ll give it another go. Luther simply does not accept such an artificial separation between justification by faith (which we affirm!) and baptism. Please see the Large Catechism starting here:
You say faith is the sole instrument, but what exactly is faith holding onto? Where is the objective promise that Christ is for you? Granted, you might respond that you’ve heard your pastor preach the Gospel, and that’s wonderful. But how do you know it is for you? And, if there is a way to find that out, how do you know you believe it? It’s possible in Reformed thought that you have fooled yourself, no?
Dathenus is indeed good and helpful. But better yet, I’d recommend going to your father confessor and receiving absolution.
Nate – part 1 of your post
YOU If you’re looking for a theological “system” that is devoid of pangs of conscience, it doesn’t exist. The question, ultimately, is what the Scriptures say.
ME Yes. Suppose you had an earthly father who loved you unconditionally and took great pleasure in you. You would ask your mum what he wanted for Christmas and you would delight to see him smile and laugh. He never seemed disappointed in you though you knew he ‘should’ be.
And you also had a teacher at school, a good, effective indeed a kind teacher, though perhaps a little cool or formal, but one who took the trouble to help you improve. This teacher would let you know ever so quietly when you had disappointed her. You would try hard, perhaps your hardest, though you would probably take short cuts if you knew, really knew, that the teacher would never find out.
For which one of those would you virtually go to hell and back for? And how much did a guilty conscience play a role?
YOU I’ve said several times that the sacraments do not save ex opere operato, please peruse my other comments on this thread.
ME Will do. I was increasingly conscious that I would need to go back over posts written before I mucked in
Dear Dr. Clark,
Thank you for writing such a helpful article. It is very unfortunate that both the Reformed and Lutheran churches cloud up differences by making either cheap shots at one another – calling the other party “rationalists” in forums where serious study has not been done – while missing the real issues like the communicatio idiomatum where the actual debate has been.
Richard UK,
Yes, Richard, but for us Lutherans, it is much more than just a memory. Christ is actually present in that which He commands that we do.
But He is actually, concretely, bringing about the Cross in our lives in that moment, using these earthly vessels.
Yes, I thought so – I was just puzzled by your earlier turn of phrase
What do you make of Forde’s idea that the significance of the Supper is primarily the ‘for you’ element? (ie that the promise in the word is for all including us, but in the Supper it is made personally ‘for you’). For me, that makes sense (hough I suppose in that case Luther might have scratched ‘pro vobis’ under Zwingli’s nose)
I too want to uphold ‘Hoc est meum corpus’ but I don’t quite see how Christ being concretely in the Supper helps. God can indeed be seen in created things, but as the (covenant) Lord he is known in his promises.
Perhaps you could also kindly explain for me the Lutheran view on apostasy and/or resistible grace
and apologies if these were covered earlier
(I see myself as a TULIP Lutheran – ie categorically with Luther on the Law/Gospel distinction, with the Reformed on TULIP – both of primary gospel importance, but viewing the Sacramental debate as secondary- if that can work!)
Richard,
If I may, in Steve’s absence, I’d like to take a crack at a couple of your questions.
We Lutherans uphold both truths: 1. that the sacraments are “signs and testimonies of God’s will toward us…” (Augsburg XIII), and 2. that God delivers the salvation won by Christ for you to you in the sacraments (Small Catechism, fourth chief part, for instance). “Where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation,” to quote Luther. If you read Walther’s 21st thesis in Law & Gospel this becomes more clear.
As to how it helps if Christ’s Body and Blood are present in the Sacrament, the clincher for me is the forgiveness of sins. In my experience of the Reformed world (Presbyterian Church in America), the fact that the Reformed deny that the Body and Blood are in the Sacrament to be eaten and drunk also means that you lose the promise of the forgiveness of sins which is received in the Sacrament. How is it a “means of grace” without the forgiveness of sins? Or worse, both sacraments that the Reformed allow have the power to condemn, but not the “power” (so to speak) to forgive.
On apostasy, I attempt to take the question out of the hypothetical. This doesn’t mean, as Dr. Clark has suggested, that Lutherans just ignore or avoid this question. We sing with the psalmist every week in the Liturgy, “take not your Holy Spirit from me.” What I mean by taking the question out of the hypothetical is that it is a question that is always related to real people in real situations. So, the answer to “is it possible to lose my salvation?” should actually be “who are you and why are you asking?” If the person is afraid that they are sinning themselves out of God’s favor, the answer is that God is for them, forgiving their sins and preserving them unto everlasting life through His Word and Sacraments. Or, ideally, if the struggling believer is talking to a Pastor, he/she would be given absolution. If the person has some grand sin planned and wants to know if they’ll get away with it unscathed, the answer is “don’t do it, you’ll shipwreck your faith.”
Hope that helps.
Nate,
Thank you and bless you for your attentiveness here. But may I query
1. Is our salvation not delivered at the point of new birth which is matched subjectively by our faith in Jesus’ atoning sacrifice? Baptism of an infant surely does not bring salvation (even the Catholics claim only that it brings freedom from original sin), and baptism following conversion (by some years in the case of the early Christians) adds nothing to the moment of rebirth.
2. Denying the Real Presence in the Supper (and I am ambivalent on that anyway) in no way entails a loss of the forgiveness of sins. The forgiveness of sins is an act by God at the point of our union with Christ, simultaneous with our regeneration, perceived by us as faith. It is then done and dusted. It is held out as a promise (to unbelievers) to all who believe.
3. It is a means of grace not because it confers forgiveness (which is already granted), but because it takes us back to (I would prefer to say ‘into’) the promises of God of a fully realised union with him for which we now only have a sure and certain hope. It is more than a reminder in the way that a photograph would be a reminder to the flesh; it is a sign in that God pours himself into us at that time, that we might in our spirit (as well as arguably in our fleshly memory) draw close to him. The Supper does then have power for ‘good’ one might say
4. Thank you for your clarity on apostasy. However my fear is that your final point, when spoken to someone, would no doubt put him off his intended sin but it would also take him out of his sonship status, back into fear, and pressurise him into performance mode. I would prefer a bolder approach (not quite akin to Luther’s injunction to Melanchthon’s timidity) ‘The desire for that sin is indeed in you. God would prefer you to take it to him in desperate prayer but if you choose, then sin. You will not lose your salvation nor will you even lose God’s tender sacrificial love for you. So maybe remember that as you sin, and also be prepared that, since you are too valuable to him for this sin to remain in you (or in me), he will bring you to your senses. Let us pray that that is not too painful for you’.
Thanks Richard, I appreciate this.
A Lutheran would say “yes” to your first question, but then we believe John 3:5 is referring to baptism (water and Spirit). We would say that infants certainly are, according to Scripture, capable of faith. That isn’t to say that we are claiming all infants who are baptized have faith, it’s simply to speak where the Scriptures speak. If you’d like more information on this, see this post by a former Presbyterian, current Lutheran:
http://justandsinner.blogspot.com/2012/10/infant-faith.html
On your second question, I should have been more clear. I meant that you lose the promise of the forgiveness of sins which is attached to the Supper specifically. So, I should have said something like “when one denies ‘take, eat, this is my body,’ you also lose the part where Jesus says ‘for the forgiveness of sins.’” I’ve never met a Reformed person who believes that forgiveness of sins is delivered in the Supper.
I understand the Reformed system where forgiveness is only given once, but in Lutheranism it is given over and over. Why? I don’t know, all I can say is that Jesus is not stingy with His gifts.
Please understand, on the apostasy bit, the possibility of being restored to repentance and forgiveness is still there, even for the person who goes through with his plan. The application of law and gospel in each situation is a complicated business, and there is no cookie-cutter formula in our view. So please don’t take these situations as exhaustive.
Thanks again Richard.
Thank you, Nate, for helping me understand more of the Lutheran position
1. I never thought I would disagree with Luther on anything (!), but on BAPTISM of infants, I still doubt that infants (and indeed John the Baptist in the womb) can be described as having faith. ‘Batach’ in Ps 22.9 has more of a sense – not even of ‘seek refuge’, but ‘be in refuge’. God is teaching David the sense of complete holistic refuge just as a mother teaches her baby perhaps a more physical comfort and peace. At this early stage it is not a relational thing; it is an experience that a child comes to yearn for and later is granted in a relationship with the Father; It becomes our ‘God-shaped’ hole; David is acknowledging that even this yearning comes from God.
2. BATACH does not carry the KJV sense of a ‘hope’ looking into the future, and the second ‘you’ in the ESV’s “you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts” simply isn’t there.
3. That said, God does have a ‘bias’ towards the down-trodden (widows and orphans) and I hope and believe that God saves little ones, though I cannot justify that from scripture, any more than I can hold out hope for a muslim who has not heard the gospel but would believe it if told it.
4. I agree the Reformed school does not believe that the FORGIVENESS of sins is delivered in the Supper (any more than that slavatin is delivered in water baptism) but I am still unhappy with your interesting negative rendering. Certainly Paul warns the Corinthians of the dangers of eating it unworthily, but I do not think that means you can forfeit Jesus’ forgiveness. ‘In Christ’ and ‘union with Christ’ have always been helpful ideas to me – once in Christ you cannot be ejected. Or, we are clothes with Christ’s righteousness; it is imputed to us. God does not then take it away as if Christ’s righteousness had been infused into us and we had somehow messed it up and needed forgiveness again.
5. The difference between a once-for-all legal IMPUTATION, and the Catholic, partial, moral infusion is surely key to the whole Reformation
6. I nevertheless do still believe that the forgiveness of sins should be preached repeatedly but so that we might be reminded of his once-for-all action on our behalf. but it is more than that. Since the Word of God carries power, it will do more than remind us; it will bring us further into intimate union with him. I am simply unhappy to call that a fresh forgiveness of sins
7. God is indeed not stingy! But his gift of forgiveness is so enormous and magnificent that it does not need to be given more than once!!
8. No, I was sure that APOSTASY in Lutheranism was reversible (though how would you understand the Heb 6 warning??!) My concern about reversible apostasy is that, if we take ourselves out of God’s hands in apostasy, then is it not us who must bring ourselves back in (unlike our ‘first’ conversion when God acts monergistically)? Or is it a repeated sequence of man-rebellion and God-rescue? If so, this begins to sound like the Catholic desperate need for final absolution.
8. Please keep the explanations coming! As I said elsewhere, I see myself as a TULIP Luther-ite (Luther-ite being original Luther as opposed to many subsequent confessions including it would seem the Large Catechism)
Richard,
We simply disagree on infant faith. Just to be clear, we aren’t saying that each and every infant who is baptized has faith. But they are certainly capable, since faith is God-given.
It’s perfectly appropriate to appeal to union with Christ, but the question is how do you know you’re “in Christ” to begin with? When and how did that happen? Since we are in Christ, He is constantly reminding us and actually giving us forgiveness, life and salvation.
The Reformed say that forgiveness of sins is a one-time deal, and once you’re “in” you’re “in.” This is only one view in the Reformation era. Luther and the Lutherans taught (and teach) that we are forgiven over and over. The problem with the Reformed formulation of perseverance is (in my mind) the fact that it makes it impossible to know if you’re ever actually “in” to begin with. The Lutheran position is not in any way similar to your description at the bottom of your fourth paragraph.
Heb 6 is certainly a difficult passage whether you accept apostasy or not. The nutshell version in the Lutheran view is that there is no restoring someone to repentance who has spurned Christ because there is no way to be restored except through Christ. But I’ll refer you to a Lutheran pastor to answer it more in detail. Several of the Lutheran podcasts take these sorts of questions. No, your description of our doctrine of apostasy isn’t accurate. God is always the one pursuing, restoring, forgiving. We contribute nothing. But we must speak where Scripture speaks, and it is clearly possible to finally reject the Faith. We are not saying that you can just be naughty enough to sin yourself out of God’s favor. There is always more mercy and forgiveness. This is not a doctrine of fear (in the way I think you’re using it), but of repentance. It is not about doubting God’s goodness and mercy, but about placing no confidence in ourselves.
BTW, we Lutherans call “TULIP Lutherans” “Reformed.”
I’m afraid you’ve created a mythical Luther of faith, rather than accepting the Luther of history.
Ours must have crossed
1. We simply disagree on infant faith.
– I agree we must agree to disagree on the capability of infants to believe
2. It’s perfectly appropriate to appeal to union with Christ, but the question is how do you know you’re “in Christ” to begin with?
— My mention of ‘In Christ’ was purely to show the ‘strangeness’ of then talking about apostasy. To answer your ‘when’ and ‘how, I can only point to the post that crossed
3. The Reformed say that forgiveness of sins is a one-time deal, and once you’re “in” you’re “in.” This is only one view in the Reformation era. Luther and the Lutherans taught (and teach) that we are forgiven over and over.
— I had not realised how wrong I was about Luther
4. The problem with the Reformed formulation of perseverance is (in my mind) the fact that it makes it impossible to know if you’re ever actually “in” to begin with.
—I believe the bible teaches perseverance but maybe you have another formulation
5. Heb 6 is certainly a difficult passage whether you accept apostasy or not. The nutshell version in the Lutheran view is that there is no restoring someone to repentance who has spurned Christ because there is no way to be restored except through Christ.
— Yep, let’s leave for the moment
6. But we must speak where Scripture speaks, and it is clearly possible to finally reject the Faith.
— Which passages are you thinking about?
7. BTW, we Lutherans call “TULIP Lutherans” “Reformed.”
— Maybe I am a Calvinist without the Third Use
8. What single, max comprehensive, well-respected book would you recommend to fill out all of Luther’s teaching? (I’m not so interested in later Lutheran confessions)
Here’s another good angle on it (it’s very short , just a few paragraphs) :
http://www.lightofthemaster.net/apps/blog/a-32
Richard UK,
Yes, the “for you” element is very important. He comes to us where we are. In our great need. “He sets a table before His enemies”
We make room for the possibility that God could let some go. He let some of the chosen Jews go.
“Take not your Holy Spirit from me”
But we are also comforted by the fact that Jesus said , “I have not lost any that the Father has given me.” (paraphrased)
We just never want to take it for granted.
Thanks.
__
I’ve got a big day ahead with some very pressing family issues. I have to run. May not be back today. Could use your prayers.
Thank you!
Yes, not all Israel is Israel, but that does not mean that the elect can become non-elect; it surely means that not all of the visible covenant chosen people are or were part of the invisible church, although corporately Israel remained God’s chosen people, albeit now cut off for a while that the Gentiles might come in (and that the Jews have no scope to boast).
“Take not your Holy Spirit..” Yes, but this is to do with tender intimacy and peace not salvation. God has placed his seal as a deposit within us; for him now to deny us is for him to deny himself
“Take it for granted”. When push comes to shove, I have to disagree. The Christian life only ‘takes off’ when we can truly rejoice in our sonship, not in our probation. It is by not having to fear God that we can begin to live free and for him. But yes, if we start to take it for granted, then fear not – he will discipline us, disciplining us as sons. That is a terrible, pungent process; it takes away complacency like a dose of salts.
I also think that a theology that builds in some prophylactic against assurance in this way will be of no use to Justin’s tormented friend (who, from my own experience, may well be going through discipline – not necessarily for an obvious venial sin, but for something much more profound to do with identity)
May God indeed give you a peace beyond all understanding as you deal with those family matters, and may that peace of his be a witness to his glory.
Justin,
Your friend might have expectations about religious experience that are not grounded in Scripture. I have counseled many folks who are seeking a sort of second blessing that has been promised them (not that you’re doing this) by well meaning but misguided believers.
As a young believer I was told to expect all manner of subjective experiences. The truth, however, in Scripture is rather different. If we look at Scripture carefully, in context, we will not see the same sorts of promises that believers sometimes make.
The reason for the discrepancy is the great influence of pietism on American evangelicalism. Justin, there’s a chapter on this problem, which I call QIRE- the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience in the book, Recovering the Reformed Confession. It might help you to counsel him.
My strong advice is to encourage your friend to trust Christ and to stop looking at himself. For the moment that is the last place he wants to go. The gospel is outside of him, righteousness was accomplished for us. It has consequences in us but that is not the place to start.
Nate,
One of the several reasons I am not a Lutheran is the powerful a priori under which confessional Lutherans seem to read Scripture. I saw it first in Chemnitz and I see it in your reply. You know what 1John must mean even though he doesn’t even imply what you say it must mean. This is, if you’ll pardon me, nothing less than rationalism.
We need to get to grips with what Scripture actually says. 1John actually gives tests, the very thing you condemn! Your view, as articulated here, seems exactly contrary to the clear teaching of God’s Word and yet you don’t even seem to pause to reckon with the at least apparent tension between what you’re saying (that we can’t even ask the question “do I believe?”) when John says rather more than that.
Dr. Clark,
I’ve responded to this before, but here goes again. Lutherans are not at all opposed to examining ourselves in the light of God’s law. We are commanded to do so (according to our vocations) in Luther’s Small Catechism under the 5th chief part on private confession and absolution. This is why I appreciated your discussion of 1 John above so much. Your use of law and gospel, along with keeping both together in tension is spot on.
My objection to your use of “do I believe” is not a blanket condemnation of any and all introspection. I’ve never said any such thing. Rather, my objection is that the question sends the believe inward in order to find the truth or falsity of salvation. It is fideism, or trusting in faith. Yes, I realize that it is only secondary to your trust in the promise of the Gospel, but it is faith in faith none the less. More importantly, where do you find the answer to that question? Is the answer to that question revealed, or not?
Hope that helps explain my objection.
Richard,
Our Lord himself did ask this question,
It cannot be an inherently wrong question. Faith is the sole instrument of justification—baptism is not the instrument of justification. It is the sacrament (covenant sign and seal) of the benefits of Christ but faith is not baptism and baptism is not faith. One may have baptism without faith. One might, in an extraordinary case, have faith without baptism. Therefore, faith as the sole instrument has a role in our salvation that no sacrament can.
It cannot be wrong to ask, “do you believe?” That’s not “introspection” in the sense in which it is rightly decried. The sense in which we’re worried about “introspection” is that in instance in which one asks, “Am I sanctified enough?” The answer to that question is always, “No!”
For those struggling with this question or trying to help those who are struggling with assurance I recommend, Petrus Dathenus, The Pearl of Christian Comfort. Dathenus wrote this out of his ministry to a young lady who was struggling with assurance.
I agree with the recommendation of the Marrow of Modern Divinity.
Dr Clark
I totally agree with your distinction between baptism and faith (and am indeed surprised if I gave another impression)
I also agree that ‘do you believe’ is not an inherently wrong question. In this case, Jesus obviously knew her response and he asked to bring it out into the open and to show her her own faith.
It is like the ‘testing’ of Abraham over Isaac. God know the outcome perfectly well because he knew Abraham’s faith. He wanted that faith to enter history in an objective way and in a way which would show Abraham his own faith.
We can likewise ask someone with the same beneficial outcome. But it does remain an invitation to introspection and the problem arises when the question, to our horror, actually increases doubt. It will cause introspection but can either call forth faith, or doubt. We often do not know our friend well enough.
It is like teaching young ones. We ask questions we know they know or that, with thought, they can deduce. To ask questions that they could not know is dangerous – it can send them backwards
Thank you kindly for the book recommendation
(re-posted from above to avoid confusion)
Dr. Clark,
I see no indication that Jesus is asking this question as a manner of determining whether or not one is “in” and therefore can never fall away, as things go in the Reformed system. Look at how simple the whole thing is. He (standing right in front of her) tells her who He is, and she responds in faith. How is that similar to the way this question is asked in the Reformed context of attempting to gain personal assurance? My objection, again, is that it sends the believer inward in order to find salvation. Jesus certainly wasn’t doing any such thing.
I have responded to this claim in your second paragraph as well, Dr. Clark, but I’ll give it another go. Luther simply does not accept such an artificial separation between justification by faith (which we affirm!) and baptism. Please see the Large Catechism starting here:
You say faith is the sole instrument, but what exactly is faith holding onto? Where is the objective promise that Christ is for you? Granted, you might respond that you’ve heard your pastor preach the Gospel, and that’s wonderful. But how do you know it is for you? And, if there is a way to find that out, how do you know you believe it? It’s possible in Reformed thought that you have fooled yourself, no?
Dathenus is indeed good and helpful. But better yet, I’d recommend going to your father confessor and receiving absolution.
Nate, thank you
I am reading and rereading the Large Catechism – though with many doubts
Ref your questions to Dr Clark
“You say faith is the sole instrument, but what exactly is faith holding onto?” onto Jesus and His words ‘Whosoever believeth on me shall have eternal life’. It is not necessary to hold onto baptism – what about the man who believes while alone at the North Pole and has not yet been baptised – is he not a Christian?
“ Where is the objective promise that Christ is for you?” in the word ‘whosoever’
“you’ve heard your pastor preach the Gospel, ..But how do you know it is for you?” ‘whosoever’
“It’s possible in Reformed thought that you have fooled yourself, no?” Not sure what this means, to be honest?!
Dr. Clark, have you read/reviewed Burk Parsons’ book “Assured by God”?
By the way, my first counseling session with our doubting brother went extraordinarily well (see comments above).
I actually drew him a picture with a cross, empty tomb, and a right hand (of the Father), on the top of the sheet, wrote on the cross “Dan’s sins,” on the tomb “Dan’s death,” outside the tomb “Dan’s resurrection,” and at the right hand of the Father “Dan’s position.” Next to that set, the word “External.”
On the bottom of the sheet, a picture of a human, the word “Internal,” and inside the body “Dan’s sins,” and “Dan’s death.”
We discussed how by faith he must look outside of himself to see his sins nailed to the cross, his death defeated in Jesus’ burial, and his resurrection assured by Jesus’ own; and all in contradiction to his daily experience and feelings of being a sinner on his way to a true death.
I encouraged him to, by faith, count his baptism as the assurance of his death and resurrection with the historical death and resurrection of Jesus. I also encouraged him, by faith, to grasp the communion supper as grasping the broken, bleeding body of Jesus as He was put to death in Dan’s place.
We also discussed that our faith is never fully alive and sufficient in our experience. It is perhaps very weak and mixed with doubt, but if there is any faith to look at the gracious death of Christ and to see our own sins nailed with Him, then the Holy Spirit has indeed indwelt us and given us regeneration unto that faith.
So, again thanks to you men for this very edifying conversation which has strengthened my understanding of our roots as Protestants – and which has helped me to counsel this doubting brother.
Grace,
JE
Richard,
That’s great when the atonement is universal. Not so much if CD 2 is true. I’m not sure if you confess the Canons of Dort though. Baptism is only unnecessary if the forgiveness of sins is unnecessary. We don’t form doctrine based on hypothetical situations of extreme circumstances, but on God’s word, which is quite clear. “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.” “Be baptized for the forgiveness of sins…,” etc.
In Reformed thought, there is such a thing as “false faith,” where one convinces himself that he believes, but really doesn’t have true faith. That is the problem that arises after you find the answer to the question about whether you believe, which I notice you didn’t answer.
The question to think about is, “how do I know my sins are forgiven?”
Nate, thanks
I’m sorry if I am slow to digest something, or indeed if I have offended. And I do accept the Canons of Dort (our shorthand is TULIP)
I’ve checked out your emails to me (back to 8th Dec) and I guess it is one of the questions below* – and I thought I had answered all of them if only by pointing to Jesus’ word(s) ‘whosoever’ rather than to a different external – that of baptism/supper.
I still cannot see how baptism/supper can be an external by which we know Jesus’ words are for me, because we can only appreciate the significance of baptism/supper if we already have the faith that they are effective for me – in which case baptism/supper, coming subsequent to faith, are actually redundant salvifically though certainly beneficial in other ways.
To this, I think you might say that God chooses to operate through ‘matter’ and I totally agree, say about conversion – we are converted by hearing the word and believing on it, and that needs a preacher to preach it. On that occasion, there is no faith, then there is the word brought with power, then there is faith. But my point in the previous paragraph is that there is already salvific faith before the baptism/supper. I am happy to accept that the supper and baptism are commanded to us and that they have more efficacy than as memory prompts (but I am just not sure what)
YOUR QUESTIONS “You say faith is the sole instrument, but what exactly is faith holding onto? Where is the objective promise that Christ is for you? Granted, you might respond that you’ve heard your pastor preach the Gospel, and that’s wonderful. But how do you know it is for you?
ME – As I said (i) above, I know it is for me because I am covered by ‘whosoever’ or ‘all’ in Jesus’ words; that is my external grounding, and (ii) previously, ‘Body’ ‘broken for you’ in the Supper make it clear that the promise is for me, and that is immensely up-building and it strengthens faith – it does not bring salvific faith – indeed it presupposes salvific faith to be effective
IS THIS YOUR SECOND QUESTION ?
And, if there is a way to find that [‘for you’] out, how do you know you believe it? It’s possible in Reformed thought that you have fooled yourself, no? (and from above, your “how do I know my sins are forgiven?”)
ME It certainly is possible in Reformed thought (and Lutheran surely) to have a false faith and James’ epistle addresses this (1 John too). Indeed the lack of fruit in our lives is perhaps the only way that we or others can realise that our faith is dead, in which case we go, as an unbeliever, to God to ask for mercy. But we also know that the presence of fruit, while indicative of a negative, is not indicative of the positive presence of faith. So we seek another alternative, and I’ve suggested that Jesus’ words (‘whosoever believes..’) are more reliable than that I have participated at the Supper or been baptised (even if I think I have faith when participating).
If you then ask me ‘how do you know you believe?’, we must resist the implied invitation to go inwards at this point to find something – we can only go inward to find nothing. We can say something like ‘when I look inward at myself, I am a complete mess, a failure, morally depraved. There is no good in me, and even that which might be good is something He has lodged there. It is and remains His; it is not mine. However I am told and I believe that he died for the morally depraved. Nobody could be more suitable to be covered by his death than me. Thank you God’
We not only cannot look to anything internal, but we cannot look to anyTHING external. We can only look to a good, truthful, powerful external person making an external promise which becomes a promise to me by virtue of me fulfilling its conditions. Only God can save, and only He can, and will, fulfil his promises
BAPTISM – I accept all the verses with baptism eg “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved”. Perhaps you want to say that verses without baptism in them are addressing other aspects and would expect baptism to be a part of the ‘process’; and I can accept that. But I believe that your verse above refers to baptism by the Spirit, ie even belief is not enough, since the demons believe – it must be the belief that comes to trust, and this comes only on regeneration by the Spirit. I acknowledge the importance of water baptism but not as bringing salvation even when accompanied (preceded) by faith.
” I realize that it is only secondary to your trust in the promise of the Gospel, but it is faith in faith none the less.”
Exactly.
Faith in faith is internal. Faith in God, and what He has done, needs to touch down somewhere. That is what the sacraments do.
Steve hi
1. YOU “Faith in faith is internal”.
ME Yes, faith in faith is internal; and I’m sure we agree that as a faith in my inner state, it is worthless in itself (though it might just be masking a deeper faith in Christ’s work rather than replacing that)
Similarly some X-factor competitors have a massive faith that they are fabulous and going to win. Their confidence is almost tangible, but it is really an attempt to harness Peale’s power of positive thinking*. Indeed they are often the ones with the least chance of winning. They are compensating – more or less successfully they are kidding themselves
2. YOU “Faith in God, and what He has done, needs to touch down somewhere. That is what the sacraments do.”
ME Can it not just touch down in the historicity of Jesus’ active and passive obedience and his historical words that all who believe on him will be saved (As John Wimber used to say: ‘When I look up ‘all’ in the dictionary, it means all; that must include me’)
* Was it not a US President who said “I find Peale appalling, but I find Paul appealing”?
Richard, UK
You wrote:
“In which case, Jesuits baptising Chinese rice Christians brought them into heaven”
You mean as in the situation where Franciscans baptising English tattie or chip Christians brought them into heaven? You see, Baptism is inseparable from the Word. It’s not about the moral or doctrinal worthiness of the priest here. It’s whether faith and Baptism are one. In Romanism, despite its validity, Baptism’s efficacy is limited to the past. In Lutheranism, Baptism is always in the present tense. The proclamation of the Word in its oral (preached) form is the *same* Word that is Baptism (sacramental form).
So, are Romanists saved by their Baptism in the same way as Lutherans are? The answer is a plain no. Romanists are Christians just as the Roman Church is church. But the pope is the Antichrist.
As someone who has lived in the UK, it’s not just in England, but British evangelicalism on the whole is not in a healthy state … a very discouraging situation to say the least. to repeat, Puritanism, pietism, revivalism, fundamentalism, Pentecostalism, Charismaticism only contributes to a state of enervation and inertia. This come out in the outlook and preaching, which you well know what I’m talking about.
Spot on, Jason.
I meant to say above that we Lutherans actually have a higher view of Baptism than Rome.
You guys can probably see I am having the hardest problem understanding this (let alone believing it!)
Inter alia, putting so much emphasis on baptism must surely mean the unbaptised believer is in a perilous (?) position?
Thanks, Jason
“You see, Baptism is inseparable from the Word” – Agreed
.
“It’s not about the moral or doctrinal worthiness of the priest here” – Agreed; even the Catholics don’t believe that
“In Lutheranism, Baptism is always in the present tense” – Please explain
“The proclamation of the Word in its oral (preached) form is the *same* Word that is Baptism (sacramental form). – Please explain
“So, are Romanists saved by their Baptism in the same way as Lutherans are? The answer is a plain no” – How are Lutherans saved by their baptism?? What if faith precedes baptism?
“not just in England, but British evangelicalism on the whole is not in a healthy state”
Agreed though there are some good men in Scotland, N Ireland and Wales
This class on Baptism speaks to that “bad piety” of looking at Baptism as your way into Heaven:
http://theoldadam.com/2012/12/11/baptism-as-a-ticket-to-heaven/
Thanks.
Richard,
It is the rejection of Baptism that places one in peril, not the lack of Baptism. This is just simple historic Christian doctrine. Nothing distinctively Lutheran about it.
interesting. can you tell me more?
Richard,
I apologize if I seemed impatient or upset. I was simply writing fast due to being pinched for time.
I’ll put my response down here in order to avoid all of the nested comments.
Your appeal to “all” seems more Amyraldian to me, but I might be misunderstanding you. The Reformed preachers and teachers I have heard seem very careful to say that the Gospel is “for sinners,” rather than “for all.” During my stay in the Reformed churches, I recall some quite creative explanations as to how “all” means “some people from all nations,” and the like. See this article by Dr. Clark, for example:
http://rscottclark.org/2006/08/limited-atonement/
We Lutherans would say that Baptism, Absolution and the Supper are the ways Christ “applies” (to use a Reformed word) the benefits of His cross to us individually. We would say that the Word attached to the physical element gives what it says. The Word is “living and active,” it accomplishes its purpose, etc.
We do not trust in our participation in the Sacraments (that would be the ex opere operato scheme), but rather in the promises attached to them, viz. the forgiveness of sins.
Everyone agrees that faith is trust in an external Person. The question is where He has promised to apply His salvation to us. Lutherans say it is in the Word and Sacraments. The Reformed (if I may be so bold) say that this happens via an internal, secret, effectual call (as distinct from the external call of the Gospel).
I see nothing in the Scriptures separating the Spirit from Baptism. Actually, your appeal to “baptism of the Spirit” doesn’t even sound Reformed to me, but maybe I have misunderstood you.
Re: perseverance, Lutherans believe that the elect will be saved, and we also believe that we are to trust the promises of Christ to preserve us. However, we don’t put our confidence in some abstract inability to fall away, but in Christ and the forgiveness that He gives continually to us. This article may be able to help on this and apostasy:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/104908295/The-Lutheran-Doctrine-of-Apostasy
I’m not sure if there is a book which can do all you ask, but Dr. Clark mentioned a well-respected (by all parties) book earlier, entitled The Theology of Martin Luther by Paul Althaus. In addition to that, you might look into this course if you can time the sales right:
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=6633
I would also recommend The Real Luther by Franz Posset.
As you can probably tell, I think the distinction between Luther and later Lutherans commonly asserted among Reformed Christians is quite exaggerated, though I’m perfectly willing to admit some differences. There are some other articles at this link:
http://evangelicalcatholicblog.com/2012/10/19/do-you-believe/#comment-55
I would also recommend the Apostolic Fathers, just for some perspective on how uncontroversial these Lutheran doctrines actually are outside the Reformed echo chamber.
As for the comment on the necessity of Baptism, I’ll refer you to St. Chrysostom’s homilies on the early verses of John 3.
I feel that I have imposed upon Dr. Clark too long already. If you wish to continue this please feel free to email me any time at nate dot ostby at icloud dot com.
God’s peace be with you Richard.
Nate
Thank you very kindly.
It’s time for bed here now, but I will digest thoroughly tomorrow and take up your kind email offer
I am still fascinated by the comparison of Lutheranism to “the objectivity” of “federal visionists”. The “for you” by the sacraments sounds good. But it turns out that it may not mean “all of you”, because certain sins practiced for so long are not simply sins but unbelief of the gospel.
Federal visionists self-consciously refuse the distinction between law and gospel. But how different is that from a Lutheran who says that all sin is “works righteousness” and so that sin is against the gospel (and not only against the law)?
But what about that “for you”. The death of Christ really was also for those not in the church, not at the sacrament, but some of them didn’t believe it either? So there’s no advantage for those who hear the “for you” than for those who never came to church.
Check out the Anglican Philip Cary’s defense of the Lutheran view of faith and apostasy.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/march/anxious-about-assurance.html