That is not exactly how it happened.

UPDATED May 28, 2020
CONTINUATION OF https://extranos.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-validity-of-lutheran-online.html

During communion, does your pastor go to each of you and distribute to you the bread and wine? I must say, this is a lovely gesture, comforting and very touching. Frankly, I like the way this is done. It is orderly and efficient.

However, that is not what happened during the Last Supper.

There is this notion going on that for the Sacrament of Communion to be valid, it must be done the same way as the Lord did it, if not, the Sacrament is not valid.

People of this belief (I would say, mistaken), believe that the distribution the way their pastor is doing it, must be observed or else the Communion Sacrament loses its significance and validity.

To show that it is not the way it happened in the Last Supper – the accounts of this is found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The sequencing is slightly different with Luke 22: 14-23. The point is that these happened and the bread and wine got consumed,

Jesus Institutes the Lord’s Supper

¹⁴ When the hour had come, He sat down, and the ^[b]twelve apostles with Him. ¹⁵ Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; ¹⁶ for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”

¹⁷ Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; ¹⁸ for I say to you, ^[c]I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

¹⁹ And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

²⁰ Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. ²¹ But behold, the hand of My betrayer is with Me on the table. ²² And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”

²³ Then they began to question among themselves, which of them it was who would do this thing.

If we look at the order here, it is different from how it is done in the churches. For example, here, the distribution of the wine came first. You must be accustomed to the bread being the first to be distributed. However, this is not the case here.

Now to defend the notion that how so many of us have been doing it the way the bread first and then the wine second, people have appealed to master exegetes. One of which is R. H. Lenski. We will focus on v.17 & 20.

Here is what Lenski says of the above passage. Lenski explains that what Jesus was going through was part and parcel of the Jewish Passover sequence which is made of 10 phases. He makes it appear that there are several cups in this Passover. Truly, when Lenski describes what was happening in that passage you can almost see Lenski being there in that scene. For Lenski, there was an entirely different cup – he says “This was an entirely different cup (v.20), one that was passed after the Passover dining had been concluded”.

Now many exegetes think so too – that there were several cups, but and there is a big but – there are those equally in number who do not cozy up with Lenski. For one, Lenski imports too much extra Biblical information, meaning OUTSIDE the Bible to make his case.

For example, we do not have any information from Luke that this or that is the way they did the Passover. Also, if your knowledge of the Passover is post Temple destruction, then that Is Rabbinic and it is an anachronistic reading of Scripture. The safest method is to stick what Scripture says and not make any suspicious notions into Scripture.

Lenski is engaging in argument from silence. Let’s not be shocked, he was after all human too.

If at all, we can assume the same cup is what was used by Jesus in v 17 and v. 20. Why do I say this? It is because then N/KJV translates it as “Likewise, he took THE cup”, which cup, “THE cup” in v.17.

Indeed, other exegetes come on my side too. For example, Norval Geldenhuys – The New International Commentary on the New Testament – Luke. Alternatively, Walter Leifeld – The Expositor’s Bible Commentary – Luke – argues for multiple cups but comes out that the cup in v 17 and v 20 is the same cup, third cup of the Passover Both of these exegetes come down to this point – it is the consumption of the bread and wine – that was the point for the Supper. The sequencing is not the point, the consumption is!

At last Adam Clarke, conceded – the way we do communion in sequence is not necessarily the same as we do it today. Look it up yourself – it is in Volume III, Clarke’s Commentary.
Here is what he says...

"It does not appear that our Lord handed either the bread or the cup to each person; he gave it to him who was next to him, and by handling it from one to another, they shared it among themselves, ver. 17. IN THIS RESPECT THE PRESENT MODE OF ADMINISTERING THE LORD'S SUPPER IS NOT STRICTLY ACCORDING TO THE ORIGINAL INSTITUTION." 

So the point of my article - is this - Anti-Lutheran Online Communion (LOC) people have no right to put down LOC people's communion saying theirs is invalid because that is not the way the Lord instituted the Supper, when in fact the Anti-LOC are also not administering the Sacrament the way it was instituted either! What is true for the gander is true for the goose. Jesus did not go around doing what Lutheran and other sacramental pastors are doing, handing the bread and wine to one after another.

Another take away here is this – if you insists that for communion to be valid it has to be the SAME way the Lord has done it – according to your opinion, then you miss the POINT of Holy Communion!

The Validity of Lutheran Online Communion

I am writing this out of concern for the spiritual nourishment of Christians. Jesus said to Peter several times, feed my lamb, feed my sheep. If you love Christ, you will feed Christ’s sheep. Not to feed Christ’s sheep is not to love Christ – John 21:17.

This corona-virus crisis is opening up many cans of worms, not only economic issues but religious as well. It looks like Lutherans will be deprived of Holy Communion for as long as social distancing is required. To me, a fortnight without communion is a disastrous situation already.  Yet it seems some ministers with a point of view are willing for their flock to starve of this part of the means of grace which God has given to the Church as a gift, for nourishment. Some even argue that this is a forced fast for God’s people – forced fast! Worth repeating, God does not want you to have communion, that is your fast? If you are not shocked by this, forgive me for being more sensitive than you. If there is someone who does not like you to avail of the means of grace, it is the devil, I’d say.

So I go now to this issue of Online Communion.  Is it valid?

If you confront a thinking Lutherans and ask them if they believe the Word is efficacious, of course, you will not catch them denying that the Word of God is effective. The self-same Christian would likely have listened to a sermon in their podcast or even on YouTube. They, no one would doubt, believe anyone could get save through such a broadcast, but …

If a minister conducts an online communion – this is a no-no. I wonder if they think all online communions are the same, to be rejected.

There is one thing to affirm in theory the efficacy of the Word, but it is astounding if it is also hypocritically denied in practice.

Let me give a scenario. You attend A Skype or Zoom service broadcast. You put the bread and wine close to your device and the minister when it is time now for the Lord’s Supper, the minister reads out the Words of Institution for consecration ,you then partake of bread/body, wine/blood of Christ. Let is add further that before he consecrates, he gives a warning of not eating the bread and wine unworthily.

Many so-called Lutherans who claim orthodoxy say this is off.  As if the old orthodox Lutherans anticipated the issues presented by the Internet!

Lutherans who oppose Online Communion present a couple of BoC passages to assail the validity of an Online Communion performed by other Lutheran pastors. 

https://logia.org/logia-online/the-impossibility-of-online-administration-of-the-lords-supper2020
Before diving to respond to this post, I must commend Pless's for not importing any other personality's arguments into the discussion. I guess he well knows that we are not obliged to subscribe to people's opinions because to a Lutheran only Scripture counts and guided exposition form the BoC, the Confessions. That is all.

I will group them into two:

a.)     Solid Declarations VII,75, 79 and 85-88

b.)    SmallCald Articles  II, II 8-9

I will deal with them one by one but be warned about me, I do not consider the BoC at par with Scripture, I only have OT and the NT as authoritative source, so the BoC is not another Talmudic document for me.

To find out if the quotes from the BoC are sound to throw down online communion by Lutheran, we need to do exegesis of the BoC text the anti-onliners present.

Note: The BoC was written in a certain context. Here they are,  so please get a copy of your BoC and read the references for yourself. I am using Tappert’s translation.

a.)     SD  VII, 75,79, 85-88. Here also we will focus on the word “distribution” because the anti-onliners say this is not what is happening in Lutheran online communion. Let us see how this idea is mentioned there.

1.       SD VII, 75,79 Context: The Sacramentarians – you see this word mentioned. Who are they? These were Lutherans who deny Romanist transubstantiation and the Lutheran sacramental union, so Calvinistic in other words. This text asserts that as bread and wine are presented, and are being distributed and are being consumed the body and blood of the Lord is there. Let me ask the question, do Calvinist distribute the elements?  They do. It asserts the Word of Institution is efficacious and remains effective at the presentation, distribution, and consumption. It states “Christ himself is still active through the spoken words by virtue of the first institution, which he wants to be repeated”. When did his first institution happen? 2000 years ago at the Upper Room! A recording?  Sounds like it even is. The online communion Lutheran ministers do repeat the Words of Institution and the argument using this BoC passage is red herring, Further, there is no mention of a legalistic manner the elements are to be handled.

2.       SD VII, 85-88: Context: The Romanist practice of the mass. Note it is deflecting the idolatrous misuses and perversion of the Supper. Here it mentions the “actions”: the consecration or words of institution, the distribution, and reception [of the elements]. Now here “distribution” is used, what did this mean? It is even explained! Further on in 87, it explains the Papistic abuse of NOT DISTRIBUTING the entire elements of bread and wine. Let’s read it “Apart from this use it is not to be deemed a sacrament, as when the papistic Mass the bread is not distributed (ie not given to communicants) but is offered up, or locked up, or carried about etc.” As a former RC kid I know this – it is called Eucharistic Adoration.

Let’s pause. Are not the complete bread and wine available for the communicant in an online communion? They are!  Do the communicants worship the elements after consecration? No. Thus they are distributed in their above context. Again these BoC passages do not hit the target against Lutheran Online Communion. Further, there is no legalistic manner how this is to occur, that is not the point as well. For example, it does not say here that the pastor has to physically shove the bread to the communicant’s mouth. Or is there a rule that once the wafer or bread is in the mouth, it is not to touch the communicant’s palate.

c.)     SmallCald Articles  II, II 8-9: Context: Romanists Mass: As a RC kid, I knew very well that the priest practiced private mass for themselves. But the Lutheran Online Communion is not a mass. That is the first point. In fact, some Lutheran ministers do not raise the host to avoid the conception it is a sacrifice offered to God. Secondly, the communicant is not alone. For in a broadcasted communion, with the elements present in the locality of the communicant all consume at the same time – they are separated by space, but not in time – they are not alone. To say they are is being dishonest and they do not know what they criticize.
a
As for the possibility that the communicant may unworthily discern the body and blood of Christ, the Online Pastor can preface before the Word of Institution some warning words to that effect. So that issue can also be mitigated.

It has to be some sleight of hand to tell the believers that the orthodox Lutherans prescribed a legalistic manner of administrating and consuming the Supper elements. It is also a misconception to think that one has to re-create to the letter every element of the Maundy Thursday Upper Room scenario to make the Supper valid. Moreover, this stems from following some human tradition or interpretation which we know is another idol. Jeremiah 17:5.

In the end, it boils down to believing if the Word is efficacious even over the Internet or not.

This coronavirus has already deprived many of life and livelihood. It has already given people suffering, the believer should not be given unnecessary further deprivation of a vital element given by the Lord to his disciples for the furthering of their faith – the Supper.

When an adiaphora is no longer an adiaphora

What is an adiaphora in Christianity? They are  ceremonies or rites which are neither commanded nor forbidden in God's Word, with a good intention to promote good order and propriety, or for discipline.

When someone makes an adiaphora no more an adiaphora but a dogma, an item by which a Christian is judged as being bad for not complying, then you got a cult in the making.

In Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, it urges the Christian to resists such imposition of an adiaphora as dogma. You can see this in Chapter X in relation to the Romanists/ Papist as the context of this imposition.

Is someone imposing something to you which is an adiaphora? You need to fight it, rather than yield to it.

The only safe place ... to be happy

Put it this way, if you struggle in life, week in and week out, when you even have to hassle for the air you breathe, when life's problems bog you down, day in and day out, would you not like to unload your sadness and pain one way or another?

Once we understand the core behind Gospel Spiritual Songs is lamentation, perhaps we would not be so quick to frown what goes on in their churches.

To some, this is the only safe place for them to feel happy, even for a couple of hours. Where would you like them to be happy? In a bar, in the sport's field? What better place for them to have it but in an inspirational environment where the promises of God are talked about and pass around.

I get you, and I understand - and I say, may God bless you.

Intuitu Fidei is just alright with me

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this post, in fact in this blog, are not necessarily shared by my friends or anyone associated with me.

Many readers of my blog, are aware of my dislike for C F W Walther. While many hail him at par with Luther, I would probably spit on his gravy. I blame him for the division and lack of comradery present in our circle. I am so repulsed by the effect of his works that I do not credit him with anything. In this post (which is long), I will outline why I am good with Intuitu Fidei. If you are familiar with Walther, then you would probably know how he stirred up controversy in  mid 1800 with his adaptation of the Calvinistic view of Unconditional Predestination.

The Book of Concord historically accounted that there were NO CONTROVERSY among the Augsburg Theologians on the issue of predestination. You will find this stated in BoC SD, XI.1. Yet Walther and his group ventured into it and even introduced the controversy in the late 1800s in the USA. This can be found in the tract published by Concordia Publishing House entitled The Doctrine Concerning Predestination Presented in Question and Answers with Preface and Conclusion by C F W Walther, translated by J. Humberger. As can be understood by the Preface, this tract contains the Walther's position on Predestination.

The gist is this. The Waltherian position tries to assert the single predestinarian view of the BoC at the same time adhered to the Calvinistic understanding of predestination in terms of God's Decrees. The glaring example is found in Q. 24.

Q.24. Has God in this His counsel, purpose and ordination prepared the salvation of His
children in general only?
A. No: in this counsel, purpose, and ordination God has mercifully considered also all and
each person of the elect, who will ultimately be saved through Christ, has elected them to
salvation, and DECREED, that in the manner now mentioned He will, through His grace,
gifts, and operation, BRING THEM TO THIS SALVATION, ASSIST THEM IN IT,
PROMOTE IT, AND STRENGTHEN AND PRESERVE THEM. [714,6.] [italics, theirs, not mine]

There are more I could site but space and time forbids me right now. Nevertheless, further on, this position of decreetal predestination is defended by Walther in the Conclusion.
If I may say, it is precisely this decreetal predestination is exactly why I could not be part of the Presbyterian Church I attended for 4 years, even though I had a great relationship with the people there especially with the Pastor. I could not sign the Westminster Confession of Faith. For in the WCF, you will read this in Chapter 3 points 2 & 3 below.

2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions;
yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, as that which would come
to pass, upon such conditions.
3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are
predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.the 

Many people know Calvinism to have the 5 points - TULIP. I won't spend so much time but there is one letter there that locks you to Calvinism, once you admit it. It is the U - unconditional election/predestination. Calvinism is like an interlocking jigsaw piece and also like a domino, if you grant U, you must accept the other letters because it is the underpinning logic that holds L, I and P. Hence, you must accept Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perserverance of the Saints. Further, if you believe in decreetal predestination, then you would have to explain if your view is supra, infra or sub-lapsarian. I will leave that to the reader to research and find the meaning of these theological terms. In my view, supra-lapsarian is the only logical choice all the other views are just a cowardly attempt to deny the sharp teaching of what this decreetal predestinarian doctrine.

So if you are a Lutheran and agrees with decreetal predestination, could you explain what lapsarian idea do you bring? My best wishes with that.

When Walther and his followers introduced this position into US Lutheranism, naturally there were those who saw it for what it was - Calvinism in Lutheran garb. The anti-Waltherians charged them of Calvinism and proceeded to explain that the Lutheran position is that of the old Lutheran theologians BoC and post-Boc some of which were even alive when they fought the Calvinism surrounding them. To name a few, they were Chytraeus, Andreae, Koerner, Hunnius, Hutter, Gerhard etc. Their position was that God elected in view of faith, or with the foresight of faith. This is called the Intuitu Fidei, which is a formula adopted by the BoC and Post-BoC Lutherna Fathers. Indeed these Fathers claim that Sola Fide and Intuitu Fidei go hand in hand that speaks of the same Gospel truth. Many I have come across start with Predestination. Yet that is not what the Scripture says.

The starting point of Predestination is Foreknowledge. This is found in Romans 8:28. What  they mean is that faith in Christ is not an after effect of predestination but the very means that justifies and thus itself that predestinates. So to be pedantic, Intuitu Fidei means "elect in view of Christ's merit apprehended by faith". Now some allergic to the mention of faith, will immediately retort, but faith is a work! So you are predestined by a good work in you, so they will counter.In fact the pro-Waltherian camp charged the anti-Waltherians of Pelagianism by foiling this strawman which Calvinists also do. It is black propaganda, a smear campaign, we old folk should not fall for. So the pro-Waltherians and Calvinists are in league sleeping on the same bed, so to speak.I find this suspiciously amazing.

Dear friends, we have already in this blog proved that if ever we Scripture see it talking about saving faith in Christ, if ever we are justified by faith in Christ, St Paul says in Romans 4:16, if it is by faith, by definition, it is of grace. So the Lutheran Fathers cannot be charged with making faith a work in formulating Intuitu Fidei. This is the antidote to Roman salvation by works versus Calvinistic arbitrary fix grace. What the Fathers were saying is that faith is not a meritorious condition but nevertheless a condition present and which we know is produced by the HS through the Means of Grace. The condition of faith is considered in so far as it takes hold and embraces Christ work and person in the foreknowing of God. Just imagine if God foreknew you, what are those he knew about you, they would be infinite categories of items about you..

At any rate, nothing can be better than proving from Scripture that Intuitu Fidei is Scriptural. I make no originality of this, rather I will credit Dr. Richard Lenski for the exposition I am about to outline here. If you are interested you can get his defense of Intuitu Fidei through Bro Alec Satin's website. I summarize Lenski's exposition coming from just two passages that act as a witness, to wit, that faith in Christ has a consideration in our predestination which was foreknown by God. Even from a logical point of view, God foreknew something about us before we were born etc etc.

Here are the Scriptures...

2 Thes 2:13-14 (warning SOME Greek! but work with me)

But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Notice that the KJV has the words "through". How did the Lord chose us for salvation? Through holiness or separation by the HS and belief or thus faith in the truth, which is the Gospel. Now in the NT Greek the proposition before "Sanctification of the Spirit" has ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος καὶ πίστει ἀληθείας, suffice it to say the preposition ἐν stands for "in", or we can literally say "in sanctification of the spirit and belief of the truth".

So why did the KJV translate this as "through"? Now the Calvinists like to translate this as "unto". Clearly this is revolting and disrespectful to the text. So why "through"? In the NT Greek we see that the word "sanctification" and "belief" are all in the Dative Case before the "in" preposition. Because this is in the Dative Case, that case is used to designate "how or with what something is done" thus it designates the manner by which something is done.. Both of these "in" and "through" tells us the how and with what has God chosen us. However, "through" has been chosen by the KJV because it brings out what the passage means. Some also argue that "through" has been chosen because of the "through" in v.14.

So in summary, God chose us through two means, one of them is through faith in the truth. Thus faith was regarded in God chosing us.

Matthew 22:1-14 The Parable of Marriage Feast.
Do the parabales of Jesus teach doctrine? In this case most certainly so, because here he explains that many are called but few chosen. The reader should do a quick run through the passage in question. Martin Chemnitz wrote a fine sermon on this and Lenski referred to it himself. We note that characters in the story.
1. The king who arranged the marriage of his son. Analogously, this is God the Father and the son, is Jesus God's son.
2. The king sent his servants to call out people to come to the wedding. These are the prophets of old, who preached to Israel and as we know, they were persecuted rather than heeded.
3. He then again sent his servants, the apostles and disciples of Christ to invite people to the wedding, the Gospel call to all.
4. Then we see that there was one there who did not have a wedding garment. It is said to be customary for a King to supply the wedding garment to those whome he invites. This according to Chemnitz is the righteousness of Christ, which no one obtains except through faith in Him.
5. Then this man is thrown out with the explanation that many are called but few are chosen. We ask the question what could have prevented this man from being thrown out of the feast? If he was wearing the wedding garment supplied to him. The fact that he was not wearing it and being thrown out is the explanation that he was called but he was not chosen. To conclude, the choosing of a person for the feast or for fellowship with Christ must have a regard for the wearing of the wedding garment which is the righteousness of Christ obtained only through faith in Him.

More passages can be given but I have presented here the most appropriate ones and by the mouth of two or more witnesses a thing is established.

Lastly as Lenski pointed out, this view so happens to conform to the analogy of faith principle that says that an aspect of truth sheds light to the inner unity of truth found in Scripture. In fact IIRC, the Greek Father,  John of Damascus c 676 argued saying if we are justified by faith we are predestined by faith also.
This stands to reason as well. If you are justified through faith alone, thus saved, it cannot be that you have been predestined without faith as well. The connection is axiomatic.This has been the position of the BoC and Post-BoC Lutheran Fathers
 

So Intuity Fidei is alright with me.

Did the Calvinists invent Quia VS Quatenus Forms of Subscription?

Frequent visitors of this blog would know that I toyed with Calvinism when I was a Charismatic Evangelical. Before, coming to the Lutheran Confessions, I was seriously studying the Westminster Confession of Faith. Time and again, I could not dare myself to sign it.

Having the Book of Concord for many years in my library, I begun studying the documents found in it. With a Bible on one hand, I begun to warm to it and today I can heartily say I can sign my name on it. In fact, this is what is meant by subscription.

Not shortly after belonging to a Lutheran congregation and through my readings I learned about what Lutherans call quia (because of) vs quatenus (in so far as) , meaning do you subscribe to the BoC? But what kind? Quia or Quatenus?

I am going to be honest here. Being a former Calvinist, I was quite amazed that the Lutherans were into this debate, for I have always had the lingering suspicion that they were Calvinist categories. For example read this work of Rev Dr Clark's book of how he discusses quia vs quatenus in the context of Calvinistic confessions.

Just a week or so ago, I had the chance to track this down having some time on my sleeves and now being less distracted. So I had more time to chase up my theory and test it.

Here are my findings.

According to Dr. Robert P. Swierenga, a Dutch Reformed layman himself, as early as 1568-1571, the idea of quia vs quatenus subscription came into focus in the Reformed Church because they wanted to know the disposition of ministers who are being ordained in their churches. The actual labels of quia and quatenus were introduced in the Dutch Reformed National Synod of 1816. 

This date overlaps with the many goings on with what is happening in US Lutheranism term by historians as Neo-Lutheranism of which the personalities were Hengstenberg, Caspari, Hoenecke, Phillippi and most of all, the venerated and considered by US "confessional" Lutherans as their church father - the Rev. C F W Walther.

Because of the timing, there is a high chance that quia vs quatenus distinctions flowed into Neo Lutheranism for after all for example, Walther was fond of intruding into Calvinistic problems, see his work on predestination that caused a storm in US Lutheranism.

If one notices, either you are doing a quia or a quatenus subscription to the Confessions. This is an all or nothing position. In other words, if you are subjected to only either of this categories, you are not being allowed a middle position. According to Dr. Swierenga, the Reformed in the late 1500s did not like this subjugation. It is too Roman Catholic - a type of zero sum game. However, they reluctantly went for it because they saw the need.

I hope by now, this has made you think and do some reflection. As a former Calvinist,  my testimony is that Calvinists do borrow ideas from Lutheranism after all Calvin signed a version of the Augsburg Confession. In the idea of quia or quatenus, could it be the reverse happened this time? Could it be that the Neo-Lutherans borrowed from Calvinism this time? A good question to ask is this, do we have documentary evidence that the Old Lutherans got into this debate in their circle? For if we have, the likelihood, the Reformed borrowed from Lutherans is high since they have often done that. Or could the reverse be true with the Neo Lutherans?

The sad curse of the Walther Cult

These quotes are taken from the work of the Rev. Dr. Karl Edwin Kuenzel.

I blogged about this in here

The fanatical adoration of CF W Walther in American Lutheranism is astoundingly cultic already, so here are the results of Dr. Kunzel's evaluation:

Walther was a tremendous leader, a dynamic preacher, a powerful lecturer, and a remarkable writer. However, lest we wind up worshipping the man, as many had done with Martin Stephan, and perhaps some do with Luther, we need to be mindful of some of Walther’s deficiencies.
Walther was legalistic when it came to the matters of usury, dancing and going to the theater, life insurance, running a tavern, in-law marriage (e.g., a man marrying the sister of his deceased wife), geographical parish boundaries, the local congregation, and the pastoral office. He often made his position as if it were Scripturally based and therefore God-given doctrine, when, in fact, he was going beyond what the Bible says and turning matters of casuistry into untenable doctrines.
....
Not only did Walther use terms that were readily misunderstood by others, but another cause for his naevi [faults], according to his student August Pieper, was that Walther depended too heavily on the secondary sources of theology, i.e., Luther and the lesser fathers. In spite of all his emphasis on Scripture, there can be no denying this. Although Walther was a great and a very talented leader, he was a poor, even an inferior exegete. He had only an average knowledge of the original biblical languages. Frequently he would cite dozens of Bible passages merely because Luther and the dogmaticians had done so. Yet these passages did not prove what they were supposed to prove. Although very eager to express himself on matters, he failed to recognize that his position was based on translations and not on the original text. Thus, he could say something as if it were doctrinally true, but without a firm scriptural basis. Overall, the knowledge of Scripture that Walther had was more an intimate acquaintance with Luther’s Bible and knowledge of certain passages rather than knowledge of the whole line of thought of a biblical book and of the original text.

Note: The conclusion is that he was a fantastic quoter but a poor and weak exegete who could not read the original Biblical text. As we can read, seems like he had an opinion about any spiritual matter, "eager to express himself on matters". There are plenty of these cultic types of people who can even quote Scripture from memory but when analyzed deeper, it is off.

Faith is never a work, whatsoever

Faith is never a work, if we are talking about the faith in Christ mentioned in the Scriptures.
Those who say or claim it is, are doing a number on you.
This is a straw man fallacy.

In Romans 4:16, it says "Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace..."
The Bible does not say nor imply at any time that your faith in Christ is something you have generated out of your shear self.

If you are saved through faith, says St Paul in Romans 4, then you are saved by grace. Faith in Christ is always according to grace.

If your saved by your faith then so say the straw man accusers - then you can have faith in your faith. Faith in Christ cannot be faith in something else, by the definition of Scripture. Stick to that definition, the accuser is doing a fallacy he himself does not recognize he is making.

If you say I have decided to believe in Jesus, then you are just fooling yourself, your faith is not a decision you cannot decide about Jesus dying for you. You can deny it and so claim that God is a liar but when you are convinced by it, the HS produced it on you.

LPC

Perfect Family?

I wish I have or I wish I came from a perfect family, but I don't.

So maybe we can look to the Bible to find a perfectly happy family? There seems to be none.

Cain killed Abel, his brother. Abraham and Sarah for a while lapsed in faith producing Ishmael and Isaac and some trace the conflict in the middle east from this. Jacob swindled Esau his brother, Esau rejected the gift offered by his father.

We can see this also in the children of judges and priests in the OT.  Aaron's sons violated the Law and offered strange fire. God slew them, I thought of how Aaron would have felt about this.

Perhaps in the Lord's home? We hear his brothers did not believe in him. John 7:5. That does not suggest everything is honky dory there.

When I look at families less complex than mine, I get tempted to violate the 10th commandment, I covet what the family of others. I would say I wish that I have that kind of family.

It is time to look at the Scripture and hope for the real family in heaven.

One of the best sermons I heard last year.

It was not really the sermon of the pastor. I came in a few minutes after the preacher started his sermon and I was enjoying the words coming out of the pulpit. At the end, he revealed that he was reading Luther's sermon. He said he did not know what to preach and so he took one of Luther's sermons out and chose to read it to the congregation. I was so blessed he did that.

This provided food for thought to me. Honestly, I am disappointed at the sermons I hear from pastors here. Most of the time they wander off from the text of Scripture and I wind up wondering what on earth happened in that preaching moment.

It is dawning on me what Dr. Greg Jackson has been saying, that Luther is still a reliable preacher and we can count on getting meat from his works if we feel starved for good exposition of God's word. Thank God Pr. Greg has decided to publish Luther's Sermon works.

I do not believe in empirical science, I only believe in apriori truth

Kurt Gödel on the left

The above was a quote from Kurt Godel, my favourite mathematical logician. Many people do not know about this man but his discovery of profound mathematical truth is more earth shattering than what was attributed to Einstein in the realm of physics. Besides, his life was not dogged by allegations of plagiarism unlike that of Einstein's special and general theory of relativity, in which some alleged he copied this without attribution from several physicists.

Gödel is known for his 1st and 2nd Incompleteness Theorem which has application to philosophy and theology.

Anyway, my point is the quote and why I too agree with Gödel.

Science relies on empirical and physical observations for its facts. In this regard, like other mathematicians, I do not believe mathematics is part of science. If at all I view it as part of philosophy. The second part of the quote, on apriori truth, is what is lacking in science. Here Gödel meant axioms. What are axioms? These are statements that are accepted to be obviously true. Its truth is established in the inherent nature of what language suggest. An example of an axiom is this - A or NOT A. Either A is true or NOT A is true. It cannot be both. This is obviously true.

I hate to break this but there are no axioms in Physics or in any branch of Science. The so called physical laws are formulated by observation but they are not universally established.

The strongest we can see in physics that comes close to an axiom is causality - Cause precedes the effect and never the reverse.

First, at best this is a philosophical principle we can agree, but at worst is the idea that the reverse cannot happen. In other words, this law does not allow for "if and only if" relationship. 

Let us illustrate, If Charles is a father, then he must have a child. But having a child by Charles by default, then Charles has become a father too. Here two things happened, and the cause became an effect as well. 

Because there are no axioms in the sciences, that is, there are no self-evident true statements, science is not stable. It cannot be your absolute source of truth, it cannot be the absolute arbiter of a situation. It cannot have the last say.

This is the reason why science keeps updating its pronouncements. Remember, the time when doctors said salt is bad for you, which again doctors saying, yes it is good etc. etc.

This is not to say that I will not use some of what science says, like take my medicines. What it does mean is that it cannot be your God, it can be your slave, but never your Divine Maker.

Often, when I see statements made by people hailing science and thus, scientism, I suspect the individual has no inkling how science and so called scientists work.

 

Why I am sceptical of science and scientists

You might think this strange because if you know me I work in academia most of the time and since I dabble in mathematics you would think that I should not be negative towards science, for after all isn't mathematics a part of science?

In large science faculties, it is true that mathematics is part of the science faculty but I do not think mathematics is part of science. Science deals with observations of phenomena in our world. From, particulars it abstracts to the general. Science deals then with induction.

Mathematics does not deal with induction, it does not look at particulars and then infer to the general. No, mathematics deal with deduction, from the general we go down to particulars. In this regard, I think really that mathematics should be part of philosophy.

We do not sample every triangle we could find, measure their internal angles to be a total of 180 degrees and assert that all triangles have an internal angle of 180 degrees. We use logical proofs starting from axioms.

Today science enjoys a celebrity status. If you want to gain the trust of people just tack on the word "science" into what you are doing. So we have library science, meat science, dairy science and game science and what not. The field I work in my consulting is "Data Science". Funny but I went to a conference last month and a leading practitioner in the field, a professor himself, complained that there is no "science" in data science.

The world has evolved to the point that science is operating like a religion. What is awful is that it is operating like a cult as well. In the age of the Internet, things have evolved and it is easy to be arrogant and know it all. Because the Internet gives one a capacity to be semi-anonymous, people are happy to be rude and insulting to those who disagree with them. It is easy now to express without hesitation one's disdain for a fellow who might be slow in catching one's level of knowledge.

Here are my reasons ordered by importance

1. It does not always work. The reason is that when scientists observe, they are only observing a sample of a phenomenon and when one produces generalisations from these, it by default left out some parts of the phenomenon. Today the approach taken by computer scientist in doing Artificial Intelligence (AI) is to abandon the idea of deterministic certainty, but embrace and live with uncertainty and work on probabilities. Ask yourself, does the science you believe in behave in an arrogant certainty?  AI computer scientists have chucked the idea that something can be determined with certainty from the world. So the models they create for a phenomenon using AI are probabilistic. 

2. Most scientists today have no training in philosophy. I worked for a while in computer science and the computer scientists I have encountered have no appreciation of the role philosophy plays in their craft.If they are not scared of it, they either consider it as useless or indifferent towards it. The same is true in physical science. Steven Hawking said philosophy is dead. No offence but I think Hawking and I will be long gone and philosophy will be around. This is bad science and bad scholarship. The reason why we have this situation of science acting like religion is that philosophers have allowed them to roam, be arrogant and unchecked.

For example, the issue of causality vs correlation. When I went back to statistics, my colleagues and textbooks reminded me that correlation does not imply causation.

This is illustrated in a Chinese saying:

Does the flowers blooming bring about spring? Or does spring bring about the blooming of the flowers? You might think it is the latter for sure - but think and pause for a moment. It is an epistemological question - meaning - how to we know something is true or real..

Also this - is there only one way of explaining a physical phenomenon? Should we entrust our lives and our view of the world into the what scientists say?

Here is one quote from a philosopher of science about science...

Even though some scientists and many pseudo-scientists voice their allegiance to that (scientific) method, no modern philosopher of science would be unaware of at least some of its shortcomings. Modern developments in the philosophy of science have pinpointed and stressed deep-seated difficulties associated with the idea that science rests on a sure foundation acquired through observation and experiment and with the idea that there is some kind of inference procedure that enables us to derive scientific theories from such base in a reliable way. There is just no method that enables scientific theories to be proven true or even probably true.

                                                      ---- A. F Chalmers (What is This Thing Called Science)

Maybe I am influenced too much by the mathematician I admire and respect who said...

I do not believe in empirical science, I only believe in a priori truth.

                                                            - Kurt Godel

Later I will add more, like my thesis that scientists are not altruistic people who are also influenced by personal agenda using science to advance their goal.

Please remind me.

So I saw the film The Case For Christ

My big impression on this? Respect. I respect the spirit of in which this film was made. Some of the points that I would like to make are the following:

• This film is as much the story of Leslie, the wife of Lee. Here we see the persecution experienced by a Christian wife living with a non-Christian husband.
• The parallel story of Lee's work on the Hicks case along with his investigation of the validity of the Christian claim I thought made the film more than a re-enactment of an evangelical testimony.
• There is much we can learn on the way the film depicted the interviews Lee made with professional NT scholars, historians, and scientists, some of whom are non-Christian themselves.
• The role of providence in the life of a Christian.

Finally, there is a suggestion of a mild decisional theology in the film. Though I myself no longer practice this "accepting Jesus into your heart" by way of the "sinner's prayer". I seem to recall somewhere the wisdom of Martin Luther who said somewhere, to words to this effect -- the person asking God in prayer already believes, that is to say, the person already believes in Christ, before he even asks God to move on his behalf. We should ask God to save us after all. The focus, fair enough, should not be in our act of asking but the God who saves those who call upon his name.

We do not have to be triumphalistic and be offended at all in that.

Why a Christian can believe Christ will never leave him nor forsake him

In Matt 28:20, we read  20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Many years ago, during times of great trial I would come to this verse to no avail for I could not find any reason why I could claim this promise. You see I look at myself, I see my sin, my failures to live up to God's standards and coming to this verse with all of those staring back at me only made my heart sink in despair.

Only lately have I found confidence in the promise found in that verse and the one in Heb 13:5

 for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

How can I claim such a promise? Dear friend it is not because of anything inside you, but simply because Jesus bled and died for you. That is the reason why we can have confidence that Christ will be with us always, unto the very end of the world. It is because Jesus died for you.

At the cross God forsook Christ so that today God does not have to forsake you.

Another fact related to the dying and bleeding of Jesus is our baptism. According to God's Word, in Romans 6, we have been united with Christ at his death, burial and resurrection when we got baptised. God united us with Christ in our baptism.

No matter how it looks in the end, God will lead us back to the evidence for the reason Christ will never leave us nor forsake us, the proof we can rely on this promise is the Cross.

So I tell myself and you, next time you feel God has left you alone, look at the Cross, you will be convinced what you have taught about God is so wrong.