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.

The Rationalizing and Speculative Calvin

 

"John Calvin, he was much more engrossed in speculations concerning God than in the observation of mankind. God is, so to say, the fixed center and starting-point of all his thoughts. He meditates and imagines, and if I dared, I would say that he presents God to us, and describes Him as if he knew Him thoroughly, and had exclusive possession of Him. He then summons man into the presence of God, and denies or calmly rejects everything in him which does not accord with or cannot be adjusted to the God whom he has conceived and depicted. He denies free-will of man and affirms his predestination, because he imagines that man's free-will is opposed to the idea which he has formed of the omnipotence and omniscience of God, and that his predestination is necessary to it. Calvin had a very imperfect knowledge and understanding of man because he professed to know and understand too much about God".

-- M. Guizot

Quoted by P.A. Peter, The Tendency of the Calvinistic Doctrine of Absolute Predestination To Vitiate Some Doctrines of the Christian Religion -Columbus Theological Magazine Volume 11 (1891)

• It is never good to impose your speculation about God over Scripture. We cannot rely unskeptically on our rationalizing mind on how we understand God to be.  It should be reverse, we allow Scripture to tell us who and how is God in his being not the otherway around.
• There is arrogance in Calvin in thinking he knows beyond the shadow of a doubt who is God in his being.

Your personal faith or how the Holy Spirit DOES NOT BELIEVE for you.

 

HT: Pr Dr Gregory Jackson - The Ichabod

Many Synodical Lutherans what my associates call Waltherians love to quote Luther's Small Catechism's Article II.III, namely...

🔗I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; 

They stop there, to emphasize Sola Gratia. Did you notice, there is more continuing sentences after that? In fact Luther tells us what the HS does in turning us to become believers. Emphasizing Sola Gratia to the point of excluding or minimizing Sola Fide is like falling on the other side of the horse. It skews the facts and misleads - the one teaching it and the one following it.

Scripture taught a lot about personal faith, see this as examples...

Then Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has made you well - Lk 18:42

When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven you. - Mk 2:5

And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. - 1 Cor 15:14

In my mind, I am ready to abandon respect for Luther if he did not teach what Jesus and the Apostles taught. Thankfully he taught the same - he taught of personal faith of the sinner...

This is from Luther's Sermon 

Luther's Sermons - Mark 7:31-37. Twelfth Sunday after Trinity

(Emphasis: Dr Greg Jackson and mine)

11. Now this I say, that you may know how far the faith of others may be of use to us, and how your own faith can help you. Other people’s merits will help you to attain a merit of your own, and nothing more. And though all the angels, yea, the mercy of God itself, were ready to stand for you, it would avail you nothing, unless you cleave unto it with a faith of your own. But it may effect this, that it will assist you to obtain a faith of your own, which will help you. Furthermore, even if Christ did die for us, and pledged and gave his body and life, blood and flesh for us, and became our advocate; yet it would avail nothing, unless we believe in him. But he can assist us in this way, that he appears before the Father and says: “O Father, this have I done for mankind; do thou give them faith, in order that they may enjoy it.” This then, will help us, if we feel assured that his works and merit are our own. In the same manner one should also speak of the other saints, that no saint’s intercession and merit avail unless we ourselves believe. You observe this also in our lesson. There lies the poor man, unable either to speak or to hear. They who bring him to the Lord can speak and hear. But they cannot make him speak by their hearing and speaking, and even though they all had come near him and said: “We will speak and hear for you”; yet he would, in spite of this, have remained speechless and deaf continually, and would never have been able to speak.

further...

13. Therefore say: I must neither rely upon your works nor you upon mine; but I will, by my own faith, pray God to give you a faith of your own. This is what is said, that we all are priests and kings, that we, like Christ himself, may intercede for one another before God, praying for personal faith.

Thus, if I happen to notice that you have no faith of your own, or a weak faith, I go and ask God to help, you to obtain faith, not by giving you my faith and my works, but your own faith and your own works; so that Christ may give him all his works and salvation through faith, as he hath given them to us by faith.

---

Likewise my friend, I am not here just to sermonize but to serve you in prayer - let me know what interecession you need. God bless.

We cannot put new wine into old wine bottles

 

There is a reason why traditional churches are closing. It is not mainly because the world around the church has been hostile to it. There are dozens of reasons I can nominate.

For example, traditional churches fit elderly people who are probably frail already and not as energetic as before. They likely have lots of personal issues - it is time for them to sit back. Jesus said - pray to God for laborers to come to the harvest, night time comes when no one can work - and night time has come upon them, John 9:4. What would be the motivation for them to reach out to others and minister to them when in fact, they themselves need ministry? They cannot be bothered anymore. That is why the job of the pastor is to inculcate to his congregation the mission of the church in the Great Commission (Matt 28: 19:20). When the members of a church have no conscious duty to share the Gospel to their neighbors the congregation will soon die and close. They may as well, because as Jesus said – they have lost their saltiness. See Lk 13:6-9.

When a congregation sees that it is either their way or the highway, they get what the want, they get left alone. When the congregation does not reach out to the young, they get what they want, they become happy in themselves, happy in their ways as the Lord takes them one by one until they close their doors since their hearts have been closed to others. It is sad when a congregation is more attentive for people to follow their tradition rather than serving the needs of others – serving the Gospel and offering spiritual care. When the congregation thinks (and the pastor allows it,) that it is not their job but the pastor’s to win souls, then the days of that congregation are numbered, and so is the time of the pastor.

However, I have seen when the old members of the congregation mix with young people, when both can sing using traditional hymns and modern Christian choruses, that sight spells health and wholeness. It does not have to be an either/or situation but both/and. A congregation can have both the old and the new together. I have seen this in action, and it is wonderful when the mixture can coordinate.

If you notice, I do not go to worship wars. I have stopped my delusion that God has anointed me to be fides defensor. When something is an adiaphoron – it remains a matter of indifference. The unchurch could care less if you allow communion by intinction or give communion on a Good Friday. They are not even there yet so such subjects are irrelevant.   I found it laughable when someone wrote in an article that she has seen young people have their mouths opened as they listened to organ music - suggesting that the young are enamored with church organ music. I do not see evidence of this. I can believe some handful of them are like this, but not as a trend. I am surrounded by traditional blue stone churches, I do not see young people lining up to enter them. I have experienced and seen that in my street evangelism it is the young teenagers who are interested in the tract I hand out. People even young people need a community – when their hearts are turned towards the old because the old have welcomed and were kind to them, they will minister in return. We reap what we sow especially when we sow kindness.

The congregation does not have to choose either to stick with tradition or abandon it, there can be open understanding and both the old and the new can co-exist in the church – just like in a family. In a family uncles/aunts and nephews/nieces, grandparents/parents and children and grandchildren can go together.

Put it this way, everyone needs the love of Christ be they young or old. A Christian should always be Christ to the other person. Thus that should be our disposition towards strangers, our neighbors. Unfortunately when the congregation has its foot at the back, as Jesus said, night time comes and no one can work and sadly, night has come already for some congregations.

 

 

Church Calendar and/or Word Fitly Spoken?

 

This is based on my research. The Christian practice of having a church calendar was said to have developed fully in 600 AD. This is the splitting the 12-month period into church seasons. Many church practices we know today would usually originate in one local section of the Church and then gets adopted by the other region in the Church. Then it becomes a practice of the many groups in Christianity as a standard.

Part of the church calendar are the readings which revolve about the life of the Lord, his teachings, and the life of the people of God. Thus, we call them lessons for the day. These readings were used by Christian leaders as part of discipleship training for believers who mostly have no access, obviously, to the text of Scripture and mostly could not read. It is no wonder why icons and statues were used to remind believers of characters that relates to their faith. Praise the Lord for the printing press, we now have Bibles all over the place and many can read or can learn to read.

Having a set of readings for the pastor to preach on is good but it can be a ritual performance too. The pastor can say, he has done his job, he spoke on the text even though there is no exposition of the text and as if he was preaching to kids. The job of the pastor is to feel the heart of his people, to know their spiritual needs and find a way to apply the text to their needs.

The sheep needs food. Jesus said to Peter, John 21:15-19, “if you love me, feed my sheep”. The pastor, if he is true to his calling, should have concern for the nourishment of his sheep. He would know or try to learn at least, what spiritual diet the sheep should receive.

This is where ritualized sermons are not so helpful. It becomes going-through-the-motion event on a Sunday.

This is why I admire, the pastor who once invited me to preach in his congregation. He said, you know we have these readings for that Sunday, but you do not have to preach on them. We can read them, but take your text anywhere you feel the HS is leading you for what we need. This I did.

In Proverbs 25: 11 A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in settings of silver.

The Word of God fitly spoken, appropriate for the need, for the present hunger becomes food for the soul, producing faith and edification.

Never tell God, what you will never be

 

Many years ago as a young atheist man, I remember coming out of my university library where a young man was giving gospel tracts who handed me one. I took it and gave it a quick glance, and I threw it on his face and said with so much confidence - I will never be like you. (You may not know, I could be a nasty slob).

What I said I would never do? I do. Nowadays, I give out tracts in the heart of my city each weekend that I get a chance. I am inspired by this man who was a soul winner himself. I get so much joy laboring with young people from other Christian groups handing out gospel reading materials that speak about Christ and the forgiveness of sins.

Why do I do this? It has no benefits for me. I won't establish a congregation by doing this. 

I do it because of stories like this...

You see while I and the others pass out tracts, There would usually be a young man from the team who would stand up on a milk box and preach. One day, after I finished handing out my tracts I went to stand around with some people to listen to the preaching. One lady with her dog decided to chat a bit with me as the preaching was about to end. We started talking to each other, and I detected she was using Christian terminology as she speaks.

I said "You sound like a Christian to me, are you a believer"?

"Yes, but you have to excuse me" as she pointed to her wobbling head. "My mind has been affected by methamphetamines". "I was addicted to drugs and one day in the height of my addiction I happened to walk by this street like where you guys are now". "One person handed me a tract, I took it and read it and read it. To cut the long story short yes, I believed and I became a Christian and I belong to a church", as she started to lead her dog out of my space. I accompanied her as she walked away, she said "God used that tract to change me". 

Processing this in my head, I marveled at this story. She looked well, her demeanor had no trace of walking the streets. She dressed well, not lavish, simple yet decent. I would have had a hard time believing this if not me witnessing her wobbling head whenever she spoke.

This is the reason why I give out tracts. I am expecting that God will use the words in those tracts as seeds to be sowed into good soil, hearts.

The Eternal Debate: God's Sovereignty VS Man's Responsibility

 

Another title for this debate is the so-called Compatibilism debate. A lot of Calvinists are into this debate in which it justifies God's double predestination of humans.

This debate actually extends many years before Christianity. This has been debated by Aristoteleans and Platonists. You do not have to be a Christian to talk about this because this has been a philosophical discussions by philosophers long before Christ came along.

For the first 400 years, this was not a debate amongst Christian, not until Augustine came along.

Augustine was a Manichaean before he became a catholic Christian. Manichaeanism started 300AD and Augustine was born in such an environment. It is a dualistic gnostic religion that combined many major religious teachings. To them, since man has a material being and since matter is evil, man is evil too. Another one of their beliefs is the notion of fatalism.

Needless to say, if you believe in unconditional election, then there is also unconditional reprobation and no one can change that, thus, eventually, life becomes a fatalistic conclusion and condition too.

In some sectors, there is a notion that the God of Scripture should conform to the God of Philosophy.

Though Luther can be dramatic and rhetorically forceful in his arguments he redeems himself when he said:

Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.

By reason, I take it he means philosophical reasoning.

When it came to man, are we a lump of sin? There should be some care in the way we use our language specially when Christians argue about words (which Scripture said we should avoid).

In a way, it is good that the Lutheran BoC authors tamed their Augustinianism and even spoke against over the top language that are clearly Manichaean in position. Read this on their Formula of Concord - Article I - Original Sin. Worth nothing the distinction they made of our nature and the sin that corrupts it.

Luther again redeems himself when he said that pursuing the inscrutable will of God is demonic and a distraction that leads us away from Christ, he said (thanks Alec, the Lutheran Librarian)

 “We should with all diligence guard against arguing predestination; for this, through Satan’s influence, leads men to pay no regard to God and the sacraments, and to look upon Christ rather as a cruel tyrant and hangman, than a Savior.”

“By no means dispute about predestination. Dr. Staupitz advised me and said: If you would argue about predestination, begin at the wounds of Christ and all disputation about predestination will cease at once. For if we give way to it, and argue about it much, Christ, His Word and Sacrament, must give way: I will forget Christ and God. By indulging in these thoughts I will regard God as wicked and cruel… . In predestination we will forget God — the cantate will cease and the blasphemate begin.”

From Columbus Theological Magazine, Vol. 3. “Missouri’s Infatuation By Rev. P. Eirich, Hoboken, N. J. Third And Last Article.”

Did Jesus Commend the Unjust Steward?

 The passage in Luke 16:1-13 we have these words of our Lord:

16 He also said to His disciples: “There was a certain rich man who had a steward, and an accusation was brought to him that this man was [a]wasting his goods. 2 So he called him and said to him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward.’

3 “Then the steward said within himself, ‘What shall I do? For my master is taking the stewardship away from me. I cannot dig; I am ashamed to beg. 4 I have resolved what to do, that when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.’

5 “So he called every one of his master’s debtors to him, and said to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6 And he said, ‘A hundred [b]measures of oil.’ So he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’ 7 Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ So he said, ‘A hundred [c]measures of wheat.’ And he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’ 8 So the master commended the unjust steward because he had dealt shrewdly. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light.

9 “And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by unrighteous [d]mammon, that when [e]you fail, they may receive you into an everlasting home. 10 He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much. 11 Therefore if you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? 12 And if you have not been faithful in what is another man’s, who will give you what is your own?

13 “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

The Law, the Prophets, and the Kingdom

14 Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they [f]derided Him. 

------------------------

This is indeed a hard passage. I highlighted the passage that needs a lot of unpacking. In fact, in the KJV tradition, the word used is in v. 8 "for the children of this world are in their generation much wiser than the children of light". This can give the impression that Jesus is favoring the children of the world compared to the children of the light. What is at play here is the translation "master" too, did this refer to our Lord? This is why I took the NKJV to show how that word can be rendered "wise" to "shrewd". In my mind to understand this story, the key is v.14, that is why I included it here.

We must note the reaction of the Pharisees to this story, they recognized that it was about them, how they behave. Thus, this is another story against the Pharisee! The Lord was saying, this is  what they do. But to the disciples, this is exactly what you must not do. This boils down to ethics. The unjust steward used his influence to save himself from being mistreated when he is put out of stewardship. He did this by stealing more from his master, giving more away his master's possessions for his own advantage. Jesus is telling us the opposite, that we should be faithful to our work even if we are serving an unrighteous master. In this story, both the master and the steward had the same value and ethics. But for the Lord, it should not be so - we do not have the right to steal from our masters even if our master is unjust - in this case our employers. We do not steal from our employers even if the source of their possessions came from unrighteous means.  See v. 11-13. We do not follow the shrewd ethics of this servant, in fact, we do the opposite. We are to be faithful with another man's richest. The servant loved mammon and by his actions hated his master, who himself might be unrighteous. The Lord is saying to us, do not love mammon, but rather love God, for in loving God, we will put His principles first, ie honest and true dealing, we will not steal from our neighbor but will be faithful to what has been entrusted to us. That is our ethics - so, to answer the question, NO, the Lord is not commending, rather, he was describing the Pharisees' love for money that destroys ethics.

My kind of Lutheran Christian

 

Because He Lives

 

John 14:19 Yet a little while and the world will see Me no more. But you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also.

I for one took this Resurrection Sunday celebration for granted. As I pause to think about this promise, I realize we cannot be indifferent about this tremendous statement of the Lord Jesus.

This destroys the treat of death which comes from the enemy of our souls. May this promise be a source of hope and joy that when we see our failing health and we know the day of our departing gets near each day, may this promise raise our spirits up and know that this promise is personal and true. The YOU there in that statement is me/you, personally.

How I got convinced by the Textus Receptus

 The Textus Receptus aka Received Text is the basis for the NT part of the KJV and those translations that follow its tradition.

Now, what convinced me that I should standardize on this text?

It was the NKJV!

Yes, that is what happened to me. The NKJV helped me to determine that the TR holds the orthodox teaching of early Christians.

I have heard a lot of conspiracy theories against NKJV because it has these myriad of footnotes about the text. The assertion is that these textual comments lead the reader away from the Received Text. Yet, that is not what happened to me. What happened to me was the reverse.

Many years ago, I bought a leather bound NKJV NT (nice leather actually, you cannot find this anymore, unfortunately, I believe I gave it away to a relative). 

It had of course, some footnotes, but I focus for you only the one that caused me to think.

This NKJV comment here:

NU omit - meaning the Nestle-Aland Union Greek collection omits this word or phrase or passage.

What I did was to highlight all occurrences of these comments, even using a marker.

I discovered that if you follow the said comment, you will miss out in explicit terms some orthodox teachings of Christianity.

An example of this is Mk 16:9-20 being reportedly omitted in the Nestle-Aland.

That involved a support for the Great Commission, the teaching on faith and baptism and signs and charismatic gifts which St Paul experienced.

Another is  1 John 5:13, this is a verse which powerfully supports the promise we now have eternal life for us who believe in Christ.

After this discovery, I seemed to have neglected it. I got affected with Bible translation trends and fell into considering other translations like the NASB, the NRSV and ESV. I used the NRSV a lot. Funny but I got into these translations because the pastor who had an influence on me used the RSV. We should really double check the person we look up to and respect, for after all they are like us, human beings too.

Some maybe 10 years ago, I read that you can re-construct the TR passages from the quotation of the Church Fathers.

This fact and my discovery experience with NKJV led me to conclude - I should stick to the TR. I still have these other translations, as a reference, but I do not use them for my personal Bible Study or personal devotion.

That is what happened.

Heroes

 

I have been thinking about heroes lately. I was asking myself the question, who is my hero, my example for faith. I have to confess, there was a time when Luther indeed was my hero. Don't get me wrong, I still to this day, respect and appreciate his insights but in all honesty, when I read the writings of St Paul, when I see his meekness, tenderness and gentleness on how he treated those who were straying away from the faith, and how he rebuked false teachers, in love. St Paul was like his Master, Christ. Luther is admirrable but I think he and I would have St Paul as our hero. 

In the academic training I obtained they gave us an unspoken culture that we are to be 'a scholar and a gentleman' - I knew we were being taught how to be one by the way we were to deal and behave ourselves in discussion that involve argumentation. That means, we will only accept as arguments coming from ourselves, and from others, comments with no fallacies allowed.

Today, social media is helping us give in to the works of our flesh. It seems it is a lot more easier today to be impatient and attack those whom we disagree. Most of the comments I see in social medial platforms are down right ad hominem personal attacks rather than addressing the point on the table. Slurs, disdain and sarcasm are promoted and apllauded even by those who claim to be "ordained Ministers of the Word". They do not really give their audience help because these communication devices are so far off from rebuking the false. False is only countered by the True based on evidence, data, facts.

I am for sure am guilty of the same bad form and this blog post is a way of saying, I am sorry at the times I displayed the same  things of which I am rebutting now. I apologise.

Here is an example 

wherein snarkyness is even justified. Examples and allusions to Jesus and Luther are made. One choice verse to even say that Jesus used snark is in Matthew 23 - read all the reference to Scribes and Pharisees there.

My reply:

1. The preacher assumes too much, and is anachronistic in justifying his style. Pretext IMO.

2. Jesus did no such thing, he did not need to insult, rather he was pronouncing judgement on the Pharissees and Scribes - and he has the right to do so because he is the Judge of the Whole Earth, The Lord. It is his assessment of them, no insult but truth. It is argument backed up with facts. Christ weighed their works and he declared their works to be wanting. No snark required.

3. At anyrate, you ain't Jesus.

Well what about Luther - did not Luther use such devices? I think he did. But again, you ain't Luther and I am also embarassed for him at the times he did exhibit the said lowly form.

In actuality, engagement in such poor communication rhetorics prove that the minister is impoverished and poor. We are wiser to admit it in ourselves. I heard some call them "losers" but this maybe a very strong term which I dare not use.

In 1 Peter 3:15 - we are to communicate our position in gentleness and respect. If we look more, this is something very evident in the writings of St Paul and other NT writers, the other Apostles.

All of them preached like their Master, Christ. 1 Peter 3:15 mentions meekness and respect - these are not the works of the flesh but rather they are work of the Spirit - Gal 5:22.

I thank Luther for his wisdom and insights but if I need a human as a role model, a Christian who made it, a person who lived life characterized by love, joy, patience with those in whom he opposed - a Christian who lived the teachings of Christ, I say we got one right there - St Paul. 

We must believe, in Christ we have a gracious God

 

We must trust and believe we have a gracious Father because of Jesus. No matter what trouble God allows to come we must believe He is good. 

Why?

We are sinners there is no requirement for God to be gracious to sinners yet because we know he sent and gave his best, his Son, to die and pay for our sins God can be gracious and is faithful to sinners who believe in the Lord. 

Our prayers in many cases are mixed with our tears, yet, we must look at Jesus, the Gift of God on the cross and we can be convinced - God can be gracious to us.

Watch this promise below. It is so magnanimous our mind find it hard to wrap around it; but it is there, we did not write it, the HS did. It is for us, sinners begging for mercy from an Almighty God. Look at the things you have been provided, food on the table, roof above your head, alive today reading this post. Things could be worst, but if this is not what you are experiencing, turn to God and ask him to be gracious to you on account of Christ. He will and has, you will see all things will work together for your good.

Romans 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written:

“For Your sake we are killed all day long;
We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”

37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Thank you, Pietists! I mean it!

 

Many so called “confessionals” are offended with Pietism. Many pastors who claim to being “confessional’ deem them to be the enemy of “the faith”. The pietists emphasized life more than doctrine, it is behaviour over theology. They hate it with vigorous hatred. Indeed, it is to your doom once you are labelled a “pietist”.  There are many bad words amongst “confessionals” you dare not get pinned on you. This probably takes the cake.

 

Whereas to the extreme, some of the Pietists value much, living the faith, that it deteriorates Christianity to a work-based religion, there are some things I respect and learn from Pietism.

I must remember that Pietism is a reaction to dead orthodoxy. Hence, if you do not want pietism to rise in your midst, stop being dead in your faith.

Dead orthodoxy, stinks like a dead church mouse. Pietism is a rightful rejection of it. Pietism did not rise from a vacuum; it arose out of human reflection on one’s life in line with Christ’s teaching in comparison to believing versus the doing. You do not need to look away from you to others, you just look at your own life, and you will agree, it is stale like bland bread. Faith produces works.  Faith without works is dead. Even James 2:14-26.

What I observe with dead orthodox people is that in the main, there is lack of love, when in fact this is what faith is supposed to produce. In the NT, the Pharisees valued observance of rules over love and compassion for the people in need. Jesus’ very actions rebuked this proud idea - we see this encounter in Matt 12: 1-14. For the Lord, doing something compassionate for a person in need, is more important than following the rules.

Dead orthodoxy, does not have faith that leads to love, it just has rules. It prides itself with following rules from tradition. Mk 7:7-13.

Dead orthodoxy does not like talking about demonstrable expressions of faith; when you get emotional with Jesus, that is a no-no. It denies that faith that produces love for God and fellowman does not have to affect you. Correct, I said, affect. It is impossible to say we love Christ and we are indifferent towards him, or to say, we love our brothers and sisters in the faith and not feel their sorrow nor feel their joy. Affection, people who claim “orthodoxy” don’t have this.

In dead orthodoxy, affirming sets of assertions, thus doctrines, is much easier than working on repenting of your behaviour. It is a great substitute for being accepted by your circle and even transposing it to think you are being accepted by God.

To me pietism is really a reaction against hypocrisy.

This love that faith produces according to St Paul in Gal 5:6, he also defines, in 1 Cor 13:1-13. This is the character of this love. He even says, even if I have understanding of all knowledge and have no love, I am still nothing. Even if I have faith to believe the impossible to happen, and yet have no love, I am still nothing.

This love combines mercy and truth together – it is found in our Lord Jesus who is described by St John where grace and truth are found John 1:17. The Psalmist said the same Ps 85:10. Dead orthodoxy has one but does not have the other, which is fake after all because love is not found nor evident in it.

Jesus and his disciples like Paul and John talked about love. If we miss this important issue, we miss the whole point of the Lord’s teaching. St John even says God is love. It is the fruit of the HS. 

You want rules? Only one rule Gal 5:14. All laws are fulfilled in with one word – love.

Love to many is not interesting – having a theological brawl is more exciting. People are bored by this teaching about having love for our neighbour and even our enemies. It is less attractive because it is hard. Indulging in believing this or that is a lot easier, you can do it on the couch.

What the Good Samaritan did was hard. It involved his time, his money and his energy, but it was he who showed love not those who claim orthodoxy such as the scribe who passed by.

To miss a faith in Christ that has no love is to miss the whole point of the Christian faith.

Actually, maybe I should have changed my title of this post.

Maybe it should be -- Thank you, Pharisees! I mean it!

 

 

 

 

Christianity is Word based

 

This year, I met a new friend. Much younger than me who sponsors my technical seminars I do in a Meet Up group. We discovered we got the same skepticism with what we hear from the MSM. He is very concern with the loss of freedom people in the world are experiencing. 

His ancestry came from East EU background, I detected it through his name. He said, his family came from Russia and they came from a Jewish background. We got to talk about Christianity and how I know about his faith, though he said he is none conformant and follows their ways out of tradition.

In the discussion, I said to him, well you see Christianity, many people do not see is a WORD based religion. He was shock when I said that. He said "hmmmm, that is interesting, with us (Judaism), it is always action based" - I said, I know. I said, we do not deny the need for action, but we do affirm the supremacy first of WORDS.

For example, for how does one become a Christian? We have words, we use our message to tell and that message is the message of Christ, how he answered the Law on our behalf and that faith in his person and work obtains for us, forgiveness of sins.

This is not something you can arrive at through your imaginings and rational reflection. It has to be delivered to you, from another side, outside you. Where as I returned to theism after being an atheist in college through looking at the sky, I would have not known the meaning of Jesus' coming until I heard it preached to me, the meaning of that coming of Christ.

Whenever I read Luther, I come out convinced, he absolutely believed in the transforming power of the Word, of Scripture.

John 6

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Psalm 19: 7

The law of the Lord is perfect, [a]converting the soul;
The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple;

2 Cor 4

13 And since we have the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, “I believed and therefore I spoke,” we also believe and therefore speak,