Jordan B. Cooper's Blog, page 44

Joel Biermann on Issues Etc.

Dr. Joel Biermann was recently interviewed on Issues etc. about his book A Case for Character. I was very excited to hear this news, as some previous guests have mischaracterized Dr. Biermann’s position regarding the two kinds of righteousness. Listen to the program here

Moving to Patheos

The Just and Sinner blog is going to be moving to patheos here. New posts are already up on the patheos site, and within the next couple weeks, all old posts will also be moved over. A new website just for the publishing house will be set up soon.

Luther, Zwingli, and the Hermeneutical Principles of the Lutheran (Christian!) Church

This post features an extended quotation from this fine book. Learn more here.

I think one of the more entertaining Martin Luther quotes I have read that pertains to the matter of biblical interpretation is this one:

“This is certainly an extraordinary situation! It is just as if I denied that God had created the heavens and the earth, and asserted with Aristotle and Pliny and other heathen that the world existed from eternity, but someone came and held Moses under my nose, Genesis 1 [:11] “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”; I would try to make the text read: “God” now should mean the same as “cuckoo,” “created” the same as “ate,” and “the heavens and the earth” the same as “the hedge sparrow, feathers and all.” The word of Moses thus would read according to Luther’s text, “In the beginning the cuckoo ate the hedge sparrow, feathers and all,” and could not possibly mean, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” What a marvelous art this would be—one with which rascals are quite familiar! Or, if I denied that the Son of God had become man, and someone confronted me with John 1 [:14], “The word became flesh,” suppose I were to say: Let “Word” mean “a gambrel” and “flesh” “a mallet,” and thus the text must now read, “The gambrel became a mallet.” And if my conscience tried to reproach me, saying, “You take a good deal of liberty with your interpretation, Sir Martin, but—but—” etc., I would press until I became red in the face, and say, “Keep quiet, you traitor with your ‘but,’ I don’t want the people to notice that I have such a bad conscience!” Then I would boast and clap my hands, saying, “The Christians have no Scripture which proves that God’s Word became flesh.” But I would also turn around and, bowing low in humility, offer gladly to be instructed, if they would show me with the Scripture that I have just finished twisting around. Ah, what a rumpus I would stir up among Jews and Christians, in the New and the Old Testaments, if such brazenness were allowed me! ” (Luther, Martin. “That These Words of Christ, ‘This Is My Body,’ etc. Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics” in Luther’s Works, The American Edition, volume 37. Fortress Press, Philadelphia. Pp. 30-31)*

I was recently reminded of this quote as I was reading about the conflict that arose early on in the Reformation regarding matters of biblical interpretation. It was in an excellent essay called “Why Am I a Lutheran?” by Lutheran historian Martin Noland, published in a festschrift in Pastor Daniel Preus’ (one of the current Vice Presidents of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod) honor.  I highly recommend the essay, and you can order the whole book, “Propter Christum: Christ at the Center” here or get a PDF file of the book here.

Ulrich Zwingli: “Christ abolished external things”… “No external thing can make us pure or righteous.”

In the essay**, Noland writes:

Ulrich Zwingli was Martin Luther’s main competitor, in his own lifetime, for the hearts and minds of the Protestants. Like Luther, Zwingli saw his theology as being sola Scriptura. Unlike Luther, Zwingli was willing to set forth doctrines that never had been accepted in the church. In a treatise defending his view of baptism, written in 1525, Zwingli wrote:

“In this matter of baptism – if I may be pardoned for saying it – I can only conclude that all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles… [F]or all the doctors have ascribed to the water a power which it does not have and the holy apostles did not teach. They have also misunderstood the saying of Christ about water and the Holy Ghost in John 3….

When he took upon himself the curse of the Law, Jesus Christ, the very Son of God, deprived us of all external justification. Therefore no external thing can make us pure or righteous…. These verses [in Hebrews 9:9-10] tell us, however, that Christ abolished external things, so that we are not to hope in them or to look to them for justification. Certainly we are not to ascribe cleansing to the external things which are still left. For if in the Old Testament they were only carnal and outward, not being able to cleanse us or to give us peace or to assure the conscience, how much less are they able to accomplish anything in Christ, in whom it is the Spirit alone that quickeneth.”

This treatise was written by Zwingli to oppose the rising tide of Anabaptism in the city of Zurich. It is useful today for seeing Zwingli’s chief concerns before his conflict with Luther. “No external thing can make us pure or righteous” is the basic principle that Zwingli deployed to eradicate the seven sacraments of the medieval church. In the place of the external things, which Lutherans call the “means of grace”, Zwingli posited that “it is the Spirit alone that quickeneith.” This basic principle still echoes today throughout all branches of the Reformed Protestant church.

The problem Zwingli encountered in his debate with Luther about the sacrament of the altar was that his basic principle was not enunciated in Scripture. The “abrogation of all external things in the Christian religion” seemed to be a logical extrapolation of Christ’s abrogation of the Old Testament sacrificial system, as explained in the book of Hebrews; however there were no biblical texts that supported Zwingli’s principle per se. That forced Zwingli, and the other Reformed theologians, to find other biblical texts and “turn” them toward this purpose.

Luther’s response to the challenge posed by Zwingli and the Reformed theologians was his treatise That These Words of Christ, “This is My Body,” etc., Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics (AE 37:13-150). In this treatise, Luther laid out his own hermeneutical principles that prevented him from “turning” biblical texts towards his own purposes or ideas and that lent consistency to his interpretation of the Bible.

Luther started out with a warning to all theologians:

Woe betide all our teachers and authors, who go their merry way and spew forth whatever is uppermost in their minds, and do not first turn a thought over ten times to be sure it is right in the sight of God! These think the devil is away for a while in Babylon, or asleep a their side like a dog on a cushion. They do not consider that he is round about them with all his venomous flaring darts which he puts into them, such superlatively beautiful thoughts adorned with Scripture that they are unaware of what is happening… He who does not know this, let him try and see. I have had some experience in this matter. (AE 37:17-18)

Next Luther explained to his readers the overarching strategy of the Reformed theologians:

“They wish first of all to change the natural words and meanings of the Scriptures into their own words and meanings; then they boast that we do not have Scriptures, in order that the devil may make a laughingstock of us, or rather, may safely strangle us as defenseless enemies [emphasis added]. (AE 37:32)

(pp. 232-233***, bold italicized in original quotation)

16th century Lutheran theologian Martin Chemnitz: “We hold that no dogma that is new in the churches and in conflict with all of antiquity should be accepted.” (Examination of the Council of Trent)

In this section of the article, “hermeneutical consistency”, Noland talks about three principles Luther goes on to talk about, and that “became a part of the Lutheran canons of interpretation”:

*“Using sources in the original languages to determine the natural meanings of words and phrases” (“explicated by Johann Gerhard in his Loci theologici in Commonplace I, chapter 25, section 534.5, where he quoted Basil the Great in support of it.”)

*“Conforming one’s interpretation to the articles of faith” (“explicated by Johann Gerhard in his Loci theologici in Commonplace I, chapter 25, section 532.2, where he quoted Irenaeus and Augustine in support of it.”)

*“Using the context to determine whether a figurative meaning is intended by the author” (“explicated by Johann Gerhard in his Loci theologici in Commonplace I, chapter 25, section 536.6, where he quoted Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Theodoret, Hilary of Poiteiers, Jerome, Augustine, and Nicholas of Lyra in support of it.”)

Noland concludes this section of his article by saying: “This led the way for [Luther’s] orthodox followers to continue on the path of hermeneutical consistency**** – the path that was true to the Scriptures themselves.” (p. 235)***

(coming full circle, I noticed as I was doing this post that the Luther quote I begin with also came from the same essay by Luther that Dr. Noland discussed in his essay.  I guess I was reminded of the quote for good reason…)

FIN

 

Notes:

* Note also the following quote, addressing again the issue of the Lord’s Supper, from one of Luther’s last sermons (AE 51:376-377):

“Therefore, see to it that you hold reason in check and do not follow her beautiful cogitations. Throw dirt in her face and make her ugly. Don’t you remember the mystery of the holy Trinity and the blood of Jesus Christ with which you have been washed of your sins? Again, concerning the sacrament, the fanatical antisacramentalists say, ‘What’s the use of bread and wine? How can God the Almighty give his body in bread?’ I wish they had to eat their own dirt. They are so smart that nobody can fool them. If you had one in a mortar and crushed him with seven pestles his foolishness still would not depart from him. Reason is and should be drowned in baptism, and this foolish wisdom will not harm you, if you hear the beloved Son of God saying, ‘Take, eat; this is my body, which is given for you; this bread which is administered to you, I say, is my body.’ If I hear and accept this, then I trample reason and its wisdom under foot and say, ‘You cursed whore, shut up! Are you trying to seduce me into committing fornication with the devil?’ That’s the way reason is purged and made free through the Word of the Son of God.

So let us deal with the fanatics as the prophets dealt with the spiritual harlots, the idolaters, the wiseacres, who want to do things better than God does. We should say to them, ‘I have a Bridegroom, I will listen to him. Your wisdom is utter foolishness. I destroy your wisdom and trample it under foot.’ This struggle will go on till the last day. This is what Paul [in Rom. 12:3] wants; we are to quench not only the low desires but also the high desires, reason and its high wisdom. When whoredom invades you, strike it dead, but do this far more when spiritual whoredom tempts you. Nothing pleases a man so much as self-love, when he has a passion for his own wisdom. The cupidity of a greedy man is as nothing compared with a man’s hearty pleasure in his own ideas. He then brings these fine ideas into the Scriptures, and this is devilishness pure and simple. This sin is forgiven, but when it reigns in one’s nature, not yet fully purged, then assuredly the true doctrine is soon lost, however willingly one preaches and willingly one listens. Then Christ is gone. Then they fall down before the devil on the mountain and worship him (Matt. 4 [:8–10]).”

** Quoted with permission from Luther Academy, publisher of the book the essay is from. I have left out the footnotes from the quote.

*** Preus, Daniel, Scott R. Murray, Aaron M. Moldenhauer, Carl D. Roth, Richard A. Lammert, Martin R. Noland, Charles L. Cortrright, and Michael J. Albrecht. Propter Christum: Christ at the Center : Essays in Honor of Daniel Preus. Fort Wayne, Indiana: Luther Academy, 2013.

**** To read more about one of those followers and his battle against the highly sophisticated Reformation radical Caspar Schwenckfeld, see this post.

Book Review of Reclaiming Pietism: Retrieving an Evangelical Tradition

Reclaiming Pietism: Retrieving an Evangelical Tradition by Roger E. Olson and Christian T. Collins Winn is a brief introduction and defense of Christian pietism. Throughout this work, Olson and Winn seek to dispel common misconceptions about the pietist movement, such as the common contention that pietism is staunchly legalistic, opposed to social action, and intent on achieving Christian perfection. Olson and Winn argue that pietism is an essential forerunner of the contemporary evangelical tradition, and that the contemporary church would gain much by studying its own pietist heritage.

Perhaps the most helpful part of this book is the authors’ extensive survey of the history of the pietist movement. Olson and Winn begin by examining the forerunners of the pietist movement such as Johann Arndt and Jakob Bohme. They catalog the beginnings of the pietist movement with the publication of Philip Jacob Spener’s Pia Desideria, and its rise through the writings of August Herman Francke and subsequent pietist figures. The authors strictly distinguish between a historic churchly pietism, and radical forms of pietism. They also demonstrate that Zinzendorf and the Moravians are not pietists in the traditional sense, but alter in some important ways the teachings of Spener and Francke. Throughout the historical section, it is apparent that Olson and Winn take a rather negative view of the Protestant scholastic tradition, in which they view pietism as a corrective movement. While there certainly were problems in being overly-intellectual (especially in the pulpit), and in promoting a form of Christianity which does not affect the heart, these problems do not characterize the entire scholastic era. Figures like Johann Gerhard (who is briefly mentioned in the book) and Ernst Loescher recognized such deficiencies, and promoted practical piety from within the scholastic tradition. Olson and Winn seem to pit scholastic theology against practical piety, whereas in figures like Gerhard, these two emphases cohere with one another.

Though a strict confessional Lutheran will not be convinced by all of the arguments, Olson and Winn do succeed in demonstrating that pietism is often portrayed in an inaccurate manner devoid of historical context. The claim that pietism is concerned only with individual salvation, neglecting Christian community and the broader world, is particularly inaccurate. Francke, in particular, fought for social reforms, and was active in caring for orphans in particular. These social implications are systemic throughout the pietist tradition. Olson and Winn also demonstrate that spirituality is not, in pietism, viewed as an individualistic enterprise. The formation of the pietist movement was essentially based around the formation of collegia pietatis, which “were ultimately not just for mutual edification, but for the renewal of the whole church” (44). Pietist spirituality was corporate in nature, and due to the postmillennial leanings of many pietists, this spirituality was hoped to influence society as a whole. One final point that Olson and Winn demonstrate successfully is that the pietists did not hold to Christian perfectionism in the manner that Wesley did. They mention, for example, that Zinzendorf (who himself was quite radical in some ways) departed ways with Wesley over the nature of indwelling sin. Though one might justly make the argument that they pietists overemphasized the importance of sanctification over that of justification, claims of pietist perfectionism are inaccurate.

The most problematic aspects of this book are due to the theological convictions of the authors. Because they are not Lutheran, Olson and Winn fail to discuss the pietists’ views of the sacraments in relation to traditional Lutheran orthodoxy. However, since pietism came from a sacramental background, and that Spener himself continued to defend Luther’s understanding of both Baptism and the Lord’s Supper throughout his life, this is a glaring omission. This likely is due to the authors’ evangelical Arminian convictions which do not hold a strict view of sacramental efficacy. There are also several statements made in passing that the pietists held to something like classical Arminianism and denied the inerrancy of Scripture. Though these characteristics might be true of some pietists, it is unlikely that such were held by those who, like Spener, contended for firm adherence to the Lutheran confessions. Some more evidence should be presented in this regard, or these comments simply seem to betray the authors’ own convictions rather than that of the pietist theologians.

This book is an essential read for anyone interested in the pietist movement. It is helpful for evangelicals in demonstrating the impact of pietism upon the contemporary church, which is too often only associated with Puritanism. This book is also a helpful read for Lutherans, whether in the pietist, scholastic (like myself), or other traditions. It’s historical section is a great overview of the movement for any interested from either a positive or negative perspective, and the work presents many important arguments for the critics of pietism to engage.

The book can be purchased here.

Sermon for the Baptism of Our Lord

Now that it’s almost Sunday again, and I’m about to preach on the Confession of St. Peter, maybe I should post last week’s sermon. It comes in at just under 15 minutes, which surprises me because it’s normal length on paper. I must have been moving that morning.

Blessed Martin Luther: “The Communion of the People”

So far we have dealt with the mass and the function of the minister or bishop. Now we shall speak of the proper manner of communicating the people, for whom the Lord’s Supper was primarily instituted and given this name. For just as it is absurd for a minister to make a fool of himself and publicly preach the Word where no one hears or to harangue himself in an empty room1 or under the open sky, so it is equally nonsensical if the ministers prepare and embellish the Lord’s Supper, which belongs to all, without having guests to eat and drink it, so that they who ought to minister to others, eat and drink by themselves alone at an empty table and in a vacant room. Therefore, if we really want to cherish Christ’s command, no private mass should be allowed in the church, except as a temporary concession for the sake of necessity or for the weak in faith.

Here one should follow the same usage as with baptism, namely, that the bishop be informed of those who want to commune. They should request in person to receive the Lord’s Supper so that he may be able to know both their names and manner of life. And let him not admit the applicants unless they can give a reason for their faith and can answer questions about what the Lord’s Supper is, what its benefits are, and what they expect to derive from it. In other words, they should be able to repeat the Words of Institution from memory and to explain that they are coming because they are troubled by the consciousness of their sin, the fear of death, or some other evil, such as temptation of the flesh, the world, or the devil, and now hunger and thirst to receive the word and sign of grace and salvation from the Lord himself through the ministry of the bishop, so that they may be consoled and comforted; this was Christ’s purpose, when he in priceless love gave and instituted this Supper, and said, “Take and eat,” etc.

But I think it enough for the applicants for communion to be examined or explored once a year. Indeed, a man may be so understanding that he needs to be questioned only once in his lifetime or not at all. For, by this practice, we want to guard lest the worthy and unworthy alike rush to the Lord’s Supper, as we have hitherto seen done in the Roman church. There they seek only to communicate; but the faith, the comfort, the use and benefit of the Supper are not even mentioned or considered. Nay, they have taken pains to hide the Words of Institution, which are the bread of life itself, and have furiously tried to make the communicants perform a work, supposedly good in itself, instead of letting their faith be nourished and strengthened by the goodness of Christ. Those, therefore, who are not able to answer in the manner described above should be completely excluded and banished from the communion of the Supper, since they are without the wedding garment [Matt. 22:11–12].

When the bishop has convinced himself that they understand all these things, he should also observe whether they prove their faith and understanding in their life and conduct. For Satan, too, understands and can talk about all these things. Thus if the pastor should see a fornicator, adulterer, drunkard, gambler, usurer, slanderer, or anyone else disgraced by a manifest vice, he should absolutely exclude such person from the Supper—unless he can give good evidence that his life has been changed. For the Supper need not be denied to those who sometimes fall and rise again, but grieve over their lapse. Indeed, we must realize that it was instituted just for such people so that they may be refreshed and strengthened. “For in many things we offend all” [Jas. 3:2]. And we “bear one another’s burdens” [Gal. 6:2], since we are burdening one another. But I was speaking of those arrogant people who sin brazenly and without fear while they boast glorious things about the gospel.

When mass is being celebrated, those to receive communion should gather together by themselves in one place and in one group. The altar and the chancel were invented for this purpose. God does not care where we stand and it adds nothing to our faith. The communicants, however, ought to be seen and known openly, both by those who do and by those who do not commune, in order that their lives may be better observed, proved, and tested. For participation in the Supper is part of the confession by which they confess before God, angels, and men that they are Christians. Care must therefore be taken lest any, as it were, take the Supper on the sly and disappear in the crowd so that one cannot tell whether they live good or evil lives. On the other hand, even in this matter I do not want to make a law, but simply want to demonstrate a decent and fitting order to be used in freedom by free Christian men.

Now concerning private confession before communion, I still think as I have held heretofore, namely, that it neither is necessary nor should be demanded. Nevertheless, it is useful and should not be despised; for the Lord did not even require the Supper itself as necessary or establish it by law, but left it free to everyone when he said, “As often as you do this,” etc. [I Cor. 11:25–26]. So concerning the preparation for the Supper, we think that preparing oneself by fasting and prayer is a matter of liberty. Certainly one ought to come sober and with a serious and attentive mind, even though one might not fast at all and pray ever so little. But the sobriety I speak of is not that superstitious practice of the papists. I demand it lest people should come belching their drink and bloated with overeating. For the best preparation is—as I have said—a soul troubled by sins, death, and temptation and hungering and thirsting for healing and strength. Teaching these matters to the people is up to the bishop.

It remains to be considered whether both forms,2 as they call them, should be administered to the people. Here I say this: Now that the gospel has been instilled among us these two whole years, we have humored the weak in faith long enough. Hereafter we shall act according to the words of St. Paul, “If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant” [I Cor. 14:38]. For if after all this time they have not understood the gospel, it matters little whether they receive either form. If we continue to make allowance for their weakness, we only run the risk of confirming their obstinacy and of making rules contrary to the gospel. Wherefore, both forms may be requested and shall be offered in simple compliance with the institution of Christ. Those who refuse them will be left alone and receive nothing. For we are devising this order of the mass for those to whom the gospel has been proclaimed and by whom it has been at least partly understood. Those who have not yet heard or understood it are also not ready to receive advice concerning this matter [of liturgical forms].

Nor is it necessary to wait for a council—as they prate—in order to have this practice sanctioned. We have the law of Christ on our side and are not minded to be delayed by or to listen to a council in matters which manifestly are part of the gospel. Nay, we say more: If by chance a council should establish and permit this practice, then we would be the last to partake of both forms. Nay, in contempt both of the council and of its statute, we should then wish to partake either of one or of neither, but never of both; and we would hold those to be wholly anathema who on the authority of such a council and statute would partake of both.

You wonder why and ask for a reason? Listen! If you know that the bread and wine were instituted by Christ and that both are to be received by all—as the Gospels and Paul testify so clearly that even our adversaries themselves are forced to admit it—and if you still dare not believe and trust in Him enough to receive both forms, but dare to do so after men decide this in a council, are you not preferring men to Christ? Do you not extol sinful men over Him who is named God and worshiped as such [II Thess. 2:3–4]? Do you not trust in the words of men more than in the words of God? Nay rather, do you not utterly distrust the words of God and believe only the words of men? And how great a rejection and denial of God the most high is that? What idolatry can be compared to the superstitious regard in which you hold the council of men? Should you not rather die a thousand deaths? Should you not rather receive one or no form at all, than [both] in the name of an obedience which is a sacrilege and of a faith that amounts to apostasy?

Therefore, let them stop prating of their councils. First, let them do this: Let them restore to God the glory which they have denied him. Let them confess that with Satan their master they have held back one form, that they have lifted themselves up above God, that they have condemned his word, and have led to perdition so many people for so long a time. And let them repent of this unspeakably cruel and godless tyranny. Then, let them solemnly declare that we have done right when on our part and even against their dogma we have taught and received both forms and have not waited for their council. And let them give thanks, because we have refused to follow their perditious abomination. When they have done this, we shall gladly and willingly honor and obey their council and [its] statute. In the meantime, while they fail to do so and instead continue to demand that we should await their authorization, we shall listen to nothing. Rather, we shall continue to teach and act against them, particularly where we know it displeases them most. For what do they require with their diabolical demand except that we should exalt them above God and their words above his, and that we should receive the phantoms of their fancy as idols in the place of God? It is our concern, however, that the whole world be completely subjected and obedient to God.

I also wish that we had as many songs as possible in the vernacular which the people could sing during mass, immediately after the gradual and also after the Sanctus and Agnus Dei. For who doubts that originally all the people sang these which now only the choir sings or responds to while the bishop is consecrating? The bishops may have these [congregational] hymns sung either after the Latin chants, or use the Latin on one [Sun]day and the vernacular on the next, until the time comes that the whole mass is sung in the vernacular. But poets are wanting among us, or not yet known, who could compose evangelical and spiritual songs, as Paul calls them [Col. 3:16], worthy to be used in the church of God. In the meantime, one may sing after communion, “Let God be blest, be praised, and thanked, Who to us himself hath granted,”3 omitting the line, “And the holy sacrament, At our last end, From the consecrated priest’s hand,” which was added by some devotee of St. Barbara4 who, having neglected the sacrament all his life, hoped that he would on his deathbed be able to obtain eternal life through this work rather than through faith. For both the musical meter and structure prove this line to be an interpolation.5 Another good [hymn] is “Now Let Us Pray to the Holy Ghost”6 and also “Ein Kindelein so löbelich.”7 For few are found that are written in a proper devotional style. I mention this to encourage any German poets to compose evangelical hymns for us.

This is enough for now about the mass and communion. What is left can be decided by actual practice, as long as the Word of God is diligently and faithfully preached in the church. And if any should ask that all these [forms] be proved from Scriptures and the example of the fathers, they do not disturb us; for as we have said above, liberty must prevail in these matters and Christian consciences must not be bound by laws and ordinances. That is why the Scriptures prescribe nothing in these matters, but allow freedom for the Spirit to act according to his own understanding as the respective place, time, and persons may require it. And as for the example of the fathers, [their liturgical orders] are partly unknown, partly so much at variance with each other that nothing definite can be established about them, evidently because they themselves used their liberty. And even if they would be perfectly definite and clear, yet they could not impose on us a law or the obligation to follow them.

As for the other days which are called weekdays,8 I see nothing that we cannot put up with, provided the [weekday] masses be discontinued. For Matins with its three lessons, the [minor] hours, Vespers, and Compline de tempore consist—with the exception of the propers for the Saints’ days—of nothing but divine words of Scripture. And it is seemly, nay necessary, that the boys should get accustomed to reading and hearing the Psalms and lessons from the Holy Scripture. If anything should be changed, the bishop may reduce the great length [of the services] according to his own judgment so that three Psalms may be sung for Matins and three for Vespers with one or two responsories.9 These matters are best left to the discretion of the bishop. He should choose the best of the responsories and antiphons and appoint them from Sunday to Sunday throughout the week, taking care lest the people should either be bored by too much repetition of the same or confused by too many changes in the chants and lessons. The whole Psalter, Psalm by Psalm, should remain in use, and the entire Scripture, lesson by lesson, should continue to be read to the people. But we must take care—as I have elsewhere explained—0 lest the people sing only with their lips, like sounding pipes or harps [I Cor. 14:7], and without understanding. Daily lessons must therefore be appointed, one in the morning from the New or Old Testament, another for Vespers from the other Testament with an exposition in the vernacular. That this rite is an ancient one is proven by both the custom itself and by the words homilia in Matins and capitulum11 in Vespers and in the other [canonical] hours, namely, that the Christians as often as they gathered together read something and then had it interpreted in the vernacular in the manner Paul describes in I Corinthians 14 [:26–27].12 But when evil times came and there was a lack of prophets and interpreters, all that was left after the lessons and capitula was the response, “Thanks be to God.”13 And then, in place of the interpretation, lessons, Psalms, hymns, and other things were added in boring repetition. Although the hymns and the Te Deum laudamus at least confirm the same thing as the Deo gratias, namely, that after the exposition and homilies they used to praise God and give thanks for the revealed truth of his words. That is the kind of vernacular songs I should like us to have.

This much, excellent Nicholas, I have for you in writing about the rites and ceremonies which we either already have instituted in our Wittenberg church or expect to introduce, Christ willing, at an early date. If this example pleases you and others, you may imitate it. If not, we will gladly yield to your inspiration14 and are prepared to accept corrections from you or from others. Nor should you or anyone else be deterred by the fact that here in Wittenberg the idolatrous “Topheth” [Jer. 7:31–32; 19:6] still continues as a shameless, ungodly source of revenue for the princes of Saxony. I am speaking of the Church of All Saints.15 For by the mercy of God, we have so great an antidote among us in the riches of his Word that this plague languishes in its own little corner and can only contaminate itself. There are scarcely three or four swinish gluttons left to serve mammon in that house of perdition. To all others and to the whole populace, it is a loathsome and abominable thing. But we dare not proceed against them by force or by law, for Christians—as you know—should not fight except with the power of the sword of the Spirit. This is how I restrain the people every day. Otherwise, that house of all the saints—or rather of all the devils—would long be known by another name in all the earth. I have not used the power of the Spirit which the Lord has given me [II Cor. 13:10] against it, but patiently have borne this reproach if perchance God may give them repentance. Meanwhile, I am content that our house, which is more truly the house of all saints, reigns and stands here as a tower of Lebanon against the house of the devils [Song of Sol. 7:4]. Thus we torment Satan with the Word, even though he pretends to laugh. But Christ will grant that his hope will fail him and that he will be overthrown in the sight of all. Pray for me, you saint of God. Grace be with you and with us all. Amen.

Blessed Martin Luther, “The Communion of the People” from “An Order of Mass and Communion For the Church at Wittenberg” 1523. LW 53: Liturgy and Hymns, J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, eds. Philadelphia, Fortress Press, pp. 32–40.

1 Literally, inter saxa et ligna, “between stones and wood.”

2 Both elements, i.e., bread and wine.

3 See pp. 252–254.

4 St. Barbara was called upon as intercessor to assure people that they would be able to receive the sacraments of penance and the eucharist in the hour of death.

5 It was sung to the same melody which had already served the two previous lines: “Let God be blessed,” etc., and “That his own flesh and blood,” etc. The line censured by Luther is lacking in one of the two pre-Reformation sources for this hymn.

6 See pp. 263–264.

7 A pre-Reformation Christmas hymn to the melody “Dies est laetitiae.” See Julian, Dictionary of Hymnology, p. 325. For text and melody of this hymn, see Wilhelm Bäumker, Das katholische deutsche Kirchenlied (Freiburg: Herder, 1886), I, 286–289.

8 Feriae.

9 Ordinarily, Matins had nine Psalms and eight responsories, Vespers and Compline eight Psalms and one responsory.

10 See pp. 11–14.

11 Homilia, i.e., “sermon,” was the name of the lessons in Matins, which were taken both from Scripture and the writings of the church fathers. Capitulum, i.e., “chapter,” is the name for the diminutive one-verse lesson read in Vespers. On this basis, Luther argues that Scripture readings had originally been longer—“chapter” rather than “verse”—and were followed by interpretative sermons.

12 Cf. p. 11, n. 2.

13 Deo gratias.

14 Literally, “unction.”

15 This was the same church on the doors of which Luther had nailed the Ninety-five Theses six years earlier. It contained a famous collection of more than seventeen thousand relics which the Elector had amassed and which by attracting the seekers of indulgences were a lucrative revenue for the church. In 1522 they had once again been on exhibition, but on All Saints’ Day, 1523, the custom was discontinued.

 

+SDG+

A Brief Response to Kolb and Arand on Theosis

An excerpt from a book I’m currently writing:

In the context of active righteousness, Kolb and Arand place a creational view of Christian living over and against theosis, arguing: “Luther opposed both the view of psychological transformation and the view of salvation by ontological transformation (both of which make sense only in a Platonic, spiritualizing frame of reference.” Instead, “Luther rejoiced in his creatureliness. It is a great honor to be called a creature.” The theme of deification in Gerhard and treatments of the unio mystica thus seems to be negated by Kolb and Arand. Contrary to Kolb and Arand, however, historic Lutheran teaching of mystical union, or what I have labeled Christification, is not necessarily in contradistinction to the creational realm in which the Christian lives. One’s union with God does not take one away from creation, but brings one further into creation. The biblical model of theosis is cruciform. As God condescended into the world through the incarnation, so the Christian condescends to the world. Union with God grows, not simply in an other-worldly sphere, but within created reality. Christians model the incarnational life of Christ through serving one another in their vocation. Gerhard connects the unio mystica with life in the world writing: “God has communicated his entire self to you. Communicate also your entire self to your neighbor.” Wingren’s emphasis on the nature of humanity as creatures and their service within the created realm is correct, and is not negated by Christification, but strengthened.

Kolb and Arand, Genius of Luther’s Theology, 48.

Kolb and Arand, Genius of Luther’s Theology, 38.

Kolb and Arand seem to limit union to the unio fidei formalis, noting: “The Christian is thus joined to Christ by a faith that clings to the Word and now accepts that Christ is totally responsible for us…Only in faith are Christ and a human being so joined together, so made one, that in God’s judgment the human person participates in Christ’s righteousness.” Kolb and Arand, Genius of Luther’s Theology, 46.

Gerhard, Sacred Meditations, 120.

Is a Faulty Understanding of Sanctification at the Root of the Worship Wars?

The theses below are from the new book following up this one, The Unchanging Forms of the Gospel. Read more on the book pictured here.

NOTE: The following is being put forth by Nathan Rinne, on behalf of Pastor Holger Sonntag and Pastor Paul Strawn (the founders of Lutheran Press), for the purpose of encouraging theological reflection and discussion. 

These theses are not to be understood as the position of all those posting at the Just and Sinner site.

The following is a summary, by Pastor Paul Strawn and Pastor Holger Sonntag, of the main points of their arguments regarding Christian worship.  These were presented at the 27th Annual Lutheran Free Conference: “The Character of Christian Worship: It May Not Be What You Think”, which took place on Saturday, October 25th, 2014 at Redeemer Lutheran Church in St. Cloud, MN.  The same content, in the form of theses, can be found in their new book, “Christians Worship: Apology of the Unchanging Forms of the Gospel” (see * below to order).

The links below are the accompanying audio from the conference mentioned above (they are not the best quality – it seems to me that the quality gets better as it goes on) where they presented and discussed the following arguments/theses (hear the opening remarks from Pastor Sonntag here). 

Please note that clicking on these links will open up the audio immediately (you can also go to this page, on the blog of Pastor Bruce A. Timm, in order to see all of the original links to the audio).

I. What Really is Christian Worship?

1.1 – Why do Christians Worship? (conference audio part 1 and part 2 )

Christian worship – that is, worship after man’s fall into sin and after the giving of the promise of the Savior in Gen. 3:15 – is fundamentally rooted in the gospel of Jesus Christ. For every Christian activity, in order to be truly pleasing to God despite man’s sinfulness, must flow from faith in this gospel. Such faith is created by this gospel itself. In that this faith rightly acknowledges God as truthful and Savior, and thus lets God be God, it is the highest worship (First Commandment). Genuine faith is active in love of God and neighbor. Praying to God as well as praising and thanking God in worship, as well as studying and following his Word, are the chief works of love of God after faith itself (Second and Third Commandments). Serving the neighbor in one’s vocations according to the remaining Ten Commandments is, because it is a fruit of faith in the gospel, also part of the Christian’s worship and thanksgiving to God.

1.2 – How do Christians Worship? ( conference audio )

In the age of the New Testament, the gospel has been instituted by Christ in the specific forms, rites, and ceremonies of the NT’s specific ceremonial law, namely, the means of grace: the word, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. The pastoral office has been established by Christ to administer the gospel in these forms also in the public worship service. Administering and partaking of the gospel according to these forms are acts of love which, when proceeding from genuine faith in the gospel, are also acts of worship pleasing to God. When considered as God’s saving work for us, the means of grace take on a “sacramental” meaning. When considered as our serving actions for God and neighbor, the means of grace take on a “sacrificial” meaning. Due to the alone-saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, the only legitimate function for sacrifice in the Christian worship service is to express the Christians’ praise and thanksgiving for their being saved by Christ.

1.3 – Does Christian Worship have a Unique Character? ( conference audio )       

The forms, rites, and ceremonies of the gospel have a specific God-given character in that they are not only unchanging but also humble and simple in nature. For they offer God’s almighty grace and power under the simple, humble, weak forms of human words, water, as well as bread and wine. When considered by the old Adam without God’s word, this humility and weakness is despised as utter foolishness. When considered by the new man according to God’s word, this simplicity and weakness is recognized as God’s wisdom and power. The pastoral office shares in this humble form in that it faithfully and simply proclaims the word of the cross in its divinely instituted forms, the means of grace.

II. What Does Christian Worship Have to do with Christ?

2.1 – How is Christian Worship Like Christ? ( conference audio ) 

The humble nature of the gospel and the pastoral office reflects the humility of Christ’s life on earth. While he always possessed all the attributes of his divine nature, he only rarely used them openly. For the most part, he kept them hidden under his servant form. His humble external form as well as the humble external form of the gospel serve the key purpose of his mission: to bring his forgiveness to sinners terrified and humbled by the law. For such sinners need to be approached in a humble, gentle manner lest they be terrified further.

2.2 – How is Christian Worship Related to Christian Freedom in Christ? ( conference audio )        

After the end of the comprehensive ceremonial law of the OT, Christians are free to add humanly devised ceremonies (“adiaphora”) to the ceremonies of the gospel Christ has established already. Lest these ceremonies contradict the ceremonies of the gospel itself, they must conform to the gospel in both content and form. This means, they need to proclaim the gospel and be humble and simple in nature. By doing so, they agree with the Christian faith (doctrine) and further faith in Christ as the highest worship. By doing so, they also agree with the simplicity of worship in paradise before man’s fall into sin.

2.3 – How is Christian Worship Related to Love? ( conference audio )       

However, these ceremonies also need to be in agreement with Christian love, the chief fruit of faith and the fulfillment of the law, as one of their chief purposes is to serve the neighbor. These ceremonies will be in agreement with Christian love when they are created and observed jointly by churches sharing the same confession. In that such is the way of humility and service, ceremonies created and observed in this way conform to the humble form of the gospel also by the very way they are created and observed. In that such humility is also in keeping with Christ’s humble life of service on earth, they are part and parcel of the Christians’ humble way of life and service that puts the needs of the neighbor first. In this way love restrains the freedom that is indeed ours by faith in the gospel.

III. What does Christian Worship have to do with Christians?

To order, email at bookorders@lutheranpress.com

3.1 – As Lords and Servants, Old Adam and New Man? ( conference audio )          

For the Christian is not only by faith a free lord over all things in his relationship to God; he is also by love a most dutiful servant in relation to his neighbor. Such an approach to worship does full justice to the fact that the Christian is both saint and sinner, both new man and old Adam. For the fact that the Christian is not fully renewed in this life makes love, patience and humility necessary, also and especially when it comes to the joint creation and observing of orders of worship. The fact that the Christian is beginning to be renewed in this life by the Holy Spirit through the means of grace makes incipient love, patience, and humility a reality, also and especially when it comes to the joint creation and observing of orders of worship.

3.2 – Being Justified by Faith ( conference audio )                              

The doctrine of justification by grace through faith in Christ alone does not result in antinomianism because it does not militate against such humble works of love and service, but only against the belief that such works contribute to man’s justification before God. The doctrine of justification, therefore, does not negate the necessity of Christian love for keeping Christian doctrine pure, which exists due to the Christians’ ongoing sinfulness. It therefore does not negate the necessity of love for keeping the church united with Jesus Christ in the one true faith. For where the purity of doctrine has been lost, there the unity of the church in the truth has been lost. In heaven, when the Christian will be fully renewed, worship will still be corporate and uniform. For then the Spirit will have fully consumed old Adam’s desire to be an individual and do his own thing.

3.3 – In our Relationship with other Congregations, Synods and Churches? ( conference audio )

In that ceremonies of worship traditionally have been observed jointly by those sharing the same confession, ceremonies of both human and divine origin play a role as boundary markers of those communities. Differences and changes in ceremonies therefore always give the impression of a changed and hence different confession. This is why changes in (humanly devised) ceremonies must be theologically warranted lest the wrong impression of theological agreement is given where no such agreement exists.

 

To see this topic discussed in more detail, you can check out the posts I have been doing on my own blog.  Today’s post, part VI of VIII, is basically the same as what I have posted here.

FIN

*To order a copy of Christian Worship: Apology of the Unchanging Forms of the Gospel e-mail at bookorders@lutheranpress.com

American Lutheran Theological Journal Volume 1, Issue 2

Price: $6                                            Kindle: $5.99

Articles 

What Does Biblical Admonition and Exhortation Mean for Lutheran Preaching?

By Mark Surburg

The Two Kinds of Righteousness and Pastoral Care

By Jordan Cooper

This May Be Our Theology, But was it Luther’s? The Homiletical Limitations of Today’s Version of “The Two Kinds of Righteousness”

By Michael T. Badenhop

An Evaluation of Beth Moore’s The Patriarchs Study in View of the Two Kinds of Righteousness

By Lisa Cooper

Lutheran Theology by Steven D. Paulson: A Review Essay

By Eric Phillips

Book Reviews 

Washer, Paul. Gospel Assurance and Warnings (Recovering the Gospel). Reformation Heritage Books, 2014.

Review by Richard P. Shields

Schumacher, William H. Who do I Say that You Are? (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2010).

Review by Jordan Cooper

Sermon 

Calling All Sinners (Matthew 9:9-13)

By Curtis Leins

Theologoumena from a great theologian: Rev. Dr. Kurt Marquart on who may be saved

HT: Rev. David Jay Webber

 

Rev. Dr. Kurt Marquart (1934-2006)

Another matter which has worried me for some time: In your absolutely correct and necessary insistence that Christ is the only Way to Salvation, do formulate more carefully especially as regards hell. It is surely not helpful to be insisting at every turn that such and such shall undoubtedly burn in eternal hell. As with unbaptised babies, so with those who never heard the Gospel, for instance, the Church has been much more reticent than that. We certainly don’t want to give the impression that we share the idea attributed to my hero, Thomas Aquinas, that knowledge of the tortures of the wicked will be part of the joys of Heaven! On the basis, particularly, of I Peter 3 & 4, I have for some years believed that God may yet have more and other ways of mercy in Christ than what He has told us about. Of course, I agree with the Preus statement that we cannot act on the basis of the assumption that there are other ways after death. We are bound to God’s revealed will, and must act accordingly. But He is not bound not to do more, or to be more merciful than He has promised! Of course it is clear that if one takes I Peter 3 & 4 in its most obvious, natural, historical-grammatical sense, as giving a case of salvation of such as died while still impenitent on earth, that too is not an instance of another way, outside of Christ: He is still the only Way, but He offered that Way to those beyond the grave.

To repeat, we cannot base our proclamation or ecclesiastical action on this sort of speculation, but are bound to God’s revealed will. But, as Dr. Koehne once pointed out to me: when Adam sinned, all he knew was ‘the day you eat thereof you shall surely die.’ He knew nothing, because God had not revealed it, about any future Savior or Salvation. Yet God had already provided this. Hence I like the explanation a Russian Orthodox lay-theologian once gave me of the formula ‘anathema maranatha’: it means that the Church’s judgments (anathema) stand until the Lord returns (maranatha). Then the Great Judge will make His own decisions.

In any case, I think John 21:21-22 has some relevancy: To Peter’s question “What about him?: the Lord replies “That’s my business—you just follow me.” I think the whole Bible is like that. It tells me my duty, responsibility, and opportunity—but I’m not to become too theoretically dogmatic about my neighbor’s fate. That’s up to God.

 

I like the explanation a Russian Orthodox lay-theologian once gave me of the formula ‘anathema maranatha’: it means that the Church’s judgments (anathema) stand until the Lord returns (maranatha). Then the Great Judge will make His own decisions.

 

I am by no means arguing against the seriousness of the Last Judgment, or the reality of hell – only I believe these things should not be stressed sort of in isolation (poor apologetics!), but must be seen in the total New Testament context. And this means to me at least that the dogmatic ‘defense perimeter’ around the central NT truth that Jesus is the Way, the Life, and the Truth, without Whom no one shall come to the Father, should not be overextended to such doubtfully defensible propositions as: ‘Whoever cannot affirm with dogmatic certainty that all those who have never heard about Christ will undoubtedly burn eternally in hell is not an orthodox theologian.’

I realize that this is a very inadequate treatment of a very serious issue, but I do not pretend to have exhausted it. These are only random thoughts as they have occurred to me over the years. If you can contribute to their further clarification, I’d be very thankful.

(Kurt E. Marquart, Letter to Herman Otten; quoted in Christian News, Vol. 49, No. 21 [June 6, 2011], p. 5. Emphases in original.)

 

+SDG+