Quick follow up on Justification posts

First of all I want to thank all four guest writers for this past weeks blog content.  Though there was not much by way of comments, blog traffic was over 5 times what it usually is.  The one item that sticks out at me is that all views seemed to hold, to some degree an objective view of justification, though Connie's view did not place emphasis there.

Connie, and Dawn, both held a universal view of justification, and it appeared to me that Matt did as well.  Connie's view was hopeful that justification which occurred for all was also applied to all, or that all would reap the benefits of it.  Both Dawn and Matt, saw justification as purchased for all in Christ, but applied to those who by faith receive it.  I imagine if Dawn and Matt continued to hash this out we would see quite a difference in how faith is received, nonetheless the nature of a universal unlimited justification based on an unlimited atonement seems to drive their view of justification.  Dawn and Matt both seemed to attach this atonement firmly to Christ as second Adam for us.   Connie seemed less intent on getting into the how justification occurred objectively, and more into what action that justification produces in the world.

Ralph's reformed baptist view was the only view of the four that had atonement as limited to the elect.  Ralph's emphasis is on a monergistic work of Christ to redeem his people entirely independent of their efforts.  Ralph, Matt, and Dawn all held to what I saw to be objective justification, in other words, we are justified by the life, death, resurrection of Christ for us as a historical fact.  Connie may or may not believe that, but she affirmed that her focus was not at all on the 'how' but on the 'what this will produce'.

The greatest difference between the three classically orthodox views (Matt, Ralph, and Dawn) is how justification is applied.  Ralph has it applied on the basis of election which guarantees faith, Dawn and Matt have it based on faith which applies the already given justification.  Matt and Dawn's views would then differ on how faith is given or exercised.

Other thoughts? What did I miss?

Justification (1 of 4) Confessional Lutheran - Dawn K

This post is from Dawn K who blogs at http://www.realrealityzone.com and can be found on twitter @rumor99

Read this before reading on, just to see what is going on here.  Note: these posts are guest posts and may or may not reflect my views.  -Jay

How is the Lutheran understanding of justification different from that of other Christian traditions?

Lutherans believe that we are justified by grace alone, through faith alone, for the sake of Christ alone.  We are declared to be righteous in God’s sight because of the perfect life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, not because of anything inside of us – not because of our human will and not even because of anything that God works in us, whether good works or faith. Christ died for all people, and because of Christ’s perfect life, death and resurrection, all people are forgiven and declared righteous in God’s sight. This is known as the doctrine of objective justification.

Unlike the Calvinists and the Wesleyans, who teach that we are only forgiven and justified when we believe in Christ, Lutherans teach that all are forgiven and justified at the cross but that this forgiveness and justification only benefits those who believe.  When God grants a person repentance and faith in Christ, they receive the benefits of the forgiveness that is already theirs through the death of Christ on the cross.  This is known as the doctrine of subjective justification.  Through the Word of God and through the Sacraments (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper) faith in Christ is created and sustained.

The doctrines of objective and subjective justification might be illustrated in this way: Someone transfers a million dollars into your bank account.  The money is yours.  But if you refuse to believe that it is there, you do not use it and it does not benefit you in any way.  In the same way Christ’s death on the cross led to justification and life for all people.  But those who do not believe this do not benefit from it.

This is in contrast to the Calvinist view, which teaches that Christ did not die for all people but only for those who would believe in Him.  It is also in contrast to the Wesleyan view, which teaches that the death of Christ only made justification possible for all men through prevenient grace, whereby all are enabled to freely choose to believe.  And it is in contrast to the Catholic view which sees justification not as God crediting His righteousness to our account but as God infusing righteousness into us to enable us to cooperate with His grace.

Because of the reality of objective justification, Lutherans are not compelled to look inside themselves – whether to their heart or to the quality of their good works – to determine whether their faith is genuine.  Faith itself is created by the external word of Christ to the individual – that Christ died for me, that His life, death and resurrection saved me, that He baptized me into His family and that He gives me His body and blood to eat and drink for the forgiveness of my sins.

Lutherans do not merely believe a promise that is conditioned upon our faith.  And we certainly do not believe a promise that is conditioned upon our sincere decision or good works.  We believe the promise that has already been given to us.  Christ forgave us at the cross, and that forgiveness was delivered to us (and continues to be delivered) through the Word, water, bread and wine.  We constantly look to these objective, external realities in our daily lives as Christians as we fight against the Old Adam that is within us and seek to live our lives in service to our neighbor. We look not inwardly to our faith but outwardly to Christ who was crucified for us and who even now delivers to us the benefits of His perfect life, death and resurrection.

Lutherans and The Lord's Supper

I have had a running conversation with a confessional Lutheran friend regarding the Lord’s supper for two or three weeks on twitter, and because so many rabbit trails have been chased in this conversation I sensed that it is time to take it to the blog.  The conversation is fitting for this blog as it falls within the context of a Methodist dealing with doctrines of the Reformation, specifically Luther’s view of ‘Real Presence’ in the Lord’s Supper.  I would highly recommend that you follow Dawn on twitter ‘@rumor99’ and visit her website here.  Moreover you can see the Lutheran view defended at here by Todd Wilken, of Issues Etc, or an interesting and seriously humorous defense of confessional Lutheranism against Calvinism at here by Rev Fisk.

Our conversation has centered around the Lord’s Supper and whether the ‘real presence’ of the Lord is in the bread and the wine.  Now this is a friendly discussion, and I do not sense that Dawn doubts our union in Christian fellowship and as far as internet twitter dialog goes I would consider Dawn a friend who has sharpened me in many ways.  Nonetheless, as cordial as this may be, it is not a trivial issue, and in many respects the Gospel itself is a stake, especially from the Lutheran end of the argument, as they are apt to argue that “the Sacrament is the Gospel”, their verbiage not mine.  Also note that we are dealing with Confessional Lutheranism here i.e. LCMS, not ELCA, I imagine Luther himself would not recognize the ELCA as Lutheran by any stretch of the imagination.

I argue as would nearly all Protestants that the bread and the cup of the Lord’s Supper are not literally/physically the body and blood of our Lord, but instead are figures of his body and blood.  The Lutheran appeals to Matthew 26:26-28 and simply says “This is my body... This is my blood...” means exactly what it says in the very literal sense.  As you debate this with a Lutheran they will continually come back to the fact that Jesus said “this is...” and if you are not careful arguing from the other side you begin to sound like Bill Clinton asking ‘What is ‘is’?”  Nonetheless, the question “what is meant by is?” is indeed an appropriate question.  Yes, I can hear you Lutherans chuckling right now.

Jesus uses ‘is’ in other places in a figurative manner, I can think of Mark 3:34-35 off hand, when he affirms that his disciples are his mother and his brothers.  I would never hang an argument about the Lord’s Supper upon Mark 3:34-35, nonetheless that is a clear example of when “is” does not mean “is” in the literal sense.  There are other places as well.  Moreover we hear Lutherans appeal to the “how would a five year old understand it?” argument so as to prove that the simple reading is that Jesus is actually calling bread “His Body” in the most literal sense.  My three year old will often pick up a ‘little people’ toy and say this *is* my daddy, and this *is* my mommy and then proceed to act like they are Kristin and I, even 3 year old Joey understands the figurative sense of *is*.  Sure that is simple make believe and all kids do that, and I am not trying to use a profane argument, but the simple truth is that even a three year old knows how to use *is* figuratively.  There is ample precedent for *is* being figurative in language.  The traditional Passover Seder itself is filled with figures and metaphors, in fact the Passover meal itself is a metaphor.

The other, and maybe most silly argument you hear is: “When it comes to judgment day I would rather stand before Jesus saying I believed you when you said *is* than to stand there and be wrong and have to say to Jesus that you didn’t believe Him when he said *is*.”  That same argument can be turned completely around pretty easily.  I would not want to stand on judgment day and have to give an account for why I worshipped bread when I had a clear understanding of the different and obvious uses of the word is.

The thing is that this is not a trivial argument.  I am not willing to break fellowship with confessional Lutherans over this, and frankly I am very thankful for a lot of Lutheran’s and their theology.  At the same time given the stance I take that *is* indeed is figurative in Matt 26:26-28 I must say that confessional Lutherans are heretical with regard to the Lord’s Supper, and they too must, because of their belief, see me as heretical with regard to the Lord’s supper.  This is slightly more problematic for the Lutheran, because they believe that the sacrament indeed is the Gospel, so my stance is to say they get the Gospel wrong.  This is not to be harsh, but it is healthy for us to be honest.

The other argument that comes up is why would Paul use such grave language with regard to the Lord’s Supper if it were a mere figure?  The same question could be asked about why God was so specific in laying out various feasts, and the Passover meal, the temple, etc... if these things were all figures of the Christ to come.  They must be handled with gravity because the One that these figures represent is the Christ Himself.  Say Joey, my son, picks up a Lego man and says “this is my Daddy” and then proceeds to through it against the wall, bite its head off, or mistreat it, I would be upset.  The way he treats the figure is indicative of his regard for me.  The same is true with the Lord’s supper, the way the figure is treated evidences the disposition towards what the figure is of.  It makes perfect sense that Paul would speak with such gravity.

Hopefully I have been thorough enough as to how “is” can be figurative.  However even if ‘is’ can possibly be figurative I still must be able to give solid reason that *is* is being used figuratively in Matt 26.  It is pretty obvious that in the Lord’s supper, Jesus says this is my Body while holding the bread.  His physical body was present, yet he held the bread as he made the announcement.  Nobody sitting around that table would have thought this to be a literal statement because obviously his real body was present.  Moreover each breaking of bread during the Passover meal had significant symbolic meaning.  I will not get into the Seder meal (I am not an expert) but regardless the disciples were already looking at this bread figuratively before Jesus even said *this is*.  Moreover Jesus now sits at the right hand of the Father, not here in a loaf.

The only thing left to appeal to is paradox.  The Lutheran must simply say all these things are paradox, Jesus being both at the right hand of the Father and in the loaf is paradox.  Jesus being present with the disciples and yet also physically/literally present in the bread he handed to them is paradox.  To me it seems more like Luther was not ready to separate from Catholicism when it came to sacrament.

One thing I love about Lutherans is that they love to live in paradox and do not feel bound to reason everything together, whereas many a Calvinist try to systemize things so far as to subject all scripture to their reason, I do believe this is a strong point in Lutheranism.  At the same time some things are clear and shouldn’t be considered paradox, which is the case here.  We cannot subject God to our reasoning, yet He has communicated to us by His Word using language and it is reasonable that we would give some effort into knowing what the language is communicating and not rushing to put our fingers in our ears and yelling “paradox.”

I will leave this hear for now, and post a follow up, if there is significant interest in the comments.

Luther and Wesley - Strangely Warmed

In the United Methodist Church you will find many congregations named 'Aldersgate UMC' and likely if you have been around the UMC for a significant amount of time, or studied the life of John Wesley you have come across what has been deemed Wesley's 'Aldersgate Experience'.  Wesley records this in his journal:

In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther's preface to the Epistle to the Romans.  About a quarter before nine, while the leader was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away mysins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.

I have began to ask a few pastors within the UMC if they had ever read, or been required to read 'Luther's Preface to the Romans' and have found that the vast majority have not.  Now certainly one does not have to read Luther's preface to understand Paul's Epistle to the Romans, but being a 'Wesleyan' denomination that appeals frequently to Wesley for it's understanding of scripture, you would think it would be incumbent upon UMC pastors to read the document which finally gave Wesley assurance of sins forgiven.  The 'Aldersgate experience' gets mentioned frequently when talking about Wesley, yet few dare go to the source which precipitated the experience.

The emergent and missional movements have found a warm reception in the United Methodist Church, and one of the reasons they are so welcome there is because of how missional Wesley was.  The missional mindset has been in the UMC since day one, and continues in it today.  While I am not against all things missional, I do find it unfortunate that as a church we have failed to see that Wesley was missional, long before he was strangely warmed.  What I mean is this, Wesley took huge risks traveling as a missionary, setting up societies, fighting against slavery, building orphanages, among many things, before he ever happened upon someone reading Luther's preface to the Romans there on Aldersgate street.  Wesley did countless acts of piety and yet had no assurance of sin forgiven.  Wesley did countless good things but had come to the point where it all seemed meaningless and that he wondered if he was still lost.  This is where the missional movement leads its people, eventual despair.  'Missional' Christianity leads people to associate their status in the kingdom with their works in this world, and eventually when a person has a strong sense of their sin the goodness of their works is no longer a source of hope.  The missional movement thrives on Matthew 25 when Jesus speaks of sheep and goats, yet never reads the text carefully enough to see that the sheep were unconscious of their piety while the goats put their hope in theirs.  They miss the fact that the sheep and goats are separated in that passage prior to their works being evaluated, not on the basis of the work.  We could go on an on here.

Anyway, I plead with Methodists who may come across this post to pick up a copy of Luther's Preface to the Romans, or read it online here.  It is not long, and is well worth your time, and maybe you too could be strangely warmed.  Here is an excerpt.

You must get used to the idea that it is one thing to do the works of the law and quite another to fulfill it. The works of the law are every thing that a person does or can do of his own free will and by his own powers to obey the law. But because in doing such works the heart abhors the law and yet is forced to obey it, the works are a total loss and are completely useless. That is what St. Paul means in chapter 3 when he says, "No human being is justified before God through the works of the law." From this you can see that the schoolmasters [i.e., the scholastic theologians] and sophists are seducers when they teach that you can prepare yourself for grace by means of works. How can anybody prepare himself for good by means of works if he does no good work except with aversion and constraint in his heart? How can such a work please God, if it proceeds from an averse and unwilling heart?

But to fulfill the law means to do its work eagerly, lovingly and freely, without the constraint of the law; it means to live well and in a manner pleasing to God, as though there were no law or punishment. It is the Holy Spirit, however, who puts such eagerness of unconstained love into the heart, as Paul says in chapter 5. But the Spirit is given only in, with, and through faith in Jesus Christ, as Paul says in his introduction. So, too, faith comes only through the word of God, the Gospel, that preaches Christ: how he is both Son of God and man, how he died and rose for our sake. Paul says all this in chapters 3, 4 and 10.

That is why faith alone makes someone just and fulfills the law; faith it is that brings the Holy Spirit through the merits of Christ. The Spirit, in turn, renders the heart glad and free, as the law demands. Then good works proceed from faith itself. That is what Paul means in chapter 3 when, after he has thrown out the works of the law, he sounds as though the wants to abolish the law by faith. No, he says, we uphold the law through faith, i.e. we fulfill it through faith.

Peace Friends.