Theology – Page 2

McAtee contra E. Michael Jones’ Description of Lutheran Theology

A Roman Catholic describes his understanding of Reformed soteriology. McAtee returns the favor.

“According to Lutheran theology, sin is not removed from the sinner through confession, penance, and a firm resolution not to sin again. Sin is ineradicable, but God in His mercy covers it with His grace as ‘snow covers shit.’ Grace does not perfect nature because nature cannot be perfected. Instead, it maintains a tension between corrupt nature and it’s redemption that Hegel would later describe with the term ‘Aufhebung,’ which is an essentially untranslatable term, meaning roughly both to exalt and maintain.”

Dr. E. Michael Jones
Hollowcaust Narrative — p. 210
Idiot Roman Catholic

Of course the flip side of this is;

“According to Roman Catholic theology, sin is removed from the sinner through confession, penance, and a firm resolution not to sin again only to find that such an arrangement is a lie since always sin comes back so that the sinner has to continue to go to confession, penance again and again and again because the Roman Catholic penitent’s resolve not to sin again is like shit that covers snow. This means that the Roman Catholic is never done with sin and that all his rigamarole is just so much play acting that has absolutely zero impact on either his sin nature or his actual sin. For the Roman Catholic sin is also ineradicable but by the legal fictions that are Rome’s sacramental system it is pretended that sin is dealt with. Grace does not perfect nature because nature is always having to return to Rome’s blasphemous sacramental system where grace is like just so much water in a leaky bathtub. Rome’s “grace” can never clean the poor supplicant because by the time the supplicant leaves the confessional booth he is more dirty than when he arrived since all that sacramental grace has leaked out of the human container.”

Paedocommunion #2

I Corinthians 11:27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and [f]blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks [g]in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the [h]Lord’s body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many [i]sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

33 Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come.

Last time we gathered for the Eucharist we considered the subject of whether or not children should be taking of the Lord’s Table. We dealt then specifically with the issue of whether of whether or not wee children can come to the table and “do this in remembrance of me.”

We saw then that this requirement to “do this in remembrance of me,” was not a barrier for children because remembrance there is not primarily about our subjective remembrance but rather it is primarily a requirement “To do this in observance of me,” or if you prefer, “Do this unto my remembrance.”

We spent 30 minutes examining that theme and if you do not recall the work accomplished there I would encourage you to go to sermon audio and consider anew all that was said there.

This week we continue to look at the issue of children coming to the table. We begin by noting again that this is a volatile issue that can easily get various shorts into sundry knickers as being worn by people on both sides of the debate. As we noted last week the majority report historically among the Reformed and Presbyterian has been that children are banned from the table.

This is for several reasons. As we noted already one reason for that is because children are not able to take the table in remembrance of Christ.

This morning we look at a second reason why Presbyterian children are not typically allowed to come to the table. And that second reason is found in the passage this morning. That second reason given why the children cannot come to the table is because children are not able to do what the text requires here. Children cannot, so the argument goes, examine themselves.

Simply put, the argument goes like this;

1. There’s a command for partakers to self-examine (1 Corinthians 11:28). Infants can’t self-examine, therefore infants can’t partake. A version of this same word δοκιμαζέτω – δοκιμάζετε – appears in 2 Corinthians 13:5, in which we’re told to examine ourselves to see if we’re in the faith. This self-examination is beyond an infant. It is also beyond a toddler and beyond a young child also.

This is clear enough. We must ask ourselves if this is a defeater for the position of paedo-communion? Does this argument shut down allowing children to come to the Lord’s table?

Before we get to the details of this passage though, let us consider the theological implication of what is happening if we are going to make this passage mean that only those who can preform some form of introspective act are allowed to come to the table.

So, first we turn to the Theological implications of requiring the ability of introspection before coming to the table;

From a Theological point, if we follow the logic of the classical Presbyterian view, one would wind up with a works salvation. This is because in the traditional Reformed view a communicant coming to the table must demonstrate an intellectual understanding of the Gospel in order to earn the right to come to the Table; they have to examine/prove themselves worthy to take Communion.

This morphs the sacrament from being about God doing the doing in giving grace in the sacrament to being about our effectuating the work by our introspective examination. Just as with baptism, the Eucharist is not about our promises to God, but His promises to us. The Eucharist is a token of God’s Covenant faithfulness, just like the rainbow with Noah and the blood on the doorposts at the first Passover; in both cases God said, “When I see… I will remember my Covenant”.

At the Last Supper Jesus said, literally, “Do this in My remembrance”. The English translations obfuscate the Covenantal language that Christ uses but the literal puts the emphasis on His remembrance, just like with the rainbow and the blood on the doorpost. Neither sacraments are about our efforts, they are tokens of God’s faithfulness to us in remembering His Covenant. To require a litmus test on a Covenant child is to turn the whole grace-based intent of the Eucharist on its ear.

In the OT, a circumcised child of Israel was considered a member of Israel until such a time when they turned away from the promises of the Covenant. In the common Presbyterian view, a child of believers first has to start as one who is excommunicated and then must prove their worth before they are accepted. The beginning presupposition here is that baptized children are outside the covenant and so can’t come to the table until they achieve a certain level of intellectual and cognitive ability. To the contrary our presupposition is that because of God’s faithfulness and promises in Baptism we presuppose that our children that God has given us are Christian until such a time, God forbid, they abandon the covenant and the God of the covenant.

I cannot see how the beginning presupposition that our children are strangers to the covenant is consistent with God’s promises and certainly not consistent with Covenant Theology. Covenant Theology begins with God’s declaration of “who we are and then follows with the imperative of who therefore we should be.” In other words it is the idea that “You are a child of the Covenant, therefore live like one,” This follows the model of the preamble of the Ten Commandments establishes the relationship between God and His people first and then comes the commands. In the classical view that blocks children from coming to the table, this order is turned the other way around.

Secondly, we now turn to the textual considerations here in I Corinthians 11

“A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.”

George Knight III consistent with many other commentaries claims: that “the only guidance that we can ascertain is the meaning of the verb ‘examine,’ and Knight’s interpretation of this verb is that “Every person individually is to look into his own being to determine if he or she is taking the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner.”

This is the common understanding among the Reformed. It is the understanding of the Westminster Larger Catechism. It is the understanding of John Calvin

“A self-examination, therefore ought to come first, and it is vain to expect this of infants… Why should we offer poison instead of life giving food to our tender children? (Inst. 4.16.30)

But is this kind of examining the kind of examining that the inspired Apostle is calling for here? We think not. Let us consider why this is a misunderstanding.

The Greek verb in this text (dokimazeto) means to “prove, approve, or test.” We find this translation in the English Revised Version;

“But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.”

Elsewhere in St. Paul’s usage of this verb it does not mean to the work of introspection that requires a kind of a self-reflecting glance (see I Cor. 3:13, II Cor. 13:5). Instead the Greek word “prove” carries the meaning of “proving,” or “approving,” such as is found in;

1 Cor. 3:13: ‘The work of each one will become manifest, for the day will make it clear, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test (“dokimasei”) each one’s work, [to prove] what kind it is.

Here Paul uses the verb as the culmination of a series of expressions denoting public and objective revelation. And if one is to consider the verb as used in the wider Greek usage in the wider Greek world one would find that it was always used with this kind of objective aspect.

What we are suggesting here is that the Greek word for “examine/prove” is not based in subjective reflection but in based in objective evaluation.

So, if “prove” here has an objective quality and is not a subjective inward look what is the objective quality that St. Paul is looking for from the Corinthians before they come to the table?

Well, in the immediate context of this section of Scripture (I Cor 10-12) the way that someone is to prove themselves is related to their behavior at the table of the Lord with respect to the unity of the body of Christ. A man proves himself by an eating that does not divide the body of Christ, and not by a subjective analysis completed by a introspective cognitive look.

As we see in the context of chapter 10-12 the Corinthians are having a problem. The problem was their table manners during the Lord’s Supper. This behavior contradicted the unity of one another in Christ.

20 Therefore when you come together it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, 21 for when you eat, each one takes his own supper first; and one goes hungry while another gets drunk.

This kind of behavior is why Paul can write earlier;

17 Now in giving this next instruction I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together [m]as a church, I hear that [n]divisions exist among you …

So, when the Holy Spirit calls them to “prove themselves,” in vs. 28 he is calling them to prove that they are not behaving like this in connection with the Lord’s Table. It is an call to an objective assessment.

Luther agrees w/ us here;

“When in 1 Corinthians (11:28) Paul said that a man should examine himself, he spoke only of adults because he was speaking about those who were quarreling among themselves. However, he doesn’t here forbid that the sacrament of the altar should be given even to children.

Luther
Works, vol. 54, p. 58

The test in view in 1 Cor. 11 is whether one is living in love and unity with one’s fellow believers. This would be, again, objectively knowable and so could be examined/proved and would seem to involve no introspection — in short, a requirement that babies do not even have the ability to break yet.

And if children cannot be guilty of this kind of behavior of dividing the boy that some in Corinth were guilty of they therefore cannot have the requirement put to them to prove themselves and therefore the requirement to “prove oneself’ does not forbid children coming from the table.

So, to recap here

In Corinth the congregation were demonstrating a behavior at the table which belied the unity of the church. At the one place where there was to be unity there was instead division. They therefore were eating unworthily. When Paul calls them to “prove themselves” he was calling for them to partake of the Lord’s Table properly. “Let a man prove himself” refers to his manner of participation at the Table, or more broadly, to his relationship with the local body of Christ.

It is not subjective contemplation that is required here, but an objective demonstration of one’s behavior with respect to the body is demanded. This is not to say that there is no need of self-reflection when coming to the table, it is to say that what is required in this text is not self-reflection.

And so since this text is not calling for introspection and is calling for covenantal unity when coming to the table therefore this text is not prohibiting the least of these from coming to the table.

So, I Cor. 11 has nothing to do with Children taking or not taking communion anymore than the requirement to repent and believe has anything to do with covenant children before they are baptized. In point of fact I Cor. 11 ironically enough supports paedocommunion since what happens when we forbid the children to come to the table is to divide the body and create factions between the adults in the covenant and the children in the covenant — the very thing that the Corinthians were doing and the very thing I Cor. 11 warns against.

Now add to what we have said in point I on the theological considerations and point II on the text itself lets us add a little thirdly, some historical consideration.

During the Reformation there were some who called for paedo-communion. For example a little known second generation Reformer with a great name “Wolfgang Musculus” wrote in a theological work;

(1) Those who possess the thing signified also have a right to the sign

(2) Children who can receive the grace of regeneration (as is evident from Baptism) can also be nurtured in their spiritual lives without their knowledge.

(3) Christ is the Savior of the whole church, including the children, and feeds and refreshes all of its members.

(4) The demand for self-examination (I Cor. 11:26-29) is not intended by the apostle as a universal requirement.

W. Musculus — Loci Communes

Second Generation Reformer

Luther considered communing children to be not necessary but also not sin. He offered here;

“[They] pretend that children, not as yet having reason, ought not to receive [the sacrament]. I answer: That reason in no way contributes to faith. Nay, in that children are destitute of reason, they are all the more fit and proper recipients of [the sacrament]. For reason is 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.”

Martin Luther

Going behind the Reformation we find the Apostolic Constitution written not by the Apostles circa 380 AD. In this early church liturgy document we read that the children are included in the faithful that remain and take communion after the readings. Others who are not initiated (baptized) are excluded and excused from the communion. A door-wathcher keeps non-initiated out.

“As to the children that stand [the infant children do not stand, but are among the initiated who are prepared for communion], let their fathers and mothers take them to themselves …. After this, let all rise up with one consent, and, looking towards the east, after the catechumens and the penitents are gone out, pray to God eastward, …. Then let the sacrifice follow, all the people standing, and praying silently; and, when the oblation hath been made, let every rank by itself partake of the Lord’s body and precious blood, in order, and approach with reverence and holy fear, as to the body of their King. Let the women approach with their heads covered, as is becoming the order of women. Moreover, let the door be watched, lest there come in any unbeliever, or one not yet initiated. P 65

Let no one eat of them that is not initiated; but those only who have been baptized into the death of the Lord [all that are baptized, to include infants and children] p.145

[nowhere are baptized children excluded from any part of the Lord’s Day communion.]

Rushdoony pipes in here;

“The children of the covenant, i.e., circumcised male children and daughters of the covenant, partook of it [the Passover]…In the early church, children partook of the sacrament [the Lord’s Supper], according to all the records. The evidence of St. Paul indicates that entire families attended and participated: it was the evening meal (I Cor. 11). Joseph Bingham’s Antiquities of the Christian Church cites the evidence of a long-standing practice of participation by children and infants. This practice was clearly a carry-over from the passover of Israel, and there is no Scriptural evidence for a departure from it…Arguments against this inclusion of children are more rationalistic and Pelagian than Biblical.”~~R.J. Rushdoony, IBL, p. 46

There is one more thing I want to add here in conclusion.

If we dare not bring our children to the table for fear of the danger that the table is to them since they can’t understand it then why would we bring them to the Word preached? I mean is the table more dangerous than the Word preached? We talk about Word and sacrament being means of grace. If we dare not bring our children to one of the means of grace (the Table) why should we run them the danger of bringing them to a different means of grace that similarly they cannot understand?

As a friend as put it;

“Reformed people, in my opinion, have a ludicrously cautionary view of communion and act as though they’re handling plutonium and are about to drink hemlock if they don’t get in the right frame of mind. ”

I agree with this. The implication of this is that the Reformed believe the table is more sacred … more holy than the preaching of God’s Word. If communion is so dangerous to children we shouldn’t allow them to come to the table for fear of dishonoring God and endangering them, then we shouldn’t let those same children to come under the preaching of the Word. There is a reason why we conjoin “Word and Sacrament.”

We bring our children to Baptism as a means of grace.
We bring our children to the Word Preached as a means of grace

But then we say that the 3rd means of grace, the table, is a means of grace they cannot have because they have to bring their ability to introspect before they can have the table.

But I didn’t attend one of them elite Reformed Seminaries so I’m sure I am missing something.

Anyway, I want us to continue to esteem the table and to come to it with reverence and awe but lets be consistent.

The two sacraments are linked at the hip: the sign that brands the covenant people, and the victory meal of the covenant people. If children should be allowed to either (and they should), they should be allowed to both. The Reformed church today admits children to the church, then starves them for several years until they can adequately verbalize a profession of faith.

This ought not to be.

Paedocommunion #1

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, [d]“Take, eat; this is My body which is [e]broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

Examine Yourself

27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and [f]blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks [g]in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the [h]Lord’s body.

We are beginning to probe the issue of paedo-communion here. Years ago I preached a series on this but we return to it because this is largely a different church from when I first covered this issue and secondly because I want younger parents with younger children to hear the case for bringing our children to the table.

With that said, I think we will take this piece by piece when coming together monthly for communion. So, it will be up to you to try and keep this pieced together in your mind, though I will give overviews with each sermon.

As we come to this passage in I Cor. we start here because many in the Reformed world contend that this passage authoritatively destroys any notion of weaned children coming to the Lord’s supper because, so the reasoning goes, a toddler cannot engage in “remembrance” and neither can a toddler “examine” themselves. The requirement in the passage is that the taking of the table is done in remembrance of Christ and that before the table is taken those who partake will have examined themselves. This the opponents of paedo-communion insist is not possible for children to do.

We should offer here, before we demonstrate how this is a improper understanding of the text, that this kind of reasoning is the same kind of reasoning that Baptists use to say children should not be Baptized. The Baptist says, “A baby/toddler is not self conscious enough to repent and have faith, therefore a baby/toddler must not be baptized until they are old enough to have this level of self-consciousness.” The point I’m making here is that those among the Reformed who insist that a child should not be given the Eucharist until the age of discretion are reasoning the same way as the Baptist who insists that a child should not be given Baptism until the age of accountability. I, personally, find it very strange that putatively Reformed people argue the same way Baptists do, and I think that is not without significance.

Before we take up the issue of examination and remembrance let us briefly consider a passage in I Cor. 10 that points us in a particular direction on the issue of paedo-communion. Here we may find a case wherein infant communion is supported in the New Testament. Look at 1 Corinthians 10:1-4:

“For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were baptized into Moses. 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. ”

Here we find Paul using Israel’s experience in the OT in passing through the Red Sea as a warning to the NT Church. There is a continuity that St. Paul is giving between Old and New Testaments and in doing so he is connecting the dots between the reality of OT Israel and the NT Church and in the doing of so St. Paul sets forth the experience of Israel in their passing through the Red Sea as both a Baptism and a meal. Now, of course there were infants and toddlers that were with the adults who crossed through the Red Sea and those infants and toddler ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink that all Israel partook of and as Paul says that Rock that those Hebrew infant and children drank was Christ. Now if the OT Hebrews infants and toddlers drank Christ why should NT infant and toddlers likewise not be communed at the Lord’s Table?

We see that Paul assumes the continuity of God’s dealing with children in the Old and New Testaments. They are always treated as members of the covenant community and as members of the covenant community they are not only identified as God’s people through the ratification ceremony that is Baptism but they are also nourished and refreshed with eternal life that is found in Christ as He is received in the Eucharist.

As we reflect on this, must we not conclude that children need God’s pledge and communion as much as adults? Don’t children as they grow need that objective promise of God? We have no idea when faith may be born in a child’s heart, but whenever it is, it needs to be stimulated, strengthened, and assured by the pledge made to him or her in Baptism and confirmed in the Table.

Again, if the children of the Hebrew children in the OT ate and drank Christ then why should the children of God’s people in the NT not be fed with the food and drink of eternal life? (974)

Anyway, Augustine agrees that the children should come to the table;

“Those who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are denying that Christ is Jesus for all believing infants. Those, I repeat, who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are saying nothing else than that for believing infants, infants that is who have been baptized in Christ, Christ the Lord is not Jesus. After all, what is Jesus? Jesus means Savior. Jesus is the Savior. Those whom he doesn’t save, having nothing to save in them, well for them he isn’t Jesus. Well now, if you can tolerate the idea that Christ is not Jesus for some persons who have been baptized, then I’m not sure your faith can be recognized as according with the sound rule. Yes, they’re infants, but they are his members. They’re infants, but they receive his sacraments. They are infants, but they share in his table, in order to have life in themselves.”

St. Augustine, Sermon 174, 7

Anyway, having said that we return to the issue of a weaned child entering into examination and remembrance.

We would first note that there are matters of interpretation here that need to be cleaned up in order to understand that the requirements of examination and remembrance are not defeaters for the position of paedo-communion. We come with certain assumptions about the language that need to be challenged. Likewise we tend to fail to read this NT passage in light of continuity with the OT that we find St. Paul presupposing in I. Cor. 10.

We are told in this passage to “Do this in Remembrance of me,” and being moderns we read this as “Do this while remembering me,” when it is doubtful that is really what the thrust of the meaning is. To read this to mean “Do this while remembering me” posits the efficacy of the table upon our subjective ability to do the doing. If we can’t subjectively remember then the table has no efficacy. But is that what the Holy Spirit is teaching here?

I would say no for the following reasons.

1.) The translation of the Greek here is dubious. Literally it reads, “Do this unto my Remembrance.” This preposition in (eis) generally has a directional or purposive function, so that, in varying contexts, it can be rendered with “into,” “unto,” or “as” (such as: “it was reckoned to him as righteousness” ).

This language is used in the decalogue when we are told to “Remember the Sabbath to keep it Holy.” The idea here is obviously not that we are to subjectively recall this or that about the sabbath. The idea in “Remembering the Sabbath,” is better formulated by saying “Observe the sabbath to keep it Holy.” In the same way I would submit that when the Corinthians are called to “To do this in remembrance of me” are being told “To do this in observance of me,” or if you prefer, “Do this unto my remembrance.”

This way of reading the text is supported by other examples in the OT. We find in the Greek Septuagint of Lev. 24:7 that the frankincense is placed “upon the bread for a memorial to the Lord.” Here it is the same prepositional phrase that St. Paul uses in I Cor. 11. Instead of “in” we get “upon” here. It goes without saying that the text in Lev. does not mean that the frankincense or the Priest enters into a subjective remembrance of the Lord. Instead, it is the act by itself which constitutes the remembrance. Just so with the Eucharist, the center is not a subjective remembrance but rather the center is the observance of the act itself which is constituting the remembrance.

Besides, we have to be careful here. If we camp to much on the subjective remembrance being the center pivot of the Eucharist then we are in danger of suggesting that the effectiveness of the Sacrament lies in our ability to recall and by doing that it is hard for me to see how we have not horizontalized and Anabaptistified the sacrament wherein the sacraments are about our doing. The Reformed understanding has always been that the Sacraments are Gods and that God is doing all the doing in the Sacraments. If and when we completely subjectivize the table as a Sacrament so that its efficacy is bound to our ability to remember then it strikes me that we should forbid our gaffers and gammers who no longer have the ability to remember due to dementia or the onset of Alzheimer disease from coming to the table?

Pushed too hard we might find ourselves saying as I read last week from the fingertips of a Baptist;

“Point being is Baptism & Lord’s supper are for Professing Christian adults & not Children & severely handicapped.”

Edward Budny

Consistent Baptist

Communion is not the response of the converted man to the call of God. It is the sign and seal of the covenant. It is God who is the agent who does the acting in communion and not any human person. As God is sovereign He is free to act in Communion to convey grace upon infants as well as adults. As God never repudiated being a God who works inter-generationally, through His promises as symbolized by the sign and seal of the covenant in Communion, God has sovereignty designated that all the children of His people be brought to the Grace offered in Holy Communion.

Respectfully, given the I Cor. 10 passage I have to say that whoever repudiates paedocommunion cuts Jesus loose from the OT and introduces an unwarranted division between the community of Christ and God’s people of the covenant. By abandoning the unity of Scripture, the door is opened to subjectivism. But the repudiation of the sign of the covenant for children also cuts deeply into the fabric of practical Christian living. It affects the relationship between parents and children forcing parents to treat God’s covenant seed as strangers to the covenant, and between teacher and student forcing teachers of Catechism to treat their covenant children students as dead in their sins and trespasses. It touches the working of the Holy Spirit, by whom the name of the Lord is transmitted from generation to generation.

So, turning again to the idea of the macro-context that informs I Cor. 11 on the issue of “remembrance” we would note that we are saying is typical of OT sacraments. Numbers 10:10 teaches that;

10 … you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; and they shall be a memorial for you before your God: I am the Lord your God.”

Here the feasts and sacrifices were to be a memorial for Israel before God.

Likewise Ex. 12:14 teaches in reference to the passover (which was the sacrament that the Eucharist replaced);

14 ‘So this day shall be to you a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the Lord throughout your generations. You shall keep it as a feast by an everlasting ordinance.

The connection here is that the remembrance that we read of in I Cor. 11 is not that something that jumps out of Zeus’ head brand new. The remembrance called for in I Cor. 11 is consistent w/ how remembrance/memorial worked in the OT for the whole people of God — babies, toddlers, strong men and women and gaffers and gammers and when you combine this with the express statement of I Cor. 10 that they all drank Christ we can only conclude that the emphasis in I Cor. 11 is not primarily a call for subjective remembrance as if the God cannot convey grace without our remembering and because of that our children are not to be barred from the table. Remembrance, whatever more precise meaning we put upon it, is not an exclusionary requirement for covenant children to come.

Now in future weeks we will consider the call for self-examination and ask ourselves if that requirement is a defeater for paedo-communion. We will also consider the connection between pass-over and the Lord’s Supper. We will spend some time considering Church history on the matter.

We should say that here that we are in the minority on this subject in today’s Reformed Church. We should say that there are many who disagree us who are smarter than I am. Calvin for example while admitting that this had been the practice of the early Church wanted nothing to do with paedo-communion. I hate disagreeing with Calvin, but I do on this score.

All that being said let us rejoice that Christ has invited us to His table to do this in observance of Him.

Sermon on Infant Baptism

5Gen. 17:7, And I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

Acts 2:39, For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

6/ 1 Cor. 7:14, For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

Joel 2:16, Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts: let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet.

7Matt. 19:14, But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto Me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

8Luke 1:14–15, And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at His birth. For He shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from His mother’s womb.

Ps. 22:10, I was cast upon thee from the womb: Thou art my God from my mother’s belly.

Acts 2:39, For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

9Acts 10:47, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

1 Cor. 12:13, For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

1 Cor. 7:14, For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

10 Gen. 17:14, And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.

11 Col. 2:11–13, In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses.

LD #27 – HC Question 74:

Are infants also to be baptized?

Answer: Yes, for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant5 and church of God;6 and since redemption from sin7 by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them8 no less than to the adult; they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the Christian church, and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers9 as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision,10 instead of which baptism is instituted in the new covenant.11

Inasmuch as we have much to consider this morning, I will not be able to deal with this Q & A exhaustively. If you want the whole consideration I encourage you to visit Iron Ink where this is laid out in its entirety in different posts.

As we consider this Catechism question we want to note upfront that what we will be doing this morning is providing a cumulative argument in answering the question; “Should Infants be baptized.” We are going to present a series of arguments affirming that infants should be baptized and in the doing of that we will be appealing to many of the Scriptures that the Catechizers offered as support for this answer.

As we start out here we first note that in what must be considered the old and worse covenant when compared to the new and better covenant God’s grace included the children, but now, per Baptist thinking, in the new and better covenant God’s grace excludes the children and we likewise, if we are to be Biblical must also forbid the little children from coming unto Christ because allegedly they would never comprise the Kingdom of God.

Quite to the contrary what we instead see in the NT is that God’s grace expands, as compared to the OT, in its largess so as to include the Nations, so as to now place the sign of the covenant on both males and females, and so as to promise that it shall conquer the globe. Yet, Baptists would have us believe, by their conviction and doctrine that the one place where God’s grace contracts in the NT is with His and our covenant children. In the NT, unlike the OT, God’s grace is constrained so as to leave out those who were once included.

Next, as to this question of whether or not infants should be baptized we consider;

Gal. 3:29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

And what was that promise? Gen. 17:7-8

And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee…

Are we to believe that now that we have been graciously brought into the covenant as Abraham’s seed that the great covenant promise given to Abraham and his seed is no longer operative for us and our seed? If Abraham’s seed was part of the covenant promise then why should it be the case that our seed today, as children of Abraham ourselves, should not be given the sign of the covenant?

When we consider this question of whether our infants should be baptized we note that we believe that in coming to the Baptismal Font we are coming to the place where we find Christ and the promises of God. As the Catechism teaches (HC Q. 66)The Baptismal Font bespeaks of the granting to God’s people free remission of sin and life eternal for the sake of that one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross. At the Baptismal Font we find Christ and all His promises. At the Baptismal font Christ greets and receives us and our children.

And so, following the NT example we bring our children here to Christ and His promises just as in the 1st century they brought their children to be blessed by Christ. And Just as the Lord received children as belonging to the covenant community then as recorded in Mt. 19:14 and as heard in His declarative statement “Let the little children come unto me,” so we believe and know that Christ says to His people today the same and so we bring our children, knowing that Christ is pleased.

And we do so despite the ringing in our ears of Baptists today, like the disciples in Jesus’ day to forbid the children from coming to Christ we continue to bring our children to our and their sovereign Liege-Lord Jesus Christ. And, frankly, we are just as irritated with the Baptists today as Jesus was with His disciples then for their seeking to block the way of the covenant seed coming to Jesus.

Now, the typical Baptist will object here;

Children were and are brought to Christ- not to the Baptismal font.

And to that, as Biblical Christians we respond by noting that “We are presented today with Christ only in Word and Sacrament. There alone we meet and find Christ. If our children are to be received by Christ they can only come unto Him by coming to via Word & Sacrament.”

Next we consider I Cor. 7. When we come to I Cor. 7 we find the Holy Spirit talking about the children of believers and there the Apostle crafts an argument wherein it is assumed that the seed of any one believer are holy — just as they had always been considered through revelational history. The context finds St. Paul talking about marriages between Christians and non-Christians and there the Spirit of God calls such marriages “Holy,” on the premise that if one of the parties to the marriage are part of the covenant than the marriage and the children from the marriage are considered by God as Holy — that is set apart. Now if the Apostle designates such children are considered as set apart and so Holy should they not be given the sign of the covenant that marks out all God’s people as Holy and set apart? If the premise in I Cor. 7 is that children are Holy are they not part of the covenant community and if part of the covenant community should they not be given the sign of the covenant?

Also, when it comes to infant Baptism the book of Acts yields five cases of household Baptisms. Remember, in household Baptisms if the head of the household is Baptized then all in the household are baptized. This was the pattern in the OT and nothing in the NT seems to overturn that. Now, we gladly concede that in none of these household baptisms is it explicitly said that infants/children were baptized. However, we can say upon the household principle that if infants/children were in those households then they were certainly baptized. Now add to this that in Ephesians we find this household language;

Eph. 2:19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household,

This is important in this discussion when we remember that God’s household throughout history had always included infants/children. That being so there is no reason to think that God’s household when we come to the NT is bereft of infants/children.

Now, add to all this the reality that the NT records that many of the Jews were outraged that the Gentiles were coming in but not one peep in the NT from the Jews that their children were now excluded from the covenant and it is past difficult to put off the conclusion that infants/children of God’s people were then and should now be baptized.

When it comes to this issue of infant-Baptism we have St. Peter’s own words

“The promise is to you and your children and for all who are afar off.” (Acts 2:39).

Now, we gladly concede that can be heard through Baptist ears in such a way that does not compel infant Baptism. The Baptist will tend to hear these words as meaning;

“The promise is to you (if you believe), to your children (if they believe), and to many who are afar off (if they believe).”

But a reading of the passage in light of previous revelation drives us to another conclusion. If we hear these words from Peter via the echo of revelational history and covenantal moorings we hear them in light of God’s speaking to Abraham once upon a time;

“It is to you and your children, and also to the nations that the blessing will come” (cf. Gen. 22:17-18).

Is not what Peter is saying in his Pentecost sermon that what was once promised to Father-Abraham in what is now called the “Abrahamic promise” that the promise remains to you and your children — but now the day has finally dawned where that promise goes out to the nations — the afar off ones — as well?”

I submit that is truer to the harmony of Scripture than the spin the Baptists want to put upon it.

Let us sign off by reveling and relishing in the grace and favor of God and His Christ who by His Spirit is so kind and generous to us that he includes in the covenant of grace the second highest of all our loves – our love for our children.

A Lutheran vs. A Calvinist — Note The Differences… 2008 Throwback

I originally posted this post in 2008. I could not find it in the search function of Iron Ink. Fortunately, I back up all my posts so that even if they somehow come up missing I have a copy.

In this discussion, I locked horns with a Lutheran named Rev. Paul T. McCain. In the following long conversation the differences between Lutherans and Reformed as pretty well established in the context of some heated polemics.

At the time of this debate I had no idea that Rev. Paul T. McCain was such a bigwig in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. I have no idea why he decided to waste time debating me but …

Rev. Paul T. McCain Obituary

I am hopeful that now that Rev. McCain has entered glory he now realizes that God is and always has been from the foundations of time what would later become known as “Calvinist.”

_________
Bret writes;

Paul,

Imagine how glad I am for your response. This will clearly lay down the differences between the Faith once and forever delivered unto the saints and the mixed thing that is Lutheranism that you call Christianity.

Personally I have not completely understood those organizations that seek to make common cause between Lutherans and Calvinists. On one hand I understand the desire to re-introduce objective Christianity to an extremely subjective Evangelicalism. But in the end the irrationality of Lutheranism that you perfectly display negates whatever agreement might be found between the Reformed and the almost but not quite Reformed.

I know that you don’t like the interactive approach but that is what I am going to do here all the same so as to be just as thorough in my answer as you were with your eisegesis.

————————————————

Paul wrote,

Bret, how ironic that you accuse me of making assertions without evidence. I’ve told you, any number of times, here and elsewhere, all the evidence you want is easily found at www.bookofconcord.org The Book of Concord is easily enough available.

————————————————-

Bret

I am familiar with the book of Concord. Familiar enough to know that it doesn’t answer the questions that I have been raising and has you so unsettled that you are throwing the kitchen sink at me in you most recent post.

———————————————–

Paul,

You, on the other hand, have offered no evidence, whatsoever, to back up your claims about what Lutheranism teaches, other than your cute little rhetorical games.

————————————————-

Bret

I am sure that it makes you feel safe to dismiss my legitimate points as ‘cute little rhetorical games.’ But even that rhetorical trick doesn’t answer your jagged inconsistencies.

————————————————

Paul writes,

I for one would appreciate learning about your degrees. I would be most interested to learn of them and understand precisely your education and what background you have that give your claims to understanding Lutheranism credibility.

Please share!

————————————————-

Bret

What you think I am making my education up?

I promise you that my education is as expansive as yours and in the course of it I have read Luther, Chemnitz, Walther, Forde, Melancthon, Pieper, Scaer and other Lutherans. Of course not in the measure that I have read the greater lights of the Reformed World but still enough to profit from those Lutherans while noting their glaring inconsistencies.

————————————————-

Paul,

The only gaping holes I can see in this discussion are those in your arguments. The fundamental point is your denial of universal grace, which is a clear denial of Holy Scripture.

———————————————–

Bret

Saving Grace is not universal. If it were all would be saved since saving Grace is indefeasible. You see I don’t believe in a weak and insipid Grace that can only accomplish whatever sovereign man pleases to allow it to accomplish.

Passages where Scripture affirms that Grace is Particular.

Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. 27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Paul, if Grace were universal then all would know the Father. But since saving Grace is particular the only ones who know the Son are those whom God particularly reveals himself. The text even says that GOD hides these things from the wise and prudent. This text demolishes all Arminian-Lutheran special pleading.

Luke 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

Here Paul the reason is stated that the parable was given for a very non-universalistic reason.

John 10

25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.

Here Paul those who are not the Sheep don’t receive universal Grace to understand. Earlier Jesus could say that all that the Father gives me will come to me. Obviously those who could not hear were not given to Jesus therefore they were not given universal Grace.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Of course Paul your universal saving grace thoroughly denies this passage and steals from God the right to be God. This passage by itself teaches that Grace is particularistic.

I have some more passages lined up for you but I will wait to unload them for when you come back with your inevitable protestations.

———————————————–

Paul,

You’ve yet to provide any evidence that would help us understand why the word “all” in the Scripture, “Christ died for all” doesn’t actually mean “all”. Why doesn’t “all” mean “all” in Titus 2:11, “The grace of God has appeared bringing salvation for all people”?

————————————————

Bret

Actually I dealt with this in an earlier thread you buried so fast that nobody (including you it seems) got a chance to look at.

Context Paul. Paul is exhorting Titus in instructions for various classes of people (older woman, younger men, bondservants). He goes on then right in verse 11 to give the theological basis for the practical advice. Because Paul refers in the immediately preceding context to these classes of men, most likely he again is thinking in terms of all categories of men (slave inclusive) and not of everyone without exception. Also it is not an unimportant feature of the passage that the emphasis in the context moves from ‘all men’ to the redeemed community (note the immediately following ‘teaching US’ and ‘WE should live.’ This all serves to give the sense that the ‘all men’ to whom grace has savingly appeared are to be defined in terms of the redeemed covenanted community.

Besides Paul if we take ‘all’ to mean the way that you want to butcher it then we have proven to much for do you really want to suggest that the Grace of God that appeared to all men in that passage appeared to the Magyars on the Russian Steppes at that time or to the Hutu’s and Tutsi’s in Africa? Again the way you want to use ‘all’ makes nonsense of the passage.

————————————————

Paul

Why doesn’t “all mean “all” in 1 Timothy 2:4: “Who desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth”?

————————————————

Bret

This passage follows the Titus pattern. Paul has said that prayers are to be made for all men. He then goes on to restrict that meaning to ‘Kings and those in authority.’ As Paul narrows the definition of ‘all’ down it is evident that he desires prayer for all classes or types of people. Without such a restriction some Lutheran literalist might have prayed for dead people since the word ‘all’ was not restricted by the word ‘living.’ In this context Paul says God desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. The context requires us to see the word ‘all’ as being restricted in the second instance just as it was in the first instance. God desires all categories of men to be saved just as he desired the believers to pray for all categories of men.

Secondly, to take this passage the way Arminians/Lutherans take it is to prove too much. If God desires all men to be saved then all men will be saved since God sits in heaven above and does whatever he pleases. Or do Lutherans teach that God sits in heaven above doing whatever he pleases except when man informs God to, ‘buzz off’ when he desires to save him?

————————————————-

Paul,

Why doesn’t “whole world” mean “whole world” as it says in 1 John 2:2: “He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world”?

————————————————-

Bret

You keep wanting to make redemption mean redeemability. In your construction Christ does not redeem anybody but only makes him or her redeemable as long as they bring that work that the one who says ‘no’ doesn’t bring. You beggar the idea of propitiation by making it mean ‘potentially propitiated.’

John is stressing the ethnic universalism of the atonement. It is not restricted to the Jewish nation nor even to those believers he is writing to. The efficacy of the Atonement applies to people from every tribe, tongue and (denomi)nation that God has chosen and so John writes ‘for the whole world.’

And again to take it the way you do proves too much. If Jesus is the propitiation for each and every person who has ever lived then each and every person who has ever lived has been propitiated for. The Father’s wrath has been turned from them. This is something that is objectively true and can’t be undone by the subjective will of fallen men. It wouldn’t matter if they told God to, ‘get lost’ they still would be saved since the propitiation has been rendered.

————————————————

Paul writes,

Scripture forbids limiting the “kosmos” of John 3:16 to the elect, for according to verse 18 of John 3, unbelievers belong to “the world.”

————————————————-

Bret

“The whole debate as to whether the love here celebrated distributes itself to each and every man that enters into the composition of the world, or terminates on the elect alone, chosen out of the world, lies thus outside the immediate scope of the passage and does not supply any key to its interpretation. The passage was not intended to teach, and certainly does not teach, that God loves all men alike and visits each and every one alike with the same manifestations of his love. And as little was it intended to teach or does it teach that his love is confined to a few especially chosen individuals selected out of the world. What it is intended to do is to arouse in our hearts a wondering sense of the marvel and the mystery of the love of God for the sinful world-conceived, here, not quantitatively but qualitatively as, in its very distinguishing characteristic, sinful.”

B.B. Warfield

————————————————

Paul

Is the universal grace of God for every individual? 2 Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is not willing that any should perish.” Why doesn’t “any” mean “any”?

————————————————-

Bret

Context again Paul.

Peter writes that the Lord is longsuffering towards ‘US’. Who is the ‘US’ that Peter refers to? Obviously it is the covenant believing community. So when Peter immediately then says that “The Lord is not willing that any should perish,” it is obvious that the reference remains the believing community. God is not willing that any of His elect should perish. Hence,

John 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the

last day.

————————————————-

Paul,

The Lord swears in Ezek. 33:11 “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked.”

————————————————-

Bret

If a judge can have no pleasure in the exercise of the death penalty yet have even less pleasure in seeing the wicked go unpunished then God likewise can have no pleasure in the death of the wicked and yet have greater displeasure in not seeing the wicked visited for their sin and so deal eternal justice to the wicked.

God can decree both his displeasure over the death of the wicked and His pleasure at seeing His justice upheld.

You see this is what I can’t understand. Lutherans are so good in some areas on thinking at different levels but when it comes to these issues they are so one-dimensional.

————————————————-

Paul,

But how could he not have pleasure if he in eternity created some to go to hell, as Calvinism teaches. What a sadistic god Calvinism would hold forth, one who gets his jollies creating some to go to hell.

———————————————–

Bret

You are a Blasphemer.

God is the thrice compassionate and forever merciful God who does not leave the guilty unpunished and yet shows grace to a thousand generations who love him and keep his commandments.

You seem to think that all because the divine decrees are true that means man’s culpability is not true. No Calvinists worth his salt comes close to teaching such nonsense. Man goes the way that God decrees but he does so in such a way that he desires. Scripture clearly teaches that Judas was predestinated for his role and yet he sold the Savior gleefully and on his own. Scripture clearly teaches that Joseph’s brothers intended evil to their brother on their own account and yet Joseph instructs us that God had predestinated it all (Gn. 50:20). Peter holds the Jews responsible for the crucifixion (You by the hands of wicked men…) and yet he also teaches that God predestinated it all. You show no ability to think Biblically in this matter. Someday Paul you will be held accountable for that Sadistic God

comment.

————————————————-

Paul,

Scripture clearly teaches that the merit of Christ was earned, even for those who do perish eventually through unbelief. 1 Cor. 8:11, “The weak brother, “for whom Christ died” will perish.

Rom. 14:15: “Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died.” Doesn’t “destroy” mean “destroy”?

————————————————-

Bret

In terms of the Romans passage vs. 4 of that same Chapter teaches,

Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

Do you really want to contend that Paul writes that God is able to make both the meat eaters and non meat eaters Stand and then turns around and teaches that one of them might not stand?

In terms of the Corinthians passage Paul does not say that the weaker brother will perish. He asks a question of the stronger brother that basically says “is this such a big issue for you that you would see the weaker perish? The admonition of the Apostle serves as the means by which the end of the weaker brother not perishing is accomplished. It is no different from Paul’s shipwreck experience where he was told on one hand that nobody would perish and then was turned around and told that if the lifeboats were employed people would perish. The promise was absolute but means were used to bring about the end.

————————————————

Paul,

2 Peter 2:1 The false teachers whom who “bring swift destruction” are “denying the Lord that bought them.”

————————————————-

Bret

Do you ever read the context?

In vs. 9 these same people are referred to as the unjust who have been reserved under punishment for the day of judgment. When did God reserve them for that end? It is past obvious that Peter is speaking of them according to their own profession. He does after all call them ‘false teachers.’

Alternately they are teachers that are living in the covenant community which is a community as a whole that has been blood bought. They are the reprobates of that community who have denied the Lord that bought the visible community of which they were objectively part. In but not of.

————————————————

Paul,

The Lord wants to convert those who are lost, Matt. 33:37: “How often would I have gathered thy children together . . and ye would not.”

————————————————-

Bret

This is the same as Stephen saying in Acts 9 that his interlocutors do always resist the Holy Spirit. Those dead in trespasses and sins always resist the external call of the Gospel. They can’t do anything else. But that doesn’t mean that the command to repent isn’t extended to those who would not. That just increases their guilt; the increase of which they were predestined for.

————————————————–

Paul

I wonder why you want to restrict the preaching and words of Jesus, “Come unto me ALL who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28).

—————————————————

Bret

All who are weary and heavy laden may come. Unfortunately those who do not receive efficacious grace do no acknowledge either their weariness nor their heavy laden-ness and are among those who do always resist the Holy Spirit as the reprobate always enthusiastically do.

————————————————————————————————

Paul

I wonder why you want to make Jesus a liar when he says that He gives his flesh for the life of the WORLD in John 6:51.

————————————————

Bret

Tell me Paul . when Caesar Augustus issued a decree that all the World should be taxed did he have in mind Peruvian Incas being taxed on their gold.

John constantly uses ‘World’ in his Gospel. The obvious end of which is to hint at the coming globalization of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Jesus is not a Jewish Savior. He is the savior of the whole World.

It was necessary for John to emphasize the exclusiveness of Jesus as the Savior. It is Jesus as Savior who provides life to the World. If the World is to have a life at all, Jesus is the one who gives it. But that doesn’t mean that each and every person who ever lives is given life.

—————————————————

Paul,

Your Calvinistic rationalism requires you to deny clear Scripture, or to define words that clearly mean what they say into something they do not.

————————————————-

Bret

Your meat axe approach proves squat. You refuse to use the analogy of faith and read the less clear in light of the more clear and as such you have one giant contradictory Lutheran mess. You turn Sola Scriptura into Sola Stupida.

Words mean what they mean given the WHOLE context of the text. Your exegetical method would take Les Miserable and conclude that Jean Val Jean was the villain because you refuse to read the text as a whole.

————————————————-

Paul,

Synergists, on the other hand, assert that we Lutherans in reality cancel universal grace because we insist SO strongly on “grace alone” and ascribe to the saved not a better, but a similar wicked conduct and equal guilt compared with the lost, and hence declares that the question, “why some are saved and not others” is question that we can not answer in this life, a question that belongs to the incomprehensible judgments and inscrutable ways of God.

—————————————————

Bret

It is only because the synergist hasn’t yet caught on to the synergistic ace up your sleeve. What you splendidly give with the right hand on the Sola’s you take with the left hand with your synergistic teaching on universal saving grace.

Why some are saved and not others is clearly taught in Scripture. It is nothing but the discriminating love of God who loves us not because we are made of better dirt but who loves us because he loves us. Unlike your god who can’t always get what he wants, the God of the Bible gets what He wants all the time.

Ephesians 1: 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. 7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; 8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

—————————————————

Paul,

You obviously really don’t believe what the Bible says about the mystery of God’s hidden will. “How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?”( Ro 11:33-34).

————————————————–

Bret

All because we can’t know exhaustively doesn’t mean we can’t know truly. The revealed things belong to our children and us. The fact that you want to stick your head in the soteriological sand and cry ‘I can’t see the sun’ doesn’t mean that the Son isn’t shining. Pull your head out Paul.

—————————————————

Paul,

Why, what’s that? I think I hear John Calvin and his friend Bret saying, “I know the mind of the Lord! Yes, Lord, I’ve been your counselor! We will reveal your hidden will.”

———————————————————-

Bret

Why, what’s that? I think I hear Paul crying, “God is a fool who is irrational and tells us to believe both His Sovereignty and his inability to get what he desires. Don’t believe that the Word is comprehensible. Become irrational.”

Poor God, he can’t help it, he has to contend with mighty humans who can frustrate His will.

Lutheran Scripture,

“The Lord God Omnipotent reigneth (except when face to face with fallen man).

———————————————————

Paul,

Your entire argument rests on the assumption that Christian doctrine must not be taken from Scripture but must be shaped according to the requirements of a uniform “system.”

——————————————————–

Bret

No, my entire argument rests on the fact that God is a God of order. My entire argument rests on the fact that I can trust His Word to not be ignorant, stupid, contradictory or irrational.

And don’t give me any shuckin and jivin about ‘systems.’ You are just as wedded to your chaotic system as I am to my uniform system. You are just smitten with a system as the next guy. That system is called Lutheranism. And even though it is a kaka system it is still a system.

——————————————————–

Paul,

Your system trumps the clear text of Scripture every time. You’ve proven that point over and over by your own words.

—————————————————————–

Bret

I have given you scripture over and over again in this post. Deal with them.

My words have proven that God’s word is true and synergists need not apply.

————————————————————

Paul,

Calvinists, such as yourself, attack the universal grace of God and teach the particularism of saving grace.

———————————————————-

Bret

Calvinists such as myself are lock step with Luther in Bondage of the Will. More is the pity that more Lutherans aren’t.

You say you want yet another text teaching particularism?

2 Timothy 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will

The text says, “If God peradventure will give them repentance Paul.” God doesn’t give that to everybody.

——————————————————-

Paul,

So, in your “system” God really doesn’t love all men, Christ does not redeem all men, the Holy Ghost does not desire to convert all men.

—————————————————————

Bret

I have a Bible that says that ‘God hates workers of iniquity.’ What does your Bible say? I have a Bible that talks about the Wrath of God resting on the unbeliever. What does your Bible say?

So, ‘no,’ the Bible doesn’t allow for a effeminate God who is hamstrung by the men he awakens to eternal life telling God, ‘up yours.’ My Bible does not allow for a God who can’t always get what He wants. My Bible doesn’t teach that my blessed Savior failed in any respect to win those for which He died.

———————————————————-

Paul,

The highest principle in Calvinistic/rationalistic theology is the “sovereignty” of God who predestines some to damnation, others to salvation.

—————————————————————

Bret

The highest principle in Lutheran/irrationalist theology is the ‘sovereignty’ of man who can spit on the grace of God. Man will ascend to the most high and decide who will receive grace and who won’t.

————————————————————————

Paul,

The Bible’s chief teaching is the grace of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

————————————————————–

Bret

Why must you divorce sovereignty from grace? Grace by definition is sovereign. Sovereign grace.

————————————————————

Paul,

I sometimes wonder why God even bothered with Jesus in your system. He should just have saved everyone the trouble and executed his “sovereign will” and just gotten it over with.

—————————————————————-

Bret

Oh the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!

Jesus is in the Bible Paul because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of Sin.

Your comment here though is most revealing. It reveals that you really don’t believe that God’s will is sovereign. Being ‘in Christ’ is really a matter of man’s will for you. Here we see the naked pelagianism for what it is.

Obviously the final answer to that statement though is that God knew that in the enacted pactum salutis the Glory of the Triune God would be displayed to the praise of His glory and grace.

———————————————————————–

Paul,

Just as Calvinism with its Christology must resort to a philosophical axiom “finitum non capax infiniti” , so the Reformed denial of the Scriptural doctrine of universal grace is ultimately and conclusively founded on the philosophical axiom: Whatever God earnestly purposes must in every case actually occur; and since not all men are actually saved, we must conclude that the Father never did love the world, that Christ never did reconcile the world, and that the Holy Spirit never does really want to create faith in all hearers of the Word. This is Calvin’s chief argument in Institutes III, 21-24 on Predestination.

—————————————————————

Bret

More baloney.

I have given you reams of scripture that teach the particularity of Grace. Quit your carping and deal with the texts. Here is another one for you,

2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Note, Sunshine, the last four words.

——————————————————————

Paul,

Calvinism finally puts its rationalistic constructs over the Scripture and thus denies universal grace and subjects believers to nothing but doubt, always wondering if they truly are among the elect, instead of pointing them to the objective reality of Gods’ universal grace in Christ.

———————————————————————-

Bret

I point my people all the time to the Sacraments where God’s promises are found. Wrong again Pastor Paul.

——————————————————————-

Paul,

Bret, the only gaping holes here are those in your theology, a theology that leads only to the gloomy haunts of Calvin’s worldview, where the “sovereign god” of his own making trumps the loving, gracious God revealed in Christ Jesus.

—————————————————————

Bret

LOL

Meaning that God can’t be both sovereign and loving and gracious?

Well, I suppose I should expect no less of a conclusion from our resident irrationalist.

—————————————————————

Paul,

And you have the audacity to accuse Lutherans of being synergists because we maintain the Bible’s teaching on universal grace? You just don’t get it, do you? We do NOT attempt to resolve the question that so plagues the dark soul of the Calvinist, “Why some, not others.”

————————————————————————

Bret

I get it just fine. You are synergist. The Bible does not teach universal saving grace! God didn’t call Mordecai, Habib, or Mohammed. He called ABRAHAM and thus showed his particular grace.

Likewise God with Israel,

Deuteronomy 7:7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: 8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

God particularly chose Israel out of all the nations just as he chooses His people today from among all peoples. Particular Grace is EVERYWHERE in Scripture. You are either blind or worse if you can’t see it. Saving grace is particular.

————————————————————

Paul,

We say that all are lost ONLY because they choose to reject. We say that all are saved ONLY because of the grace of God in Christ Jesus.

—————————————————————

Bret

Rhetorical nonsense. You can’t have it both ways.

You say that Grace comes to all men. Those who are saved therefore have done something meritorious that those who aren’t saved haven’t done. They all received the same grace. The difference therefore is not in the grace received but in what is added by one that is not added by the other. Thus you deny all your precious solas. I treat your solas with more dignity and respect then you could ever dream of. Don’t worry. they are in good hands with me.

—————————————————————

Paul,

Arminians, and with them any truly synergistic Lutherans there may be, do say that God’s grace is serious, effective and sufficient, but they ADD that the gracious divine power in the means of grace does not really suffice to produce faith: human cooperation is necessary for faith to result.

————————————————————–

Bret

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You say the same thing. Why doesn’t the unbeliever who receives the same grace as he who does believe, not believe? It is because, unlike the one who does believe, he does not co-operate with grace. How much more clear can I make this?

—————————————————————

Paul,

Some synergists say it depends on human cooperation, and the exercise of man’s free will. Another group says that the “thing in man” on which conversion depends is man’s decision to accept grace, or yielding to grace, or refraining from willful resistance. BUT both types of synergists mean the same thing: the divine operation in the means of grace does not suffice to produce faith itself.

—————————————————————

Bret

And your universal saving grace does not suffice to produce faith in the willful resistance of the unbeliever. Therefore it is co-operation, which is what the person who ends up believing, is rendering up, for without it that person would conquer God’s intent as well as the other. The same universal grace comes to both. One willfully resists. The other willfully co-operates.

—————————————————————–

Paul,

The Bible teaches that grace not only makes it possible for man to believe, giving him the power to belie, but that it creates the very act of faith. Phil. 1:29: “Unto you it is given . . to believe on Him.”

————————————————————

Bret

Why doesn’t it create the act of faith in everybody? What causes them to differ? It certainly isn’t the grace since that is the same. It is not God’s intent because according to you he wants everybody to be saved. It is not the scope of the Atonement according to you since Jesus died for everybody. It is not the wooing of the Holy Ghost since according to you he woos everybody the same. The difference is found in one place and one place only. The difference is in the one who co-operates with the universal grace and one who doesn’t. God isn’t in control of this process . fallen humans are. That is the only conclusion possible if one doesn’t have a handy dandy mystery box nearby which one can throw unavoidable conclusions in that one doesn’t like to admit.

——————————————————–

Paul

Calvinists and synergists stand at the ready with an answer to the old question, “Why some, not others. Calvinists answer it by denying universal grace. Synergists answer by denying the principle of grace alone.

———————————————————

Bret

Scripture denies universal saving Grace.

Here is another.

1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Note here Paul that some are particularly chosen to confound those not chosen. Universal saving grace is clearly denied here. And why is it that some are in Christ Jesus and others are not? The text teaches that it is because of God that those who are foolish, weak, and despised are in Christ. God chose them particularly and not the wise and the strong.

——————————————————–

Paul,

Lutherans refuse to answer the question.

——————————————————–

Bret,

Lutherans refuse to admit that they answer the question. Or alternatively Lutherans put their fingers in their ears and shout . ‘we can not be held accountable for the clear implications of our teaching.

————————————————————

Paul,

We maintain both the gratia universalis and the sola gratia principles must be maintained side by side, without any rationalistic compromise.

—————————————————————

Bret

Yes, it is true . you are incoherent.

—————————————————

Paul,

Whoever is saved, is saved by grace alone, and not because of a lesser guilt or a better conduct over against grace; whoever is lost, is lost through his own fault, and not through a lack of the grace of God or the gracious operation of God.

————————————————–

Bret

So you keep saying . in the face of all the evidence to contrary.

“It is not of him who will nor of him who runs but of God who gives mercy.”

—————————————————

Paul,

Various attempts to resolve this problem reveal only theological immaturity. No mature theologian will indulge in such speculation.

——————————————————–

Bret

No need to speculate. It is resolved by the clear teaching of Scripture.

Romans 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

———————————————————

Paul,

Romans 11:33: “How unsearchable are His judgements and His ways past finding out” of course in the Calvinist’s Bible they really shoudl pencil in, “except for us” at the end of that verse. And from the looks of it Bret has it inscribed in gold in his copy of Scripture.

————————————————–

Bret

LOL

By this reasoning we should make judgments about nothing since everything is unsearchable.

(Actually, my copy is inscribed with heavenly ink from God’s own hand)

—————————————————-

Paul,

And of course, I’m sure the good Calvinist’s Bible has scratched out the “ek merous” of 1 Cor. 13:12, “Now we know in part” instead it must read, “Now, actually, we have it all figured out.”

———————————————————–

Bret

Ad hominem . like much of your post. We don’t pretend to have it all figured

out. We just stand by the clear teaching of Scripture.

———————————————————-

Paul,

But we Lutherans choose to retain the text of Scripture and realize that in eternal life, when our understanding of God and divine things will no longer be fragmentary (1 Cor. 13:12), this obscure matter, too, will become clear to us.

——————————————————-

Bret

But it is not obscure. You want to talk about obscure things becoming clear let’s talk about the hypostatic union, or the Trinity, or the nature of the sacramental union. You see Calvinists are just further ahead. We look forward to the really tough ones being understood.

——————————————————–

Paul,

Here I stand. I can do none other. God help me. Amen.

—————————————————-

Bret

You may be standing but your position is lying in such ruins that only God can help you.

————————————————–

Paul,

Indeed, you have a different spirit.

—————————————————–

Bret

Yes . one that can think straight.