Saturday, February 16, 2013

Luther's Sermon - First Sunday in Lent. Invocavit. Matthew 4:1-11



INVOCAVIT. FIRST SUNDAY IN LENT


German text: Erlangen edition II, 107; Walch II, 727; St. Louis II, 532.

TEXT:

Matthew 4:1-11. Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he afterward hungered. And the tempter came and said unto him, If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones become bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Then the devil taketh him into the holy city; and he set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto him, if thou art the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and, On their hands they shall bear thee up, lest haply thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Jesus said unto him, Again it is written, Thou shalt not make trial of the Lord thy God. Again, the devil taketh him unto an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and he said unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the devil leaveth him; and behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

CONTENTS:

THE FAST AND THE TEMPTATION OF CHRIST.
I. CHRIST’ S FAST.

1. How this fast has been twisted in the most unreasonable manner by those who have been led to imitate it 1f.

* An opinion on the fast of the papists 1-2.

2. The nature of this fast 3-4.

* How and why man should not seek the temptation and need of fasting without being called by God to do so 4.

3. How Christ’s fasting should serve us. For instruction

5. For admonition 6.

II. CHRIST’ S TEMPTATION.

A. In Detail.

1. The First Temptation, a. How Christ in this temptation was forsaken by all 7. b. How Christ is here attacked by Satan through unbelief and hunger (bauchsorge) 8-9. c. How Christ overcame this temptation 10-12.

* God’s care for mankind 13-14.

* Why God nourishes mankind by means of bread, and not only by means of the Word 15-16.

2. The Second Temptation. a. The nature of this temptation 17-20. b. How this temptation seldom takes place in outward things, but often in spiritual matters 20-21. c. Comparison of this with the former temptation

3. The Third Temptation. a. Its nature

23. b. Comparison of this with the former temptations 23-24.

B. In General.

1. Which is the hardest of these temptations

2. The order of these temptations

3. What follows these temptations 27.28.

I. THE FASTING OF CHRIST.

1. This Gospel is read today at the beginning of Lent in order to picture before Christians the example of Christ, that they may rightly observe Lent, which has become mere mockery: first, because no one can follow this example and fast forty days and nights as Christ did without eating any food. Christ rather followed the example of Moses, who fasted also forty days and nights, when he received the law of God on mount Sinai. Thus Christ also wished to fast when he was about to bring to us, and give expression to, the new law. In the second place, Lent has become mere mockery because our fasting is a perversion and an institution of man. For although Christ did fast forty days, yet there is no word of his that he requires us to do the same and fast as he did. Indeed he did many other things, which he wishes us not to do; but whatever he calls us to do or leave undone, we should see to it that we have his Word to support our actions.

2. But the worst of all is that we have adopted and practiced fasting as a good work: not to bring our flesh into subjection; but, as a meritorious work before God, to atone for our sins and obtain grace. And it is this that has made our fasting a stench and so blasphemous and shameful, so that no drinking and eating, no gluttony and drunkenness, could have been as bad and foul. It would have been better had people been drunk day and night than to fast thus. Moreover, even if all had gone well and right, so that their fasting had been applied to the mortification of the flesh; but since it was not voluntary, and it was not left to each to do according to their own free will, but was compulsory by virtue of human commandment, and they did it unwillingly, it was all lost and to no purpose. I will not mention the many other evils as the consequences, as that pregnant mothers and their offspring, the sick and the weak, were thereby ruined, so that it might be called a fasting of Satan instead of a fasting unto holiness. Therefore we will carefully consider how this Gospel teaches us by the example of Christ what true fasting is.

3. The Scriptures present to us two kinds of true fasting: one, by which we try to bring the flesh into subjection to the spirit, of which St. Paul speaks in 2 Corinthians 6:5: “ In labors, in watchings, in fastings.” The other is that which we must bear patiently, and yet receive willingly because of our need and poverty, of which St. Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 4:11: “Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst,” and Christ in Matthew 9:15: “When the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, then will they fast.” This kind of fasting Christ teaches us here while in the wilderness alone without anything to eat, and while he suffers his penury without murmuring. The first kind of fasting, one can end whenever he wills, and can satisfy it by food; but the other kind we must observe and bear until God himself changes it and satisfies us. Hence it is much more precious than the first, because it moves in greater faith.

4. This is also the reason that the Evangelist with great care places it first:

Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness, that he might there fast and be tempted, so that no one might imitate his example of their own choice and make of it a selfish, arbitrary, and pleasant fasting; but instead wait for the Spirit, who will send him enough fastings and temptations. For whoever, without being led by the Spirit, wantonly resorts to the danger of hunger or to any temptation, when it is truly a blessing of God that he can eat and drink and have other comforts, tempts God. We should not seek want and temptation, they will surely come of themselves; we ought then do our best and act honestly. The text reads: Jesus was led up of the Spirit into the wilderness; and not: Jesus himself chose to go into the wilderness. “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.” Romans 8:14. God gives his blessings for the purpose that we may use them with thanksgiving, and not that we may let them lie idle, and thus tempt him; for he wishes it, and forces us to fast by the Spirit or by a need which we cannot avoid.

5. This narrative, however, is written both for our instruction and admonition. First, for instruction, that we should know how Christ has served and helped us by his fasting, hunger, temptation and victory; also that who ever believes on Christ shall never suffer need, and that temptation shall never harm him; but we shall have enough in the midst of want and be safe in the midst of temptation; because his Lord and Head triumphed over these all in his behalf, and of this he is assured, as Christ says in John 16:33: “Be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.”

God, who was able to nourish Christ forty days without any food, can nourish also his Christians.

6. Secondly, this is written for our admonition, that we may in the light of this example also cheerfully suffer want and temptation for the service of God and the good of our neighbor, like Christ did for us, as often as necessity requires it; which is surely accomplished if we learn and confess God’s Word. Therefore this Gospel is sweet consolation and power against the unbelief and infamy of the stomach, to awaken and strengthen the conscience, that we may not be anxious about the nourishment of our bodies, but be assured that he can and will give us our daily bread.

II. THE TEMPTATION OF CHRIST.

7. But as to how temptation takes place and how it is overcome, is all very beautifully pictured to us here in Christ. First, that he is led up into the wilderness, that is, he is left solitary and alone by God, angels and men, by all creatures. What kind of a temptation would it be, if we were not forsaken and stood not alone? It is, however, painful when we do not feel anything that presents its back to us; as for example, that I should support myself and have not a nickel, not a thread, not a twig, and I experience no help from others, and no advice is offered. That means to be led into the desert and to be left alone. There I am in the true school, and I learn what I am, how weak my faith is, how great and rare true faith is, and how deeply unbelief is entrenched in the hearts of all men. But whoever has his purse, cellar and fields full, is not yet led into the desert, neither is he left alone; therefore he is not conscious of temptation.

8. Secondly, the tempter came forward and attacked Christ with these very same cares of food for the body and with the unbelief in the goodness of God, and said: “If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones become bread,” as if he should say: Yes, trust thou in God and bake and cook nothing; only wait patiently until a roasted fowl flies into your mouth; do you now say that you have a God who cares for you; where is now your heavenly Father, who has charge of you? Yea, it seems to me he lets you in a fine condition; eat now and drink from your faith, let us see how you will satisfy your hunger; yea, when you have stones for bread. What a fine Son of God you are! How fatherly he is disposed toward you in that he fails to send you a slice of bread and permits you to be so poor and needy; do you now continue to believe that you are his son and he is your father? With like thoughts he truly attacks all the children of God. And Christ surely felt this temptation, for he was no stock nor stone; although he was and remained pure and without sin, as we cannot do.

9. That Satan attacked Christ with the cares for daily food or with unbelief and avarice, Christ’s answer proves, in that he says: “Man shall not live by bread alone;” that sounds as if he said: thou wilt direct me to bread alone and dost treat me as though I thought of nothing but the sustenance of my body. This temptation is very common also among pious people, and they especially feel it keenly who have children and a family, and have nothing to eat. Therefore St. Paul says in 1 Timothy 6:10 that avarice is a root of all kind of evil; for it is a fruit of unbelief. Do you not think that unbelief, care and avarice are the reasons people are afraid to enter married life?

Why do people avoid it and live in unchastity, unless it be the fear that they must die of hunger and suffer want? But here we should consider Christ’s work and example, who suffered want forty days and nights, and finally was not forsaken, but was ministered to even by angels.

10. Thirdly, behold how Christ resists this temptation of bread, and overcomes; he sees nothing but stones and what is uneatable, then he approaches and clings to the Word of God, strengthens himself by it and strikes the devil to the ground with it. This saying all Christians should lay hold of when they see that there is lack and want and everything has become stones, so that courage trembles, and they should say: What were it if the whole world were full of bread, still man does not live by bread alone, but more belongs to life, namely, the Word of God. The words, however, are so beautiful and powerful that we must not pass over them lightly, but carefully explain them.

11. These words Christ quotes from Deuteronomy 8:3, where Moses says: “Thy God humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by everything that proceedeth out of the mouth of Jehovah doth man live.”

That is as much as to say: Since God permits you to hunger and you still continue to live, you ought indeed to grasp the thought that God nourishes you without bread through his Word; for if you should live and sustain yourself by bread alone then you must continually be full of bread. But the Word, that nourishes us is, that he promises us and causes it to be published that he is our God and desires to be our God.

12. Thus now the meaning of Moses and of Christ is: Whoever has here God’s Word and believes, has both blessings; the first, where he is in want and has nothing, but must suffer hunger, that Word will sustain him, so that he will not die of hunger nor perish, just as well as if he had abundance to eat; for the Word he has in his heart nourishes and sustains him without eating and drinking. But has he little to eat, then a bite or slice of bread will feed and nourish him like a kingly meal; for not only bread but the Word of God also nourishes the body naturally, as it creates and upholds all things, Hebrews 1:3. The other blessing he will also enjoy, namely, that finally bread will surely be at hand, come whence it will, and should it rain from heaven like manna where none grows and none can grow. In these two thoughts every person can freely trust, namely, that he must in time of hunger receive bread or something to eat, or if not, then his hunger must become so moderate and bearable that it will nourish him even as well as bread does.

13. What has been said of eating and feeding the body should be understood also of drinking, clothing, house, and all our needs: namely that although he still permits us to become naked and suffer want for clothing, house etc., clothing must finally be at hand, and before it fails the leaves of the trees must become coats and mantles; or if not, then the coats and garments that we wear must never grow old; just as happened to the Children of Israel in the desert Deuteronomy 8:2-4, whose clothing and shoes never wore out. Likewise the wild wilderness must become their houses, and there must be a way where there is no way; and water, where there is no water; stones must become water. For here stands God’s Word, which says: “He cares for you;” and St. Paul in 1 Timothy 6:17: “God giveth us richly all things to enjoy;” and Matthew 6:33-34: “But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Be not therefore anxious for the morrow.” These and like words must continue true and stand forever firm.

14. All this one may indeed learn from his own daily experiences. For it is held, and I almost believe it, that there are not as many sheaves of wheat grown as there are people living on the earth; but God daily blesses and increases the wheat in the sack, the flour in the tray, the bread on the table and in the mouth, as Christ did. John 6:12 f. It is also noticeable that as a rule poor people and their children are fatter and their food reaches farther and agrees with them better than is the case among the rich with all their provisions. However that the godless at times suffer need, or in times of famine many die of hunger, is caused by a special plague as pestilence, war etc. In other ways we see that in all things it is not the food, but the Word of God that nourishes every human being.

15. Now that God sustains all mankind by bread, and not by the Word alone, without bread, is done to the end, that he conceals his work in the world in order to exercise believers; just as he commanded the children of Israel to arm themselves and to fight, and yet it was not his pleasure that victory should come through their own sword and deeds; but he himself was to slay their enemies and triumph with their swords and through their deeds. Here it might a1so be said: The warrior was not victorious through his sword alone, but by every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God, as David sings, Psalm 44:6: “For I will not trust in my bow, neither shall my sword save me.” Also <19E710> Psalm 147:10 and Psalm 33:16-17: “He taketh no pleasure in the legs of a man. A mighty man is not delivered by great strength. A horse is a vain thing for safety.” Yet he uses man and the horse, the sword and bow: but not because of the strength and power of man and of the horse, but under the veil and covering of man and the horse he fights and does all. This he proves in that he often did and daily does the same without man and the horse, where there is need and he is not tempted.

16. Thus he does also with the bread; since it is at hand, he nourishes us through it and by means of it, so that we do not see it and we think the bread does it; but where it is not at hand, there he nourishes us without the bread, only through the Word, as he does by means of the bread; so that thus bread is God’s helper, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:9: “We are God’s fellow workers,” that is, through and under our outward ministerial office he gives inwardly his grace, which he also could give and does give indeed without our office; but since the office is at hand, one should not despise it nor tempt God. Thus God sustains us outwardly by bread; but only inwardly he gives that growth and permanency, which the bread cannot give. And the summary is: All creatures are God’s larva and mummery, which he permits to work with him and to help to do everything that he can do and does do otherwise without their cooperation, in order that we may cleave alone to his Word. Thus, if bread is at hand, that we do not therefore trust the more; or if there is no bread present, that we do not therefore despair the more; but use it when it is at hand, and do without it, when there is none; being assured that we shall still live and be sustained at both times by God’s Word, whether there be bread or no bread. With such faith one overcomes avarice and temporal care for daily bread in the right way.

17. Christ’s second temptation is opposed to the first and is repugnant to common sense. Its substance is that the devil teaches us to tempt God; as he here calls to Christ to cast himself down from the pinnacle of the temple, which was not at all necessary, since there were surely good steps upon which he could descend. And that this temptation was for the purpose of tempting or making trial of God, the answer of Christ also clearly proves, when he says: “Thou shalt not make trial of the Lord thy God.” By this he shows that the devil wished to lead him into temptation.

18. And this very appropriately follows the first temptation. For where the devil feels a heart trusts God in times of want and need, he soon ceases his temptation of bread and avarice and thinks: Wait, wilt thou be very spiritual and believing, I will assist you: He approaches and attacks on the other side, that we might believe where God has not commanded us to believe, nor wills that we should believe. For example, if God gave you bread in your homes, as he does yearly everywhere in the world, and you would not use it, but instead you would cause need and want yourselves, and say: Why, we are to believe God; I will not eat the bread, but will patiently wait until God sends me manna from heaven. See, that would be tempting God; for that is not believing where all is at hand that we need and should have. How can one believe that he will receive what he already has ?

19. Thus you see here that Satan held before Christ want and need where there was neither want nor need; but where there was already good means by which to descend from the temple without such a newly devised and unnecessary way of descending. For this purpose Satan led Christ to the top of the temple, in the holy city, says the Evangelist, and placed him in a holy place. For he creates such precious thoughts in man that he thinks he is filled with faith and is on the true way of holiness; and yet he does not stand in the temple, but is only on the outside of the temple, that is, he is not in the true holy mind or life of faith; and yet he is in the holy city; that is, such persons are found only in Christendom and among true Christians, who hear a great deal of preaching about faith. To these persons he applies the sayings of Scripture. For such persons learn Scripture also by daily hearing it; but not farther than they can apply it to their erroneous opinions and their false faith. For Satan here quotes from the Psalter, Psalm 91:11-12, that God commanded the angels that they should protect the children of God and carry them on their hands. But Satan like a rogue and cheat fails to quote what follows, namely, that the angels shall protect the children of God in all their ways. For the Psalm reads thus: “For he will give his angels charge over thee to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone;” hence the protection of the angels does not reach farther, according to the command of God, than the ways in which God has commanded us to walk.

When we walk in these ways of God, his angels take care of us. But the devil omits to quote “the ways of God” and interprets and applies the protection of the angels to all things, also to that which God has not commanded; then it fails and we tempt God.

20. Now, this temptation seldom takes place in outward material things as bread, clothing, house, etc. For we find many foolhardy people, who risk and endanger their body and life, their property and honor, with out any need of doing so; as those do who willfully enter into battle or jump into the water, or gamble for money, or in other ways venture into danger, of whom the wise man says in Sirach 3:27: “Whoever takes pleasure in danger, will thereby be overcome;” for in the degree one struggles to get a thing, will he succeed in obtaining it; and good swimmers are likely to drown and good climbers likely to fall. Yet it is seldom that those of false faith in God abstain from bread, clothing and other necessities of life, when they are at hand. As we read of two hermits, who would not accept bread from the people, but thought God should send it to them directly from heaven; so the consequence was that one died and went to his father, the devil, who taught him such faith and left him fall from the pinnacle.

21. But in spiritual matters this temptation is powerful when one has to do with the nourishment not of the body but of the soul. Here God has held before us the person and way, by which the soul can be forever nourished in the richest manner possible without any want, namely Christ, our Savior.

But this way, this treasure, this provision no one desires. Everybody seeks another way, other provisions to help their souls. The real guilty ones are those who would be saved through their own work; these the devil sets conspicuously on the top of the temple. They follow him and go down where there is no stairway; they believe and trust in their own work where there is no faith nor trust, no way nor bridge, and break their necks. But Satan makes use of and persuades them through the Scriptures to believe that the angels will protect them, and that their way, works and faith are pleasing to God, and who called them through the Scriptures to do good works; but they do not care how falsely they explain the Scriptures.

22. Who these are, we have identified often enough and very fully, namely, workrighteous persons and unbelieving hypocrites under the name of being Christians and among the congregation of Christian people. For the temptation must take place in the holy city and one temptation is seldom against another. In the first temptation want and hunger are the reasons that we should not believe; and by which we become anxious to have a full sufficiency, so that there is no chance for us to believe. In the second temptation, however, the abundance and the full sufficiency are the reasons that we do not believe, by which we become tired of the common treasure, and every one tries to do something through his own powers to provide for his soul. So we do; if we have nothing, then we doubt God and believe not; if we have abundance, then we become tired of it and wish to have something different, and again we fail to believe. There we flee and turn against want and seek abundance: here we seek want and flee from the abundance we have. No, whatever God does for us, is never right. Such is the bottomless wickedness of our unbelief.

23. Christ’s third temptation consists in temporal honor and power; as the words of the devil clearly teach, when Satan shows and offers Christ all the kingdoms of the world if he would worship him. To this class those belong who fall from their faith for the sake of honor and power, that they may enjoy good days, or not believe further than their honor and power extend.

Such are also the heretics who start sects and factions in matters of faith among Christians, that they may make a great parade before the world and soar aloft in their own honor. Hence one may place this third temptation on the right, and the first on the left side. The first is the temptation of misfortune, by which man is stirred to anger, impatience and unbelief; the third and last, the temptation of prosperity, by which man is enticed to lust, honor, joy, and whatever is high. The second or middle temptation is spiritual and deals with the blind tricks and errors that mislead reason from faith.

24. For whom the devil cannot overcome with poverty, want, need and misery, he attacks with riches, favor, honor, pleasure, power and the like, and contends on both sides against us; yea, “he walketh about,” says St.

Peter in 1 Peter 5:8, so that if he cannot overthrow us either with suffering or love, that is, with the first temptation on the left or the third on the right, he retires to a higher and different method and attacks us with error, blindness and a false understanding of the Scripture. If he wins there, we fare ill on all sides and in all things; and whether one suffers poverty or has abundance, whether he fights or surrenders, all is lost. For when one is in error, neither patience in misfortune nor firmness in prosperity helps him; seeing that in both heretics are often powerful and the devil deliberately acts as if he were overcome in the first and last temptations, although he is not, if he has only won in the middle or second temptation. For he lets his own children suffer much and be patient, even at times to spurn the world; but never with a true and honest heart.

25. Now these three temptations taken together are heavy and hard; but the middle one is the greatest; for it attacks the doctrine of faith itself in the soul, and is spiritual and in spiritual matters. The other two attack faith in outward things, in fortune and misfortune, in pleasure and pain etc., although both severely try us. For it is sad that one should lay hold of heaven and ever be in want and eat stones where there is no bread. Again, it is sad to despise favors, honor and possessions, friends and associates, and let go what one already has. But faith, rooted in God’s Word, is able to do all things; is faith strong, then it is also easy for the believer to do this.

26. The order of these temptations, as they met Christ, one cannot absolutely determine; for the Evangelists give them in different order. The temptation Matthew places as the middle one, Luke places last, Luke 4, 4f.; and again, the temptation Luke places in the middle, Matthew places last, as if little depended on the order. But if one wished to preach or speak of them, the order of Luke would be the better. For it is a fine opportunity to repeat and relate that the devil began with want and misfortune; when that did not work, then he began with prosperity and honor; and last, when all fails, that he wantonly and wickedly springs forth and strikes people with terror, lies and other spiritual tricks. And since they have no order in practice and experience, but as it happens that a Christian may be attacked at one time with the last, and another time with the first etc., Matthew gave little attention to the order for a preacher to observe in speaking of this theme. And perhaps it was also the same with Christ through the forty days that the devil held to no order, but today attacked him with this and tomorrow with another temptation, and again in ten days with the first and so on, just as occasion was given.

27. At last angels approached and served him. This must have taken place in a literal sense, that they appeared in a bodily form and gave him to eat and drink, and just as at a table, they ministered to all his wants. For the service is offered outwardly to his body, just like, no doubt, the devil, his tempter, also appeared in a bodily form, perhaps like an angel. For, seeing that he places him on the pinnacle of the temple and shows him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment, he must have been a higher being than a man, since he represents himself as a higher being, in that he offers him all the kingdoms of the world and permits himself to be worshiped. But he surely did not bear the form of the devil, for he desires to be beautiful when he lies and deceives, as St. Paul says of him in 2 Corinthians 11:14: “For even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light.”

28. This however is written for our comfort, that we may know that many angels minister also to us, where one devil attacks us; if we fight with a knightly spirit and firmly stand, God will not let us suffer want, the angels of heaven would sooner appear and be our bakers, waiters and cooks and minister to all our wants. This is not written for Christ’s sake for he does not need it. Did the angels serve him, then they may also serve us.

The Truth in Midland, Michigan Shall Make You...
Confused.
John Seifert Is Busy Dismantling the Intrepid Lutherans of Michigan



Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel has left a new comment on your post "Just Remember What WELS Supports When the Synod De...":

Ichabod -

Did you notice the prominent part on the "Truth in Midland" website which "justification" appears? Here, following is quoted from that web page:

>>>>>>>> Justification

The Bible and WELS Lutherans teach that God judged all sinners righteous in his sight when Jesus Christ died on the cross for us. God declared everyone free from the guilt and punishment owed for our sins. The sinner receives this free gift of forgiveness, not by doing good deeds, but only by faith. A person is justified when he or she believes in Christ and his redemptive work. It is a gift from God. Ephesians 2:8,9; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Romans 3:22-24; Romans 3:28; Romans 4:5; Mark 16:16

Learn More

If you would like to learn more about the doctrine of Justification, consider reading the book, Justification – How God Forgives, written by Wayne D. Mueller [UOJ Church Growther]. If you have questions regarding this topic or any other, feel free to contact Pastor Behnken. >>>>>>>>>

http://truthinmidland.com/justification/

I wonder if this congregation is busting at the seams for people to join. What a nice appealing teaching. It is "universal objective justification" on display with a dash mention of faith. It is not only contradictory, but also ambiguous.

I don't know about some, but this WELS profession to recognize "faith" seems about as empty as what I heard our White House occupier say about the 2nd Amendment. He actually said that he believes in the Second Amendment. But, I have to doubt his cheap words. His words don't line up with his actions..........

Nathan M. Bickel

www.thechristianmessage.org
www.moralmatters.org 


Is this UOJ?


Emergent Church Fans - PRO HOMOSEXUAL PASTOR JAY BAKKER DENIES JESUS’ ATONEMENT : Apprising Ministries

SP Schroeder and Missions Board Chairman Keith Free
gave Stanley-trained Glende and Ski a huge sum
to buy a stinky bar and remodel it for The CORE.


PRO HOMOSEXUAL PASTOR JAY BAKKER DENIES JESUS’ ATONEMENT : Apprising Ministries:


PRO HOMOSEXUAL PASTOR JAY BAKKER DENIES JESUS’ ATONEMENT

A
I have copied the entire post and links because they are so important
for the gutless SynCon Lutherans who have let this develop.
In Apprising Ministries articles such Doug Pagitt And Homosexual Sin I’ve explained to you that the neo-liberal cult openly operating within the Emerging Church aka the Emergent Church was always a veritable Trojan Horse that was chock-full of heresy.
That sector was headed by, among others, the unholy EC trinity of apostates, Living Spiritual Teacher and EC guru Brian McLaren, universalist EC pastor Doug Pagitt, and his friend Dr. Tony Jones, the progressive “theologian in residence” at Solomon’s Porch.
What you need to realize here is this has now become an upgraded Emerging Church 2.0—with its new form of postmodern Progressive “Big Tent” Christianity that’s being referred to by these rebels against the final authority of God’s Word as Emergence Christianity.
It’s important to understand that this is actually critical background information as you go on to read the rest of Pastor Jay Bakker denies Jesus’ atonement, republished with permission from the fine online apologetics and discernment work Stand Up For The Truth.
As you can see, e.g. in Jay Bakker Critiques Ken Silva At Religion Dispatches, over the years I’ve had my run ins with him. If you didn’t know, gay-affirming Jay Bakker is “pastor” of Revolution:NYC and tip-of-the-spear for the EC’s pro-homosexual attack upon proper Biblical Christianity.
Here’s the heart of the matter, and why you need to understand the role of the EC as to how we arrived in this pathetic position where cardinal doctrines of the historic, orthodox, Christian Church are now up for grabs—not to mention under attack—within mainstream evangelicalism.
I’ve continued sounding the largely ignored warning that Satan launched the EC, with its core doctrine of antibiblical Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism, at the younger sectors of the ostensibly conservative communities of apostatizing evangelicalism.
Since the late 90′s—up until this present time—your youth have been bombarded with arguments against the non-negotiable truths of the Christian faith, which originated with liberal theologians. While the arguments sound impressive when first advanced, the truth is, they’ve long ago been debunked.
Now you have a more complete backdrop from which to better recognize what the apostate Emerging Church “pastor” Jay Bakker’s actually trying to pull in the following. No one need to fear Jay Bakker one iota. He’s absolutely not a theologian; in fact, he’s not even qualified to lead a child’s Bible study.
This noted, that Christian Post would pay Jay Bakker any attention at all, lending their credibility to him—as if this fool really was anybody in the Christian community—also reflects upon CP as well. What’s next; John Shelby Spong? After-all, his theology spawned toxic vipers like Bakker in the first place:
“Yes, I am definitely questioning the atonement and trying to discover how we can see it in a different way. We’ve got this image of God who needs some sort of flesh, some sort of blood, that needs some sort of vengeance to pay for sin. My experience of a loving God who’s asked me to love my enemies – this isn’t a God that demands something before you are accepted. I think Jesus died because Jesus was inclusive. God is inclusive. I think that the idea of God somehow being separated from us was more man’s idea.”
That’s how Pastor Jay Bakker of Revolution Church NYC describes his views of the atonement, which to Christians has long been a non-negotiable doctrine of Christianity. The shedding of the blood of the lamb of God for the sins of the world is a rather big deal. You can’t preach about repentance for sins and the hope of a risen Christ without that key element.
The LGBTQ-affirming Bakker has released a new book in which he encourages Christians to doubt, question and re-examine their beliefs and the Bible in pursuit of the “unknown God of limitless grace.” In an interview with the Christian Post, Bakker, son of Jim and Tammy Faye, explains how his book will cause even more Christians to doubt the fundamentals of their faith and be more inclusive and socially responsible. So much for teaching his followers about the one true message that really changes the world.
Pastor Jay Bakker of Revolution Church NYC.
Son of televangelists Jim Bakker and the late Tammy Faye Bakker Messner, the 37-year-old self-described “evangelical punk preacher” believes the Christian Church has misrepresented God and contributed to the sufferings of many with its orthodox teachings on sin, salvation and eternity. More inclined to be filed alongside the works of Peter Rollins, Rob Bell, Brian D. McLaren and other so-called emergent Christian leaders, Faith, Doubt and Other Lines I’ve Crossed is heavy on love and grace and selective in its assessment of Scripture – apparently a continuing theme from Bakker’s previous work, Fall to Grace: A Revolution of God, Self & Society (2011).
Bakker’s reflections on a faith that he feels needs to be reformed don’t seem to rest on genuine biblical interpretation, as he chooses to ignore the more troublesome and demanding texts that test his own views. He claims Christians who believe the Bible is inerrant don’t take that same Bible “seriously.” Yet the New York City preacher leaves plenty of room in Faith, Doubt and Other Lines I’ve Crossed for others to make the same claim about him – and not because he disagrees with a God-inspired view of Scripture or believes that Scripture leaves room for homosexual relationships, but rather because he separates the God of the Bible from much of what the Bible claims God has said and done.
Although Bakker’s theology may cause some readers to bristle, his demands for a more biblically literate, compassionate and socially-conscious Christian Church certainly hold merit. As the preacher explained to The Christian Post this week, there is plenty that the Church has gotten right in terms of combating poverty and hunger, but he also insists Christians need to re-think the issues he believes much of the community has gotten wrong – especially when it comes to gays and lesbians.
Below is Bakker’s discussion with The Christian Post, conducted via phone and email, about his new book, Faith, Doubt, and Other Lines I’ve Crossed: Walking with the Unknown God. It has been edited for clarity.
CP: Please summarize Faith, Doubt and Other Lines I’ve Crossed. What’s it all about?
Bakker: The idea is just that it’s okay to question your faith. You usually come out stronger for doing so. Growing up I was always taught that doubt was something that was very forbidden. What I realized is that doubt is a part of faith, it’s an element of it, not the opposite, as Paul Tillich said. I thought that it was important to write about living in a mystery and realizing that, if we want to serve a God that’s actually God, we can’t have God figured out.
CP: What kind of audience did you have in mind when writing Faith, Doubt and Other Lines I’ve Crossed?
Bakker: When I write books I don’t really always even necessarily have an audience in mind as much as just people who like to read or people who are interested in spirituality. I guess my basic audience is usually those folks who’ve gone through Christianity and maybe have been disillusioned by the Church or disillusioned by faith. Your hope is always that even those folks who feel like that they’ve got it figured out read it too. You want people to think from all different sides. So I guess the intended audience would probably more likely be people who are a maybe a little disillusioned with their faith, but of course the hopeful audience is anybody who’s curious about spirituality, who’s curious about Christianity and maybe wanting to see it in a different light.
CP: When you mention “faith” in the book, what are you referring to? Faith in a person, a thing, an ideal…?
Bakker: For a lot of people I’m writing to, it would be Christianity and Christ. It’s all three – thing, person, ideal. It’s recognizing that faith by nature is necessarily in something of the unknown. Belief is in something known. Faith is about the unknown.
And so I’m trying to get people to really grasp the idea of allowing themselves to doubt in faith. I’m trying to get to deconstruct faith and say faith isn’t about having it figured out. Faith isn’t belief. Doubt is built-in with faith. Faith is not a fact. Faith has more in common with hope than it would [with] fact. There’s always an unknowing when it comes to faith.
CP: You mentioned deconstructing faith. You also seem to deconstruct the traditional Christian doctrine of the atonement, the belief that Jesus died for the world’s sins. InFaith, Doubt you write on page 58 that a God who asks us to love our enemies…”cannot also require some sort of ‘payment’ or ‘satisfaction’ or ‘substitution.’” Please clarify that.
Bakker: Yes, I am definitely questioning the atonement and trying to discover how we can see it in a different way. We’ve got this image of God who needs some sort of flesh, some sort of blood, that needs some sort of vengeance to pay for sin. My experience of a loving God who’s asked me to love my enemies – this isn’t a God that demands something before you are accepted. I think Jesus died because Jesus was inclusive. God is inclusive. I think that the idea of God somehow being separated from us was more man’s idea.
I talk about in the book how when Jesus died and the curtain ripped and there was nothing behind the curtain of the Holy of Holies. I think that our ideas of separation are our own. I think we’re always coming up with other ideas of how we are separate from God, or for some reason why we have to be separate from God. I think that imagery of the temple curtain ripping and nothing being behind there is kind of the [same thing] as [God] saying “I’ve always been with you.”
CP: I guess the next question would then be: who is Jesus? If you’re putting the atonement aside, how do you explain Jesus to people?
Bakker: For me, it would be … I still see Christ as the messiah and the Son of God. I still see Christ as the closest thing to God. In order to deconstruct the atonement theory really [it] all comes from the message of Christ, and the message of love and grace and acceptance and loving your enemies and forgiving those who persecute you. For me, Christ to me is still in my view messiah. It’s just not seen as the way that Christ was necessarily this payment, as much as Christ was the full realization of God, or at least a glimpse of God. The God we’ve seen before who smited people, or demanded that babies’ heads be crushed on rocks. Christ came to say “that’s not me, that’s not God. Your understanding of God is an understanding of you.” Jesus came and kind of turned all that stuff on its head and said “now I want you to turn the other cheek, now I want you to walk the extra mile. I hang out with tax collectors and prostitutes. I have no reputation. I don’t demand my own way.”
So when Christ comes on the scene, we see a very different concept and idea of God. Then I guess the argument is if Jesus is the ultimate example of God, then we’ve gotten some things wrong and we need to take another look at it. So you kind of have to filter your view of the Bible through Christ, and I believe through Paul as well because Paul’s writings are so earlier than even the Gospels. I think Paul gives us a glimpse of Christ that we don’t necessarily get to see in the Gospels. So I think it’s seeing the Bible with those eyes. Learning to see God and what other people have said about God and the concept of God through the eyes of Christ.
CP: You also question the afterlife and the traditional Christian belief that, based on one’s relationship with Jesus Christ, there is either eternal fellowship with God or eternal separation from God.
Bakker: If you do a simple word study, you realize that hell is not Dante’s Inferno. It’s not God’s retribution. To me, the hell concept doesn’t match up with much of what Jesus said, even though people say Jesus preached about hell. But even when Jesus was preaching about hell, he wasn’t referring what we think of as hell. He was talking about Gehenna, a place southwest of Jerusalem, or he was using the popular understanding of the afterlife to make a different point.
As for the afterlife, is it something that I hope for? That’s one of those unknowns. I don’t know. So I’m going to live my life here. A friend of mine was once asked “do you believe in life after death?” and he said “I believe in life before death, learning how to live life in the here and now, learning how to love my neighbors now and to love my enemies now.”
I really don’t believe in hell, but I hope for heaven.
CP: In Faith, Doubt, you come down heavily on the side of love and grace and that God is for everyone. Some might question, then, if God’s love has any demands.
Bakker: If you think about First Corinthians 13:4-7, I believe it says there love never demands its own way, it’s not irritable, it keeps no record of when it’s been wronged. I think when you ask Jesus what are the two most important commandments, what are the two most important things, and Jesus said love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself.
I think the demands are clearly love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself, and realizing that your neighbor is your enemy. When I see it as demands or laws or anything, I don’t see this as a heaven or hell issue. I think of it more as the fruits of the spirit, like in Galatians [5] where it says if you live a certain type of life, your life will produce patience and kindness and joy. But if you do this, this and this, you won’t receive the kingdom of God, but I believe the kingdom of God is the fruits of the spirit. I do believe that the kingdom of God is here on earth.
I think it’s saying when we do things like ignore others or not love others or become selfish, or things like that, we miss out on the peace, we miss out on patience, we miss out on joy. These are things that we miss out on when we follow a more selfish way. That’s how I see it, as rather than being punished for our sins, we’re punished by them.
CP: You mention in Faith, Doubt your belief that some Christians get worked up about the wrong things. For example, you write on page 87: “Everyone in church is freaking out, yet they wear diamonds. They eat chocolate. They drink coffee, eat bananas, and run their whole lives from their iPhones, just like I do. These sins aren’t as obvious as sleeping with your secretary. But they’re real sins, and they probably have a more dire effect on humanity than the sins we gasp at. And they’re the ones we all commit.” What’s your concept of sin?
Bakker: My concept of sin is the idea of cause and effect. It’s the idea of when we’re selfish, when we hurt other people, when we miss the idea of loving others, forgiving our enemies. For me, that’s what sin is, sin is missing the mark of loving the other when we get so caught up and focused on ourselves and almost in a way we become the idol. Or the things we purchase become the idol because they’re more important than the children picking the cocoa beans or the people mining for diamonds or policies that affect us positively but others negatively. To me, that’s kind of the idea of sin, when we forget about the other.
CP: You also write in Faith, Doubt that God cannot be both gracious and angry, that He wouldn’t punish people He’s supposed to love. You also write that God is just. Does justice never require any suffering?
Bakker: Usually the idea of justice, you hear it a lot from the Neo-Reformed folks who say “well God’s a just God and He requires punishment and He requires His pound of flesh. And we’re lucky for those of us who do get there.”
The idea of saying that justice is punishing someone for an eternity for temporal sin. The idea that how is that justice … I’m not saying God doesn’t punish us. If God created the laws of nature, we automatically have certain things like cause and effect. So when you stick your hand on a burner, you have a ring on your hand from the burner. That doesn’t change the fact that God still loves you and is merciful to you. I just don’t think God is this tyrant god … What I find in God I have to see through Christ.
Things like reaping and sowing, that’s not karma, that’s just nature. So that’s where I see God, [He] works in those lines. I don’t think God breaks your car down because you’ve been bad.
CP: You’re obviously LGBTQ-affirming, and appalled at how the Christian church in general has responded to homosexuality and same-sex marriage. The Christian Post ran a piece a few months ago featuring the viewpoints of some former gays and lesbians who believe God has personally called them to leave homosexuality and who say they believe homosexuality is immoral. What do you say to Christians with such a testimony?
Bakker: I used to have a friend who used to come and always confront me every Sunday and say “I think it’s wrong, and I’ve been set free. What do you say to that?” I said “I can’t tell you what your conviction is and what you want and what you don’t want. This is just what I believe and I hope you can accept that.” A year later, I got a text from her saying “you were right, I’m gay.” I wasn’t sure if she was upset or what was going on. Later she got in contact with me and said “I am who I am. I’m gay. I’ve met a woman and I’m in a relationship and I’m very happy.” That was one of my experiences with that.
As far as the ex-gay movement is concerned, most of the folks I’ve met through that, I’ve seen more pain and hurt. The fruit of that … I’ve seen marriages that have been ruined. I sat with a parent whose daughter took her life because she felt like she couldn’t change. I’ve seen the things that are happening in Uganda. American Christians going down and preaching this message, and now seeing bills put out that are [against homosexuality]. For me, the majority of the fruit of the ex-gay movement have been a negative thing and doesn’t seem to be something that works. There are people that say it works, but ultimately I think it’s a dangerous thing. I think if someone says “this is what I want for me,” that’s fine. But as soon as they start saying “I think everyone else should be ex-gay,” we start to get into a really dangerous territory.
There’s a reason why we see that these movements are on the decline and why they’re saying “we can’t really change you, but we can help you.” But does it work? And for me, the idea of that is if we’re supposed to be known for our fruit and known for our peace, patience and kindness and joy and these types of things, why is the fruit of this failure, why is the fruit of this broken marriages, why is the fruit of this suicides and bullying?
I also think it’s the civil rights issue of our time right now. Obviously, the president didn’t allow Pastor (Louie) Giglio to pray at the inauguration. Some people are starting to realize that there’s an issue, that these folks are being denied rights at the same time.
The question differs when it comes to a particular person who says “I’m ex-gay. What do you think about that?” For me, I can’t think for you. I can tell you that I don’t believe that this is something that you should have to do. But if this is what you want to do, then far be it from me to try and keep you from doing it. I will tell you my opinion if you want to know. But as far as when it becomes promoting it to other people and saying that this is the way God wants it to be, and this is the way you should be, I think that’s a horrible mistake.
CP: What are some things that you think the Church should be doing in terms of the LGBTQ community?
Bakker: I think we should be opening our arms. I think we should be marching for equality. I think we should be ordaining folks in the community, who want that and who are looking for that. I think we should be honest … that these Scriptures that we’ve used for so long, have been taken out of contexts. I think the Church should be embracing the LGBTQ community with open arms. I think we should be performing their wedding ceremonies. I perform weddings because I live in New York, I can do that. I think we should be treating people in the LGBTQ community the way we want to be treated, and loving them as ourselves. To me that’s a no-brainer.
CP: What are some of the other defining issues, if any, that you’ve seen that you think the Church should get involved with and get more active about?
Bakker: I think the Church in the past has done great work with poverty and hunger. I think the Church should continue to work on that. I think the Church needs to be more aware of social justice issues, not just on LGBTQ issues. But stuff like diamond mines or … what’s happening in Uganda with this [anti-homosexuality bill]. Obviously the Church should be standing up and saying this is wrong, this is bad, we denounce this. It took Rick Warren months and months before he would denounce any of that stuff … That shouldn’t have taken him so long, but thank God he did it. But the idea that these folks who see this kind of stuff happening, are still going out there and still supporting this message is devastating. People are going to prison for the rest of their life because of their sexuality. Gay rights activists are being murdered every day. The American Church who has influenced so much of this, should be standing up and saying no this has got to stop, this is ridiculous. Not that the American Church is the end-all, but unfortunately, there’s been a lot of folks who have been going into the countries there and stirring this pot up.
We’ve got to be better purchasers, we’ve got to be better with the clothes we buy, the products we buy, the politics we support, starting to think about what is it doing to others, instead of for us. The Church’s job is, I believe, to increase our love for one another, to make sure that people are getting a livable wage, all these sorts of things. I think if you want to look at a really great model for the message of the Church, I think Martin Luther King, Jr. would be a prime example of what the message of the Church should be and should continue to be.
CP: At some point you were trying to reach out to churches with certain platforms to discuss LGBTQ issues. Are you still trying to do that, or have you given that up?
Bakker: I don’t do it as outright as that. I was working with Soulforce and going to different churches and meeting with pastors. I still do meet with pastors. Often now, they want to meet with me privately to talk about the affirming issue and about the ins and outs and discuss some verses and the Scriptures, things like that. I still meet with pastors, just not on such a platform as I was with Soulforce. Any pastors out there who want to sit down talk about it, I’m always glad to do that.
CP: Is there anything going on with your church, Revolution NYC? Are there any projects you have coming up?
Bakker: The church here, we’re just keep on keeping on and we have the online stuff that we’re doing and continually trying to make a broader online community for those folks who might not even feel comfortable enough to attend church on Sunday.
I am working on a book right now on the ex-Christian movement. When I go on the road I meet a lot of people who have given up their faith, to the point where some just say “I’m an ex-Christian.” Trying to find out different reasons why people are starting to lose faith and give up their faith. That’s kind of what my hope is for my next book, that it will be on why people are losing their faith.
***
Pastor Jay Bakker, who co-founded Revolution Church in Phoenix, Ariz., in 1994, leads Revolution NYC services every Sunday afternoon at Pete’s Candy Store in the borough of Brooklyn. His previously published books include Son of a Preacher Man: My Search for Grace in the Shadows (2001) and Fall to Grace: A Revolution of God, Self & Society (2011). Bakker’s latest book, Faith, Doubt, and Other Lines I’ve Crossed: Walking with the Unknown God, was released Feb. 12, 2013, by Jericho Books.
Related articles

Further reading



'via Blog this'

Party in the MLC copies the all-gay version
called Party in the Fire Island Pines.

Another resignation would be fitting, when someone says,
"We are becoming more confessional," while funding The CORE.


Intrepid Lutherans: Disturbing Tactics: The Trap Question



Intrepid Lutherans: Disturbing Tactics: The Trap Question:


SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2013


Disturbing Tactics: The Trap Question


It becomes increasingly difficult to discuss Biblical doctrine when people are constantly trying to paint others into a corner with the sort of “trap question” that the scribes and Pharisees so often used with Jesus.  

A good example of such a question was submitted this morning on another thread by Pastor Peter Prange.

Dear Paul:

Would you say that Christ's vicarious satisfaction is *sufficient* for all the world but not *efficient* apart from faith?

Just trying to get further clarification.

Cordially,

Peter

One of the marks of a “trap question” is the very “cordial” tone of the question.  It appears innocent.  “Just trying to get further clarification.”  “Help me understand this better.”  It sounds like the author of the question is trying to engage in honest discussion. Who could have a problem with that?

This cordial tone is intended to disarm the person being questioned.  The respondent wants to assume that the one asking the question is being charitable and honest, and so he wishes to respond with charity as well, putting the best construction on the question.  It also allows the questioner to feign innocence (and shock) in the end if he is caught in his Pharisaical behavior:  “What?  I was just asking an innocent question.  You didn’t put the best construction on it.  That’s your fault.  I will pray for you.”  How pious!

But there are certain words and phrases that are loaded with meaning in theological discussion.  And just as in a chess match when a player attempts to out-maneuver his opponent by hiding his strategy, so a theological “player” will couch his language in innocence while introducing these loaded words, hoping that his opponent isn’t paying attention.  Sometimes he may notice the trap and avoid it.  Other times, he may not see it coming, and then, “Checkmate.”

I invite out readers to research the source of Pastor Prange’s language.  It isn’t the Book of Concord.  It isn’t the language of Lutheran orthodoxy or of Scripture.  It is straight out of the textbook of Calvinism.

I’ll quote here an example, but if one googles “atonement sufficient efficient,” one comes up with about half a million results.


Dr. Nettles does a wonderful job of summarizing the “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect” position(s) in his book By His Grace and For His Glory (note pages 302-05).  He believes this view represents “a majority view among Calvinists” though as I demonstrated in previous posts, is not the position he himself prefers.  From this point on I will refer to the Sufficient for All, Efficient for the Elect view as the SFA position.

The SFA position basically affirms both the sufficiency in the nature of the atonement to save all men and the limitation of the atonement to the elect in its divine intent.  It is unlimited in extent but limited in its intent.  According to the Synod of Dort, “The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.”  W. G. T Shedd (a Presbyterian theologian form the nineteenth century) wrote, “Christ’s death is sufficient in value to satisfy eternal justice for the sins of all mankind…Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins for all and every man in the world.” 

This view would say Jesus Christ bore the sins of the entire world (Isaiah 53:1-6) on his shoulders when he died on the old rugged cross.  As the sinless God-man He offered up a perfect sacrifice of infinite value.  The extent of the atonement is universal but the intent of the atonement (to save only the elect) is clearly limited.  Steele and Thomas explain it this way, the atonement was limited in its original design; not in its worth, value, or scope.


Pastor Prange is a learned, intelligent man.  The words he chose in his question were not random, nor were they innocent.  If he wanted to ask me if I held to the Calvinist doctrine of “Limited Atonement,” he could have simply asked.  If he had been intending to have an honest discussion, he would have been open about the source of his language.

Instead, he used the insidious “trap question.”  Unfortunately, this is rather typical in discussions I’ve had concerning UOJ.  Perhaps I have been guilty of it on the other end at times, and if so, I apologize.  The “trap question” is normally an uncharitable form of dialogue.  I say normally, not always, because at times Jesus Himself responded to trap questions with trap questions of His own, (“I will answer your question if you answer mine. John’s baptism—where did it come from?”).  Obviously in these cases, our Lord was perfectly justified in turning the trap back on the heads of those who were wickedly persecuting Him.

As for this “trap question” about “sufficient but not efficient” atonement, I will simply answer as I always have, that I reject the Calvinist limited atonement, as well as the Calvinist absolute double decree of election both to salvation and to damnation, together with all the theological baggage that goes along with these Calvinist heresies.  And in my discussions, I will not be baited into departing from the language of Scripture and the Book of Concord, and I urge our readers both to watch out for these trap questions, and not to employ them as a general rule.

But this incessant attempt of UOJers to pin the charge of Calvinism on those who hold to the Lutheran doctrine of Justification By Faith Alone is nothing new.  Samuel Huber, with his version of universal justification, did the same thing to the orthodox theologians at Wittenberg, because to him, either one has to teach universal election and universal justification, or one must be a Calvinist teaching a limited atonement.  Hunnius, of course, demonstrates Huber's folly.

From the Preface to A. Hunnius’ Theses Opposed to Huberianism:

In this book, he not only miserably and ineptly hijacks and most violently twists the apostolic text with his dreams and deliria, but he also, in unbridled fashion, seeks, beyond all rhyme and reason, to rub the scab of Calvinism off of me, most wantonly inventing that which he knows full well to be made up by him in his own study.  What does one expect from such propensity for fabrication, by which, perhaps, he tries to outdo his own father by whom he writes and speaks?

…I have also recommended these Theses so that it may be clearly seen how barefaced Huber is, how prodigiously vain, how contrary to his conscience is his testimony to impugn us as heretics guilty of a Calvinistic crime, that this man who has been handed over to a reprobate mind has no fear whatsoever, neither before God nor before the Church. 



2 COMMENTS:


Anonymous said...
Have any of the WELS pastor and teacher signers of Intrepid Lutherans been contacted by their DPs yet? Scott E. Jungen
[GJ - I know of two in the Michigan District...so far.]
Peter Prange said...
Paul: My question was not in any way intended as a "trap," as you put it. As I've written elsewhere, I believe it's very important in times of controversy to define our terms very carefully so that we are not talking past one another. Definition of words in theological discussion often requires us to use dogmatic distinctions; that's all I was trying to do (even if I wasn't entirely successful from your perspective). I'm simply attempting to understand the distinction you seem to be making between the fact that Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world (1 Jn 2:2) but not the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe (1 Tm 4:9,10). I don't understand how the first can be true without the second also being true. That's the reason for my question, and I did mean it cordially, in the most objective sense of the word, whether you believe it or not! :-) Grace, Peter

---
UOJists read this and say -
Everyone is forgiven and saved!

bruce-church (https://bruce-church.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Intrepid Lutherans: Disturbing Tactics: The Trap Q...":

I believe that Peter Prange had no malice in his question simply because his entire family is cordial, and pure talent got them to where they are at, not ambition. That said, most WELS members are not cordial in questions when it comes ot doctrinal disputes, and for them to suddenly be cordial would be a red flag.

Since Calvinists emphasize the sovereignty of God, they must put the onus on God for not saving all men. Thus they say that God designed the atonement to be limited, whereas Lutherans say it is limited only due to the hardness of men's hearts, and has nothing to do with its inherent sufficiency or efficiency. 



'via Blog this'

***

GJ - I do not think Rydecki meant it was posed from malice but false curiosity. As a veteran of such exchanges, I get plenty of questions which are simply ways of getting to another defense of UOJ...eventually. They start with UOJ and find it wherever they wish. When blocked by the obvious (Romans 4 being perfectly justification by faith), they move to another inventive seat of doctrine.

It would be more honest of Prange to say, "This is what I believe about UOJ. This is what I reject about justification by faith."

---
More comments from -

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/02/disturbing-tactics-trap-question.html


Anonymous said...
Perhaps this is just a little too simple, but doesn't the Apostles' Creed address the issue of justificatin quite clearly? We confess in the Third Article of the Apostles' Creed that we believe in the "forgiveness of sins". The Third Article addresses the Work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Sanctifier; he creates our faith through the Means of Grace, and he grows our faith through the Means of Grace. And the benefit of faith is the forgiveness of sins. It seems so simple. That was after all, the purpose of the Apostles' Creed, to put the teachings of Scripture in simple terms for a simple confession of the true faith.

Now some WELS pastors are eliminating the Apostles' Creed from the liturgy. Well, that is, if you can still call what they are doing for a service a "liturgy". Are they eliminating the Apostles" Creed from the service because it teaches frogiveness of sins as a gift of the Holy Spirit too clearly? UOJers need ambiguity to support their cause. Eliminate the creeds and you've helped the cause of ambiguity considerably.

Vernon
Benjamin Rusch said...
The timing of this is actually rather ironic, Pastor Rydecki. You're actually being accused of Calvinism's Limited Atonement by some at MLC right now (who, evidently, have not read your stance concerning justification). You were pretty explicit in "Dresden Lutherans" by saying "Forgiveness of sins, life and salvation were, indeed, won for all people by Christ on the cross, thought His merit alone." But it's one of those subjects that begs that I safely keep my mouth shut.

Whoops! Looks like I just put my opinion on the internet! There goes keeping my mouth shut!

@Vernon, Interesting how you note the Apostles' Creed. I've been noticing the Apostles' used over the Nicene creed lately, and yes, one church service where the creed was suspiciously missing after the sermon. I guess the message of the cross is "too foolish" for those perishing, therefore we must make it more palatable for evangelism's sake?
Anonymous said...
Statements copied from your "Why?" article:
• Jesus paid for the sins of the world and made satisfaction for the sins of the world and earned righteousness and forgiveness of sins for all people at the cross.
• God only forgives and justifies sinners by im puting the righteousness of Christ to them.
• He only imputes the righteousness of Christ to faith.
• Faith is only created by the Holy Spirit through the Means of Grace.
• Therefore, I do not speak of God having already forgiven the sins of the world at the cross, because the Holy Spirit did not apply the merits of Christ to the world at the cross, nor did the world believe in Christ at the time of the cross. We are justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone—not without grace, not without Christ, and not without faith and the means of grace.
The first bullet point appears to conflict with the other three, particularly in the use of the word, "only." An even better statement of bullet point one is that Christ atoned for our sins as it states in Romans 5:11. Christ did not have to earn anything as is was his plan from eternity.

I can see why Pastor Prange asked for clarification because one could see signs of limited atonement in your last three statements. If forgiveness does not already exist, faith will not save anyone. As stated in Ephesians 2:8, man is saved "through faith" and not by faith which is the means God uses to separate those who reject his pardon at the cross and lose their salvation as stated in John 8:24.
Donald N. Gretel
Mr. Douglas Lindee said...
Scott,

I have a lengthy post brewing, due Monday, probably, that will address aspects of your question alongside related issues. Stay tuned...

- Douglas
Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...
OK, Peter, I'll take your word for it that you were not trying to suggest that my position is Calvinistic. Thanks for that. If you weren't trying to compare what I have taught with Calvinism, then why did you bring in the language of Calvinism (without mentioning that you were doing so)? I mean, if I hadn't been studying this material in depth for the last several years, I wouldn't have even known where this "sufficient/efficient" terminology came from, in which case, I would have viewed your question differently.

If it's honest dialogue you're seeking, then I'm on board. But then I have to ask, why did you again mischaracterize my position with your question? You asked:

I'm simply attempting to understand the distinction you seem to be making between the fact that Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world (1 Jn 2:2) but not the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe (1 Tm 4:9,10). I don't understand how the first can be true without the second also being true.

"But not the Savior of all people"? When have I ever said that God is not the Savior of all people? If you will go back to our earlier thread, I certainly agreed and stated that God is the Savior of all people. Those are the very words of the Apostle in 1 Timothy 4. Why would I deny them? When have I denied them?

But you're confusing that confession with the meaning you're adding into those words. As you know, when a Universalist, for example, hears "God is the Savior of all men," he means that God saves all men by bringing them all into heaven. (I know that's not what you mean.)

"God is the Savior of all men" and "God has already saved all men" are not the same thing.

When you say that "God is the Savior of all people," it seems like you mean that God has already saved all people from sin and justified all people.

As I pointed out, that has never been taught in the Church before recently. Luther, Chemnitz and Melanchthon all referred 1 Tim. 4 to temporal salvation (rain, sunshine, harvests, etc.) in the sense that God graciously provides for all people. Or, one can understand it in that God is the Savior of all men, not as though He had already finished saving all men, but that He is the saving God to whom all men should turn in repentance, because He gave His Son to save all men, or because "with Him is forgiveness."

But to interpret it as though God has already justified/saved all men is not consistent with either the context or the rest of Scripture.
Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...
Benjamin,

Thanks for the heads up on how some are slandering me at MLC. That saddens me greatly. But it is no different than what the entire COP of the WELS is currently doing. By continuing to hurl insults at me behind my back and labeling the Gospel as "false doctrine," they are insulting Christ. May they be brought to repentance.
Anonymous said...
Vernon,
Just a comment on the Apostles Creed. It was not written by the apostles and it is in error. It says Christ descended into hell before he rose. There is scripture evidence that proves that to be wrong. If he did descend, for which I say he did not, it would have been after he rose, not before. The entire teaching of descent is based upon 1 Peter 3:19 and nowhere in scripture does it say Christ descended into hell. Even the Book of Concord does not use that verse. This whole issue raised itself around 1550 and is known as the Hamburg Controversy. My study says Christ did not descend into hell, he went directly to the right hand of his Father. The verses I would use to defend this position are Matt. 12:29-40Luke 23:43Hebrews 9:12.924.10:12,John 16:16,16:28,19:30 and 2 Peter 2:5. The verses in 1 Peter are talking about Noah preaching while building the ark, and the spirits in prison are those who rejected Noah's teachings and were lost in the flood. God spoke through the prophets, Hebrews 1:1. You have to go back to Genesis 6 because that is what 1 Peter 3 is related to.

There is also a translation error in some Bibles in 1 Peter 3:18 where it says "quickened by the Spirit" and others say "in spirit in which." The Greek shows the latter to be correct and it makes a significant difference in the translation. WELS also uses Colossians 2:15 with 1 Peter 3:19, but that is also error.
Donald N. Gretel