What, they are closer to Rome? Crazy!

 I hopped on to X (twitter) prior to the November 2024 election, and there I encountered tons of militant new Roman Catholic converts, mainly from non-denom Evangelicals and quite a number of former Reformed ones, as well as hand-full of Lutherans who swam to Rome or Bosphorus. 

However, I occassionally see a Lutheran mainly from the US in FB and in X claiming they are closer to Romanism, than they are to non-denom Evangelicals. Frankly, there is a kind of disdain for the latter. The problem with generalization, like painting a non-denom with a broad brush, is that you become unfair and you get it wrong.

I do find this really fanatically crazy.

I am the reverse, I believe I am much closer to the non-denom Evangelicals for the following reasons:

1. They at least are pro sola scriptura. You can talk to a non-denom Evangelical and argue from Scripture a point. We have the same authority. But you cannot do this to an RC nor to an EO person. It is well known they (RC and EO) have more than Scripture as their authority.

2. They are pro sola fide. At least they promote the notion that you are not saved by works. We can skip for the moment the nuance of this, but totally you cannot talk to the RC and EO about faith alone - they will insists anyone not belonging to there group and that inclues Lutherans are heretics when it came to this.

3. They are pro solo Christus. They are pro Jesus Christ alone! You do not hear non-denoms praying to Mary or anyother saints. In fact they insist on a personal relationship with Jesus. They do not promote devotion to Mary's statue, the kissing of icons and praying homage to anyone except Jesus. The RC and EO go so far as to say, if you do not believe Mary is the Queen of heaven, if she is not your Queen, you go to hell. You won't here a non-denom lifting anyone than Christ.

4. I get Lutherans think they are close to Rome when it came to the Supper, for example. That comparison is really different despite them using the same language, the Lutherans and the Romanists mean differently from those words. For example with Rome, upon consecration, there is no more bread, no more wine - but Christ's body and blood. To deny this is for you to be called not believing in the "real presence" - ie if you say the bread and blood are still there you are rejected. In fact, be warned, the BOC condemns the idea of Capernaitic eating.

5. Lastly, the non-denoms do not CONDEMN the Gospel unlike Rome's Council of Trent Canon 12. Here I now go to C F W Walther.

C F W Walther is against this idea that Lutherans are closer to Rome! Funny but most of these Lutherans who say they are closer I suspect are Walther fans!

People know that this blog is a critique of C F W Walther; for once, I will say something positive as to what Walther said - because he does get it - and credit to whom credit is due. I will quote what he said in his Proper Distinction of Law and Gospel, p. 66

Verily, the worst sects in th Christian Church are less harmful than the Pope. For all sects without exception admit that the only way in which a person may be saved is by faith in the grace of God in Christ Jesus. All sects, by their teaching, obscure the Gospel, but they do not, as the Pope does, anathematize and curse it. Inasmuch as all sects allow this thesis, that salvation is by the grace of God, through faith in Christ Jesus, to stand, they are incomparably superior to the Papacy. They are corrupted churches, but the Papacy is a false Church. Just as counterfeit money is no money, so the papal Church, being a false Church, is no Church. Compared with the corrupted sectarian churches, the papacy is a non-church, a denial of the Church of Christ.

Properly understood, I think both translations are correct.

Fig.A, Luther's Bible

This post deals with translation of Luther and the KJV  on passages like Gal 2:16 from the Greek. This topic deals with "faith in Jesus" or "faith of Christ". Is one more "correct" than the other? Or, both are correct depending on understanding?

Before proceeding, please be reminded of the disclaimer I have in this blog, shown to the right of this page. I make another disclaimer that I am no NT Greek expert but I did have university training on it and thus can vet what scholars are saying, and that English is not my native language. Thus please consider - caveat emptor.

This is a result of my reflection and research on this passage, thus far.

Fig. B, Luther's Translation Gal 2:16

Believe me though, in this post, you do not need to have full Greek knowledge to understand what is going on in the mind of the translators.

Fig. C, KJV Gal 2:16

In Fig B, below I show how Luther's Bible translated Galatians 2:16. I highlighted the passage in question. Luther's German says "Glauben an Jesum Christum", in English "faith in Jesus Christ".

In Fig C, we show how the KJV translated this phrase w my highlighting, "faith of Christ". KJV is not the only one which translates this passage in such a way. The Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims translates it the same way, and a few other translations too.

In the Textus Receptus, this comes from the phrase δια πιστεως ιησου χριστου. 

Translating word for word, first without respect to conjugation we have δια is "through",  then πιστεως is "faith", then as we can discern  ιησου χριστου is "Jesus Christ". This πιστεως is in the so called genitive. Genitives are ordinarily gives the notion of possession. Should this be translated "faith of Christ"? Meaning the faith that belongs to Christ? Then why did Luther translated this to be "faith in Christ". Was he wrong? In fact, some blame Luther for influencing the many English translations we now have this way., ie the use of IN Christ. I saw one complaint on this.

I am not here to defend Luther, just the facts.

This boils down on how to treat this genitive - is it subjective, ie, the faith that belongs to Christ or is it objective, the object of this faith is Christ? The translator seeing this has to decide the best way to render its meaning.

Looking at the literal translation as much as we can, reflect for a minute the meaning of --- the faith that belongs to Christ ie faith of Christ, did not Jesus say this -- John 14:1 - you believe in God believe also IN me? In other words, where does your faith belong, is it not supposed to belong to Christ? Hence, if so, "faith IN Christ", ie Luther's translation give it out clearly too. That is not a bad translation as the context also bears this out - see "even we have believed in Jesus Christ" , thus faith IN Christ is OK rendition.

Let me now illustrate this rendition from a quote from Thomas Edison using similar language.

Fig D. Edison Quote

Please read the context of what Edison said about his mother. Note the 2nd to the last line - "My mother is the making of me". Did Edison make his mother? In effect, the subject is Edison, did he create his mother? No. In the context he meant his mother was the cause of him being in the right path, it was his mother who MADE him this way, thus it was his mother as the subject and "me" ( Edison) the object. His mother made him for what he is today. 

In conclusion, properly understanding the meaning of this genitive construction, both IN Christ and OF Christ are correct.

Why I now go for Mere Christianity

 

C. S. Lewis wrote the book Mere Christianity, as an apology for the soundness and truthfulness of the Christian faith. Lewis was Anglican but he was not defending the Anglican version or approach to Christianity, he was defending all of Christianity. So what did Lewis mean by 'mere Christianity'?

By this, he meant the fundamental essential orthodox beliefs in order for one to be called a Christian, a follower of Christ.

My friend, do you trust Jesus as your Saviour and Lord?  Then you got my good will as a brother or sister in Christ. You do not have to share my label or brand of Christianity, for me to extend that good will to you.

 1 jOHN 3:14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love his brother remains in death.

In the 1990s while I was in ministry and taking a degree in Religious Studies, I happened to have  Prof Greg Horsley as my Classic and Koine NT Greek teacher. Horsley is the editor of a multivolume book New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity.  

While I was a student, Prof Horsley told me this story he found in the early documents, I am not sure if he saw this in the inscriptions or in a papyri, probably the latter.

He told the story of two Christians who were about to be burned alive by a Roman soldier. These two were tied facing each other. One of them asked the Roman soldier if they be not tied facing each other because he believed the other one was a heretic. The Roman soldier obliged to tie them behind each other. Then, he proceeded to burn them anyway.

This story has stucked with me upto this day. I forget if Prof Horsley was trying to illustrate a point with me there, but I definitely formed the moral to that story.

In the last days, as stated in Mk 13 and similar passages, when the secular world goes after Christians, their persecutors will not care what label/brand/denomination of Christianity they come from, they will get "torched" anyway. They will not care, they will inflict the same suffering upon them no matter what  label they identify with. There is a pre-taste of this in the life and testimony of the sainted Rev Richard Wurmbrand, founder of Voice of the Martyrs.

For this reason, I accept with open arms, any one who is just a mere Christian.

Pseudo-Christianity, still salvation by works

 

I am just going to express an observation.

It is evident that in this world, there are those who claim the Bible as authority for their faith. I observed too that these groups do attack the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. It is their common target.

Just a disclaimer: Please note, I do not deem to protect the RCC, I am a classical Evangelical Protestant.

However, they would criticise Roman Catholic practices like praying to the saints, praying the rosary, doing novenas and thousands more. They have claims of its corruption, pointing to how such practices can never be found in Scripture.

In other words, they are bad works not the real work that should be done.

The good works some of them claim go like this... do not eat pork, do not have blood transfusion, worship not on a Sunday but on this day, do not believe Jesus is the divine Son of God, be baptized in our church group,  etc, etc.

In the end, it seems to me, they are saying those RCC works are not the good works you should do but these good works that we have listed, by our group, are the good works you should do to be saved.

Thus, salvation by their teaching, is again by works and not by faith alone through the finished work of Christ alone.

What does John 6: 22-69 teach?

 A few weeks ago, the debate between Drs. James White and Leighton Flowers attracted the ears of Evangelicals frequenting YouTube. This debate gain popularity with commentators chiming in on who did the better between the two. The topic: Does John 6:44 teach unconditional election. James White the Calvinist, says yes, affirmative. Leighton Flowers, a so-called Provisionist, says no, negative. Unconditional Election says that some people have been decreed by God to be saved without condition on anything, and only the good pleasure of God is the basis of this election. Needless to say, the compliment of this is also true, thus some are unconditionally elected to damnation.

Provisionism is relatively new and of course denies every letter of TULIP. It is amazing that many from the Lutheran camp agree with the way Original Sin is formulated in Total Depravity, if formulated at all, as such. Synodical Lutherans agree with TD. This I believe, should not be done.Total Depravity is a misleading idea, it is most often interpreted that man is as evil as he can be which is Manichaean.  Lutherans should stick to the way their confessions define Original Sin, but that is another topic for some day, God willing.

In short the way I find Provisionists is that they seem like fluid on Pelagianism/Semi-Pelagianism, much like the EOs do. They must affirm somewhere that man cannot fulfill the Law but I am not clear on that. I am happy to be educated if they care to comment here.

Here is my exegesis of the passage. Note, no NT Greek required, but will help additionally if investigated. 

The whole context should be John 6: 22-69.

We observe the following:

This was after Jesus performed a miracle feeding the 5,000 people using only 5 bread loaves and 2 small fish. v1-14 

They wanted to make them king, Jesus seeing this, departed from their midst.

The following day, people still looked for him and found him in Capernaum.

The dialogue began between the seekers and Jesus began, v.26-59

Jesus asserted that the reason they were looking for him was not because they believed that He was the sent One from God, but because their stomachs got filled the other day. They sought him not because they saw the signs but because their physical hunger was satisfied. Wait, did they not see how Jesus miraculously multiplied those breads and fish? They saw but did not understand. They skipped the supernatural event and reduced it to the eating of food. Jesus said - the food they are seeking perishes - they go off or get stale but they should labor for the food that endures to life eternal, which He, the Son of Man will give them. v.26-27

Since Jesus spoke about "labor", they asked what shall they do, so that they can work, the works of God. v.28

Jesus' answer is to believe in Him, whom God has sent. The answer is to have faith in Christ Himself, for the bread that lasts until eternity. v.29

But this gets frustrating, because the people once more asked for a sign. Again? What about the miracle that just happened a day or so ago? v.30. Then they went to the OT Scripture, of how Moses fed then manna from heaven. If we recall this went on for years and the manna sustained the Israelites to live through their journed to the promised land, some 40 years. Like saying, Moses did this for us, what about you, eyh?

As per Jesus, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, that was not it, because those who ate it died. Rather, the Father gives to them (now presently) the true bread from heaven that gives life to the world.  Jesus is already pointing them to the spiritual aspect of the miracle He did. 

Nice question on v.34 "Lord give us this bread". Then comes, the I am of Jesus. That he is that bread he speaks about - who comes to him and believes have all his spiritual hunger and thirst satisfied. v.35, Then comes Jesus judgment of them - they have seen Him and yet do not believe v.36. This is true, it is obvious - they keep asking for a sign yet they have seen Him already give then a sign but they wanted more.

v.37 is one of the crucial verses. All that the Father gives to Jesus shall come to Jesus, and those who come to Him, He will never cast away. Does this mean the Father is not giving people to Jesus? If we observe they wanted Jesus's material provision, they are locked into the physical existsence when in fact Jesus is claiming more - He is no Moses but greater than Moses who provides himself as life to the world. Their resistance implies by Jesus' assessment they are not given to Him by the Father. It is not that there is no evidence to back up Jesus claim for their faith, rather the persistent asking for a sign is unbelief. Like so many today, they like what material provisions Jesus can provide but not Jesus claims on their lives. To them that is not on.

But we should skip v.40 and comeback to it later.

Notice in v.41 how they complained - they said, well we know Him, He is the son of Joseph and Mary, we know them. How is it that He says, He came down from heaven? If we could shout to them - hey people - did you not just eat from the miraculous bread and fish? He might be the son of Joseph and Mary but what about that?

The question we should ask is this - is this unbelief due to them or is this unbelief due to God? Is Jesus asking them to believe without evidence?  He performed a sign right? The feeding?

They know the Scriptures - they alluded to Moses' manna. We turn to v.40 seeing the Son and believing in Him, this Jesus gives everlasting life and will be raised by him. They saw him but did not believe him.

Come now to v.44 No one can come to Jesus unless the Father who sent Jesus draws him to Jesus. We look at the parallel of this to v.40. The raising is for those who believe, the one drawn is the one raised. Thus to believe in Jesus is to be drawn by the Father to Jesus. v.45 those who have heard and learned from the Father comes to Jesus, ie believes in Jesus. We see Matt 13:13-15 here. It is not because there is a lack from God but here clearly their hearts have become dull - they wanted Him to be their King, who provides material objects to his people but not the Lord of Glory who quences spiritual hunger and thirst. Remember in this verse, their eyes, they have closed - it is not God who is causing them to be blind. It is their ears being dull, ie they did not take Jesus words seriously. Again, when in doubt about Jesus - consider the miracles of the son of Mary and Joseph. That is the point of why they should have believed.

Based on this - It is a hard climb to prove that John 6:44 is teaching unconditional election. 

Since JW often rejected LF's questions complaining ithey are off topic, I consider this a weakness. As far as I know the one questioning has the right to waste his questions and based on its merits, the audience can decide whether or not the questioner should be taken as a fool or as a serious person. Further, the criticism that LF introduced new arguments for his closing I suspect are sour grape feelings. The reason is that there is no such rule. Whether it is bad form or not is left to the majority of the viewers. In the end, did JW succeed in delivering his mission? I am afraid it fell short.

Is God Behind the Objects of Mathematics?

 

Philosophy was my minor when I was in College. An editor of a journal that examines Christianity and Science has asked me to write a popular level article for them. I though, it would be nice to expose it to laymen, so, if you can understand the gist of this piece, I would tap myself on the back and say, I did not do too bad. It is not a long piece, only 1500 words and can be read in less than 15 minutes. Leave your feedback in the comments below and thank you in advance for it.

Please download the article from here

Is There A Middle Way With UOJ?

 

A few weeks ago, Pr Paul Rydecki (Confessional Lutheran Ministerium) alerted me to his response to Pr Magnus Sørensen's (COELC Superintendent) paper of 2017 entitled "The Justification of Christ as the Efficient Cause of Our Justification - The Narrow Lutheran Middle in the Controversy on Universal Objective Justification". 

Pr Magnus' associate, Pr Jake, a minister of COELC, gave me a link of this paper the first time it came out in 2017. Click the link here. I had a read of this paper and shared it with other ones who also reject UOJ. There Magnus believe that the UOJers are wrong and the JBFA people who are anti-UOJers are wrong too. Somewhere there is a middle view that avoids the two oppossite views. Frankly, the only word that came out of me after reading it was the word - mixed up. I apologise for this word that seems unkind, but I only use it for lack of better word I could find. Now this opinion will not surprize, Magnus. He and I both know that we disagree in many issues and I  was one time overjoyed when there were a couple of issues we agreed. In his paper, we will find a lot of historical context which traces how UOJ meant to be a good thing became bad. So many words have been invested to salvage a problematic teaching in the first place.The crux I think is in the use of this paper of Gerhard (and some from Calov). Specifically, this passage

͞

With respect to the actual absolution from sin. By delivering Christ into death for the sake of our sins, the heavenly Father condemned sin in His flesh through sin (Rom. 8:3). He condemned it because it had sinned against Christ by bringing about His death, even though He was innocent, and so He withdrew from sin its legal right against believers so that it cannot condemn them any longer. He also condemned it, in that He punished our sins in Christ, which were imposed on Him and imputed to Him as to a bondsman. So also, by the very act of raising Him from the dead, He absolved Him from our sins that were imputed to Him, and consequently also absolves us in Him, so that, in this way, the resurrection of Christ may be both the cause and the pledge and the complement of our justification. The following passages pertain to this: 1 Cor. 15:17, 2 Cor. 5:21, Eph. 2:5, Col. 2:12-13, Phil. 3:8-10, 1 Pet. 1:3.

(Gerhard, Johann, Paul A. Rydecki, and Rachel Melvin. Annotations on the first six chapters of St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans: in which the text is stated, troublesome questions are answered, observations are made, and passages that appear to be in conflict are reconciled as concisely as possible: with preface and general prolegomena on the Pauline Epistles by the same author. Malone, TX: Repristination Press, 2014.)

Pr Paul and I are known to each other through the Internet and it is of no mystery of course, that we agree with the judgement that UOJ is not in Scripture. Click his response here. On the side other resources are available to the reader here

1. Pr Rydecki relayed in his paper the great analogy of how OT atonement worked and how in the NT this is exactlty the same as what happens to Christ! I thought this was very insightful, useful and quite edifying. I suggest the reader take a good cue from that exposition.
2. As normally happens in Modern Lutheranism, people appeal to an authority and in this case the authority chosen is Gerhard. I note that Gerhard was not a BoC author, in fact, he was post-Concordian. Meaning, he came to the scene after the BoC. So, what is left when people argue by authority and not by Scripture as prima facie evidence? People wind up spending tons of energy exegeting what the "authority" said - energy meant for the Bible is diverted to energy finding support for one's theory from what an authority said. This is a very Waltherian tradition. Walther was a citation theologian.
3. In the quote above of Gerhard, just by reading, he was addressing the believers, is this not correct? So, how does one take those possessive pronouns like our there? Is this for the whole world? In fact Gerhard used the word 'believer' you can read it there. 
4. Some try to defend the Sørensen paper's UOJ by appealing to Hebrews 7 and 8. This is like grasping at the straws, a kind of hallugenic exegesis, ie seeing things that are not there.
5. The paper in my mind, upholds the authority of Scripture versus popular so-called Lutheran Fathers. See here and realize even the BoC says this.  I side with Rydecki, Gerhard's use of bondsman is not an analogy found in Scripture. The bondsman concept is not found in Romans 4:25. Gerhard was of course trying to be helpful but importing a concept not even in the text does not honor the text but obscures it. In the OT atonement, the sacrificial animal is never treated and does not even come to view, of it being a guarantor. We should not be surprized if a Lutheran theologian in the past, mis-speak, after all they were humans too. Besides who has declared them to be infallible? 

Personally I find Pr Paul Rydecki's paper a great service. I am glad he wrote it. 

So, the answer to the question, is there a middle way with UOJ? Answer: NO

I join Pr Paul in prayer that Pr Magnus might abandon the project of trying to prop up a problematic language on justification. It is not worth it because, its Biblical evidence is weak if not missing.(I heard Pr Magnus has got a modification of his 2017 paper - I'd rather hear it retracted)

 

Semper Virgo and Confessional Commitment

 

Sempler Virgo (Latin for always virgin) is the teaching that the Virgin Mary was a virgin, before, during and after giving birth to Jesus all the way to heaven. Some think this is founded on Scriptural text. Others admit that the Scripture evidence is not decisive, and to believe she maintained her virginity until her death, can be tolerated as pious belief. No doubt, one’s belief in this assertion has nothing to do with one’s justification or salvation. Your eternal destiny has nothing to do with your belief or not in the semper virgo.  It is peripheral to one’s discipleship as a Christian.

It may however impact one’s commitment to a denomination’s hollowed confessional document. I will get to this below but first let’s deal with Scriptural arguments for pro semper virgo and the contra semper virgo.

Pro

It is no doubt readily available to the reader of the NT, that the Gospels speak of Jesus as having brothers and sisters. The NT Greek used is (Greek: ἀδελφοί, translit. adelphoí, lit. "of the same womb"). We see this suggestion in the sample verses: Mk 6:3, Mt 13:55, Mk 3:35, Mt 12:46, Mk 3:31-35, Mt 12:46-50, Lk 8:19-21, Acts 1:14 and so on.

The Pro camp has explained that this usage of adelphoi did not mean the literal physical brothers/sisters of Christ, but they are next of kin, and it is a figurative usage. It is even suggested that these people were cousins of Jesus. Some also suggest that they were stepbrothers of Jesus from Joseph’s previous wife who was then deceased prior to him meeting Mary. For a good summary of the pro position, see here.

Con

Historians have noted that the suggestion of the perpetual virginity of Mary was first observed in a document called proto-evangelium of James, or the Gospel of James (2nd Century). Prior to the papacy, this idea was condemned by Pope Innocent I and Pope Gelasius of the Roman Church.

The argument that Jesus’ “brothers” were actually stepbrothers/sisters of Jesus has to find its justification extra-biblically so, most likely this line of argument will be deemed by critics as something that can be laid aside. The only one standing strongly for the semper virgo is that Jesus’ brothers are his cousins.

Now, here I bear my research out. I believe the weight of Scripture evidence is against semper virgo for the following reasons.

·         No one in the pro position, as far as I have not seen, any exposition on what it was for Joseph to ‘know’ Mary in Mt 1:25 - and ^[i][he] did not know her till she had brought forth her^[j] firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus. Here to know is not a stand-in for information. Bible translations that follow the KJV tradition mean to imply knowing a person, is to know that person intimately. We can see this how the people of Sodom and Gomorrah urged Lot to bring out his guests so they might “know” them. Gen 19:5. And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.

 In other words, using this euphemism, it suggests that Joseph did have intimate relationship with her after Jesus was born, not before birth of Jesus for sure but after his birth, thus making the mention of brothers of Jesus as half-brothers, ie children of Joseph and Mary, sensible. This verse is skipped by the pro position or ignored.

·         The brothers as cousins idea does not cut it too. The word for cousin in NT Greek is ἀνεψιός, anephios. Scholars believe that to name a person a cousin of so and so, NT Greek speakers can also say ‘so and so, the son of …’. This phrasing is readily available to be used but this was not used to describe these relatives of Jesus, anephios was never used.

·          Another idea is the way the KJV translates συγγενεῖς -syngeneis – relatives as cousins. This word again is readily available – St Luke’s Gospel used this word a couple of times, but did not use it if the truth is that these are Jesus’ cousins. Yet, St Luke used brothers – see Luke 8:20-21.

·         Because of the above couple of points and the balance of probability of language usage, they mitigate against the belief that the Virgin Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born.

 

So now we come to the issue of one’s confessional subscription. What is its implication to you?

1.      If you are Lutheran, then you must contend with this issue. If you believe in quia subscription to the Book of Concord, it includes the Smalcald Articles and there in Luther’s own writing in Latin – Part I, Article 4, and (the Son) was born of the pure, holy, and ever Virgin Mary. Some Smalcald translations do it his way:    and was born of the pure, holy [and always] Virgin Mary. I do not know why they have to bracket this part, is it because there is a German version of Smalcald that does not have this?

2.       If you are Calvinistic/Reformed, your confession says this as well.  2^nd Helvetic Confession, Chapter XI has this part referring to our Lord … but was most chastely conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the ever-virgin Mary. Calvin also believed in the semper virgo, in fact, this statement is just an echoing of his Mariology. Calvin believed in the cousin argument.

 During the Reformation, the Reformers were dealing with the major reform issues at that time - it is Justification and so they did not have enough time to bother with and re-visit secondary issues. They went along with some unquestioned (at that time) side beliefs. They had a bigger fish to fry - how is a man made right with God.

There is a constant challenge to a person who is following Jesus and this is right there until he is taken home by his Lord - will he follow His Word where ever it may lead him?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What a Christian Disciple can learn from Mathematicians

 

My real formal training was in Math. I do have an earned PhD in it and I must say from a reputable university too ( it is now in the top 50 of world rankings).  I did have some theological education from a university (not seminary) on Religious Studies where I configured my program to study the Biblical Languages. However, this is only for 2 years or so. 

I have more years doing computer science and math studies; probably more than 10+ years all together.

Mathematicians build models. A model is a mechanism, ie a structure whose aim is to describe a phenomena that happens in the world. These models may be composed of objects and if you are an applied mathematician (there are two types, applied and pure - I belong to the latter), it has systems of equations. For pure mathematicians, our models are varied and we use the word 'model' more fluidly. In a nutshell - it will have objects, some rules, it is more abstract - so we have theories - like set theory/number theory/algebraic theory etc etc. What we can do with a model is ask it to predict or we can interrogate it and reason with it and it comes back with an answer.

So let say there is a phenomena P we want to model the said phenomena. Now various mathematicians will approach P in their own style and insight and they will come up with various models. So, we can have several models - we can call them M1, M2, M3 etc. Now which one should we choose?

Well, the one you MUST/SHOULD choose is the model that has the most explanatory power. In other words it is the model which is a depiction of the world that explains and reasons about as many questions you can make on it.

There is a famous Christian mathematician from Britain, named Prof Dr John Lennox of Oxford. You can hear Lennox saying you should believe in God, why? Because to posit the existence of God explains our world, our life, death, existence etc It provides the highest explanatory power besides it also common sensical to believe God exists too.

We can apply this in theology. For example we have the Bible and the world. We draw theology from the Bible - these theologies work like the mathematician's models. We can look at these theologies as models - they offer an explanation what is being described by the Bible in relation to the world.

So, which theology should we work from? Well, the one that offers the highest explanatory power within the confines of Scripture. In Christianity there are many schools of thought, Calvinism, Arminianism, Lutheranism, those w no school name, Covenantal Theology, Testamental Theology etc - you name it.

Which one should one take seriously? The one that produces and describes extensively the Biblical data.

But note, Justification By Faith Alone - is the hub all of one's theology. When the central article of the Christian faith is weakened or results in an assault, something went wrong.  

Personally, I worry less on Systematic Theology, I prefer and give priority to Biblical/Exegetical Theology. 

Sometimes Christmas is “boring”.

 

I am sure you got a bit of shock at me, a confessing Christian saying that. That sounds unbecoming, doesn’t it? Further my family will be surprised too at me saying this – because I taught my kids some Christmas traditions which I got from my mother and grandparents. As young boy, I looked forward to Christmas Eve the time we celebrate it because where I grew up, I was surrounded by cousins, and it was a lot of fun when the older ones help in what mom and grandma were cooking – and we did have plenty of food. Some of our dishes we only cook exclusively during Christmas Eve, and you do not have them unless it is Christmas or very special occasion. So, wait – do not judge the blog post by its title.

Yeah, it is strange for me to say Christmas is “boring”.

I get bored with the commercialization of Christmas and how the world pushes us to focus on the buying of products so that we can give gifts. In a sense of course, giving is part of Christian virtue. However, today in the West, we are driven to buy many products which are probably going to be kept in the closet unused. It becomes a problem as to what gift you think you should buy for your relatives and friends because you wonder what it is, they still do not have. Also, feasting produces stress and pressure too, the preparation heightens tiredness and thins the patience.  Of course, all of these are FB photo opportunities to post on our FB, but if we be honest – it feels empty. At least that is how I sometimes feel.

It feels empty because we allowed the commercial companies to high jack our precious meaning of OUR Christmas. Did you know that retail companies obtain 30% of their yearly revenue at Christmas time. Try taking away Christmas and you got a fight in front of you, these companies will side with Christians, I can predict – and it is because they get money out of Christmas. Just imagine if we stop celebrating Christmas like we do now – how many tree planters go out of business, how many groceries will struggle, how many butchers will have a dull year, how many people will not have a job! We have allowed the commercial world to dictate to us how we ought to celebrate Christmas and I rebel against that.

I can tell you this was not how the early Christians celebrated Christmas. To them Christmas was the birth of their King.

Luke 2:11

Today in the city of David a Savior has been born to you. He is Christ the Lord!

 Christmas to the early Christians had to do with Sin and Salvation. I read they spend time reflecting and repenting. Repenting? That is something the companies don’t know about – focus on the products and the good time. Careful what we teach our children, we might be building the character of entitlement in them by leading them to expect presents and tons of them.

The early Christians celebrated the simplicity of the gift – the Lord in the flesh – It is all about Jesus. It is not about the presents – it is about the person – Jesus. The real gift of God to us.

 

 

If you are an anti-Calvinist, you must be Arminian? Huh?

 

[Updated - Dec 16, 2023]

There is a common misconception in Evangelicalism that when you write or say something against Calvinism - aha, you must be an Arminian.

Calvinists assume this to be so. In fact, Arminians think this to be so too! They think you are one of them when you oppose Calvinism.

What a false dichotomy fallacy! 

This post is meant to correct this impression - by tracing the situation via history.

Calvinists are quite quick to assume that there is no one else who opposes them except Arminians. Arminius we can recall was the Reformed minister who kicked back against 5 points of Calvinism.

For example, let's take R. H. Lenski - a famous Lutheran NT Scholar well respected by other non-Lutheran who wrote a compelling commentary on Romans 9, which rejects and assails the way Calvinists interpret this to support their decretal/unconditional predestination. Many recognize the formidability of Lenski as an NT Exegete that even the Calvinist Apologist Dr. James White had to write a rebuttal of Lenski's exegesis proving Calvinists exegesis wrong  here. 

Some Calvinist mis-identity Lenski as Arminian - see that here

Furthermore, Arminians love to take Lenski as their own, since he fought Calvinism. In fact even US Synodical Lutherans from LC-MS/WELS/ELS etc who hate Lenski because he rejects their Universal Objective Justification, label him to be Arminian too, not Lutheran! 

Arminianism is a boogey man word. If you want to denigrate a theological opponent, just identify the person as Arminian! Calvinists often resort to straw-man propaganda labelling them as Pelagians or Semi-Pelagians which Arminius, a highly researched theologian, was unlikely to be unfamiliar with these positions. 

Needless to say, Lenski a well respected NT Exegete from the Lutheran camp is loved by Arminians to point as their champion too. See the Theology section of the Wiki article about Lenski here, where there are those who identify him as Arminian.

I read most of R H Lenski's commentary and I don't think he will appreciate being mislabeled and not thought about as Lutheran.

I had a discussion with someone of an Arminian persuasion and I was puzzled why by history and shear evolution of thought why there is reluctance to give credit to where credit is due - that Arminius must have been influence of those who went before - the Lutherans.

Thankfully, I was helped by Arminians who do credit the Lutherans who influenced Arminius with proofs I link below. HT: Andrew David

If you are one of those who would like to make Arminius as an original thinker, here are the facts:

1. The Lutherans have been opposed to Calvinism even before the Arminians came to the scene.  The earliest opposition from Lutherans that can be traced is from 1570.
2. The Lutherans wrote about Calvinism even before the Book of Concord was signed - 1580.
3. Jakob Andrea, a co-editor of the BoC cross "swords" with Theodore Beza, who was Arminius' senior in the university where Arminius studied.
4. Jacob Arminius came to the scene in 1610, that is 1 generation away from 1570.
5. Jacob Arminius claimed that he was influenced by a Danish Lutheran - Neils Hemmingsen and read the writings of Melanchton the author of Augsburg Confession. Here are references to this connection:
1.  Something for Arminius Geeks
2.  The Doctrine of Prevenient Grace in the Theology of Jacobus Arminius

First, argue from Scripture not from your Confession

 

I spoke to a prominent pastor the other day. He said that he does not go anymore to those FB discussion forums and do not engage in those forums anymore. The reason? He said, they do not prove their position from Scripture. Rather, they quote what some Reformation Fathers said and so on. Thus, no exposition from Scripture as to why their position is sound and reasonable.  This is a fallacious position to be in, because this is arguing from authority as if that authority is not human and infallible like us. In Latin, it is called argumentum ab auctoritatis.

This is frustrating because it is no trying to convince you of what Scripture directly says but rather what some teacher in the past that enjoyed respect says. Hence, the argument goes this way - he ( the so called Father)  believed so and so, therefore, you should believe in so and so, like me.

In the Book of Concord (BoC) we have this in FC, SD X, 

Comprehensive Summary, Foundation, Rule and Norm (Source: https://bookofconcord.org/solid-declaration/rule-and-norm/ )

1. First [, then, we receive and embrace with our whole heart] the Prophetic and Apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the pure, clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true standard by which all teachers and doctrines are to be judged. (Source: https://bookofconcord.org/solid-declaration/rule-and-norm/#sd-ruleandnorm-0003 )

If you are true to your so called confession, that you confess the BoC, then quoting the BoC first is something you should not do, rather you need to prove from Scripture first and judge it from all teachings and doctrines. By this, the BoC writers submitted themselves under the authority of Scripture. So, should you.

Yet some hold their confession like the BoC as another "scripture" as another Talmudic book. It is a misuse of this document and an abuse as well.

Intuitu Fidei, once more

 

In this post, we will have some more clarifying statements as to what this phrase further means. To get the Scriptural context why this blog agrees with the ideas embedded in this phrase, you can find the justification in this post here.

Aside from 2 Thes 2:13-14   

13 But we are [a]bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through [b]sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth

We have also 1 Peter 1:2 

elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: 

We have a curious phrase here which is both used by St Peter and St Paul in their writings - through sanctification of/by the Spirit. What could this mean? I suggest that to be sanctified in the Spirit is to have faith in Christ for the forgiveness of sins - John 15:26 says He is the spirit of truth and Jesus says sanctification is by God's Truth - the Word - John 17:17 and faith only comes through the word of Christ  ie Law and Gospel.

Intuitu Fidei (IF) stand for in view of faith. This is a quick thumb slogan which sometimes is bound to be misunderstood. This position says God elects us in view of faith. Some Arminians think that this means we are elected for the sake of faith ( faith per se or itself as a thing). This is not what Evangelical Lutherans mean, ie the Old Orthodox Lutherans. Properly speaking they actually want to say in view of Christ's merit apprehended by faith. By this they mean to say that we are not elect by virtue of faith itself, but that which faith hangs on which is the merit of Christ ie the work and person of Christ to which faith grasps. They want to say that faith is not a meritorious property in us, but it is an instrumental cause, it grasps what is promised by the Gospel in which it addresses the demands of the Law. This is the same as what happens in Justification happens in Election/Predestination.

Because Justification and Predestination are two sides of the same coin of Salvation, we cannot have the first to be by faith and the latter to be without faith, meaning without condition ie by decree or decreetal unconditional election. The two will contradict and will rob us of the comfort of the Gospel. If it happens to be illogical only because it is contrary to the whole teaching of Scripture on the subject. IF thus say that means Election in this sense is conditioned on faith in Christ. Thus this negated decreetal/unconditional election. The best passage alluded by Calvinists for this unconditional election is in Romans 9, yet the whole argument of St Paul there pertains to the people of Israel not for every individual per se. In fact we never see in Scripture Esau serving Jacob, in fact it was reverse in that Jacob prepared gifts to his brother Jacob, even referring to himself as his servant. We see Edom, the descendants of Esau indeed subservient to Israel. Clearly as given above 1 Peter 1:2 along w Romans 8:28-29, God's foreknowledge comes first prior to predestination/election. This is something that is missed in the study of this subject.

Incidentally, many out of ignorance and specially Calvinists themselves and modern Evangelicals today think that if someone opposes Calvinism, he/she must be an Arminian. Let's correct this ignorance. For example, the famous Lutheran NT Scholar and respected Exegete - R H Lenski who was definitely anti-Calvinist, is often mis-identified as Arminian, of which of course, Arminians love to own him too. Not true.

Arminianism sprouted as a reaction to Supralapsarian Calvinism of Besa roughly 1610. The Lutherans have been rejecting Calvinism much earlier than that about 1550. In fact Arminius gave a hint that he might have been influenced in his ideas by a Danish Lutheran, Niels Hemingsen. This is the reason why I often suggest that Arminius must have picked up much of the critique of Calvinism from Lutherans.

The point of IF is that election is IN Christ, or if you will the Lord Jesus is the Elect One/ the Chosen One. That is where it happens. Since no one is in Christ unless we have faith IN Him then faith is the instrument of Election as it is the same instrument for Justification.

This is best articulated by Johann Gerhard (emphasis mine).

The good pleasure of the will of God according to which election took place, does not exclude Christ. Because Christ does not become ours except through faith (in his Gospel) therefore, the consideration of faith is a constituent part of election.

...

...

To teach that the view of faith is a constituent part of the decree of election is not Pelagianism, for the Pelagians taught that election took place according to foreseen faith as a certain merit and as a work of natural powers of freewill, in which sense our pious (Lutheran) fathers when disputing with Pelagians justly denied that election took place for the sake of faith or from faith. But we teach that faith is a gracious gift of God and not a merit but a means through which we appropriate Christ for whose sake election took place

Reference: I believe I took this from R H Lenski's part of Errors in Missouri book. Apologies for not tracking the specifics of this.

Reformed, did you know the origin of this term?

Did you know that the word "reformed" was used by the BoC as another label meant to describe the original Evangelical reformers?

Yes, if we look into the Book of Concord we will see it being owned by the Evangelicals (and by this term, the Lutherans, who in the first place did not call themselves, Lutherans, but Evangelicals).

This is taken from the Triglota version of the BoC. Namely, in the chapter named - Formula of Concord - Solid Declaration, Rule and Standard look at paragraph 5]3...

"...we confess also the First, Unaltered Augsburg Confession as our symbol for this time, not because it was composed by our theologians, but because it has been taken from God’s Word and is founded firmly and well therein, precisely in the form in which it was committed to writing, in the year 1530, and presented to the Emperor Charles V at Augsburg by some Christian Electors, Princes, and Estates of the Roman Empire as a common confession of the reformed churches, whereby our reformed churches are distinguished from the Papists and other repudiated and condemned sects and heresies, after the custom and usage of the early Church, whereby succeeding councils, Christian bishops and teachers appealed to the Nicene Creed, and confessed it [publicly declared that they embraced it]".

The word Reformed was referred by Lutherans to themselves. Now I wonder what happened that they lost that label? By history then, this is the first label high jacked from them. Looks like there is always a habit of originating helpful concepts in theology and then relinquishing them to those who disagreed with them.

For example, the "solas" were coined by Lutherans first. Then the others who rally against RCC, have adopted these "solas", though badly mis-applied and mis-understood. 

The last one, the word Evangelical. This is now lost out of the Lutherans. Yet, this is the preferred term they self-identified with. Today, Lutherans now negate and deny they could have happened if the Lutherans in an irenic manner, engaged with non-denominational Christians who identified themselves as "Evangelicals" and taught them what that means. Unfortunately they are not looked at by Lutherans as Christians that need to work with. Rather, the Lutherans blame and demonize them. Rather than influencing them, Lutherans, retreated into their mud puddle.  This a bit sad, because like an Older/Big Brother, Lutherans could have been a great lead in the growth of Western Protestant movement. To go back to the "solas", we all know non-Lutherans are puzzled why Lutherans can teach "sola fide'" and yet assert "baptism saves". They do not know how these two are compatible. Perhaps had the Lutherans been out going to modern-day "evangelicals" by first considering them as Christians needing leadership and understanding, something like what the first disciples through Priscilla and Aquila (see Acts 18:26)   did to Apollos, perhaps things would have been different.

Thanks for hearing me talk out loud.

Heads-Up: In the next posts, the Lord willing - I will do a series of clarification on "Intuitu Fide" and further critique of Walther/Waltherianism.

  

 

Being infected by Neo-Lutheranism

N

 

Neo-Lutheranism, which we will define later, is still going on in those who identify themselves as Lutheran today. To know if you have been infected by it, it is more interesting to test yourself honestly how you would answer the checklist questions below.

1.       Do you/your pastor, romanticize the past? Is there nostalgia, the longing, the sigh that everything good about Christianity happened in the past? This is akin to thinking of the life of your parents when they lived the happy days of 1930-1960 when things were pristine and simple but do this now to your faith.

2.       Do you/your pastor, get into vestment debates? Is there quibbling when it came to the proper attire to use when mounting the pulpit or taking the divine service? Is the alb to be preferred over the Geneva gown?

3.       Do you/your pastor treat the Book of Concord as another authoritative Scripture? Yet your pastor confesses more than what is in the BoC eg like getting into the proper view of church fellowship w other Lutherans or non-Lutheran Christians?

4.       Do you/your pastor rally over the proper form of the liturgy? Do they quibble with the way a section of it is worded or sequenced ie the concern for the form/formality rather than what is going on in the heart? Another example of this is arguing or insisting what is clearly Scripturally an adiaphora, a non-adiaphora.

5.       Do you/your pastor emphasize the Sacraments over the exposition of the Word? Normally this happens when the pastor preaches on a text that speaks no where of Baptism or the Lord’s Supper and then suddenly, he inserts either of these in his sermon. Another, are you ok with your pastor preaching abysmal sermons (or no sermons at all) so long as you get the Lord’s Supper for Sunday?

6.       Do you/your pastor treat your Synod as the visible church? Is there comfort/confidence you are in the right group? Do you think the distinction between visible and invisible church is not important? This is demonstrated in not emphasizing conversion.

7.       Additionally, as my observation, do you/your pastor emphasize Universal Objective Justification – the belief that all (whatsoever) are already declared forgiven/justified in Christ 2000 years ago, without reference to repentance/faith etc.

 

If you have been brutally truthful in answering these questions with a “YES”, then I am afraid you have been infected by Neo-Lutheranism to a smaller or greater degree.

 

Is it bad? Look at the above questions, are they Biblical positions to stand on? The Bible tells us to pick the good and throw the bad but anything that seemed good done in extreme to the detriment of other good things becomes excessively bad too. Scripture should limit how far we go. St Paul says to test everything and hold fast to what is good, which implies drop what is bad, see 1 Thes 5:21.

 

Neo-Lutheranism is a movement back in 19^th century which is a reaction to rationalism and pietism. Sometimes this is called German-Puseyism. What happened to Anglicanism has happened to Lutheranism when the Oxford Movement came to the first. It is still happening as we speak.

 

The Oxford Movement’s aim is to align Anglicanism to the Roman Catholic Church because it has become too plain or ordinary, the famous proponent of this is John Henry Newman, which as we have seen eventually went to being a Roman Catholic cleric.  In this movement, we see prominent characters, the one leading the way is C. F. W. Walther with well-known ones like Adolf Hoenecke and Johann Löhe. There were more, see the link.

 

I am sure those in the Neo-Lutheranism did not willingly know or advocate going to Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy but the above leads to those camps eventually. If you have known ministers who went to those bodies perhaps, they carried their Neo-Lutheranism to one of these results. Ideas do have consequences. There is a way the seems right to a man but the end of it is death Prov 14:12.

 

Any man, no matter how he has been respected by others can never be more respected than Scripture.