Lutheran pastor rejects Baptism, Lord’s Supper

First, a bit about the LCMC. The congregation in which I was baptized is now LCMC, but the how’s and why’s and wherefore’s are outside my ken. LCMC is not hierarchical in any sense of the term, being very congregational in orientation. Also, they are effectively split into two wings (don’t ask me how or why this is so). The first wing is a more conservative one, that is comprised largely of congregations leaving the ELCA over the last 5 years or so. The second grouping, and where Delzell’s congregation probably falls into the mix, is made up largely of congregations and pastors that were influenced by the charismatic movement that hit some parts of upper mid-west Lutheranism in the late 60’s and 70’s. The ELCA may be apostate, but they’re still mostly a bunch of liturgical apostates.

Now, as to why the conservatives in the LCMC did not join the LCMS or the TAALC or the ELS or the AFLC is probably due to a few factors having to deal with some combination of a) the history and ethnicity of the congregation, b) preconceived notions of other Lutherans derived from the prejudices introduced by a) – (see here, LCMS, ELS, WELS, TAALC, AFLC) and the natural desire to not have to live with a “I told you so” by your cousins, and c) perceived or real difficulties in pastoral colloquialization, lack of outreach by other Lutheran bodies to congregations, and a desire to just get out of the burning house first then take stock.

I think the LCMC will be a transitional body for several congregations. They will either join up with the NALC, or drift into more congregationalist (note this a relative term in Lutheranism, or should be) structure like the AFLC or TAALC. Most of the difficulties will arise when it is time to find a new pastor – something that lets the apostasy of Pr. Delzell go unchecked at this time in my opinion. Who does the congregation turn to?

Anyhow, I challenge readers to read closely Pr. Delzell’s article and see where he goes wrong. It is subtle, but it ties into conversations we’ve had here on Cranach. I’m not as condemnatory as Dr. Veith of Pr. Delzell’s points here. I think he too casually dismisses the effectiveness of Baptism, but he does have what I would consider to be a right regard for the Lutheran belief that even the baptized can fall away from the faith. Even adults who are baptized at the “age of accountability” can fall away. How? Jesus says that nothing in this world can snatch us out of his saving grip, but we can still let go. We still have the power to deny Christ and to try and save ourselves and reject him. Again, Delzell’s error is subtle, and he might retract his statements or clarify them further if pressed. We do sometimes fall off the donkey on the left side in our eagerness to point out the problems with the ideas found on the right.

I said I’m not condemnatory, but I labeled Pr. Delzell as an apostate. I should say that his comment is apostatic or in error or misstated, but that he may not be. Perhaps a closer reading of his post is in order. Someone like Bror or Pr. Spomer or Pr. McCain would be of immense value here.

This is sad. It’s a problem that does tend to appear, as the great fault lines in our culture shift from denominational differences to radical/conservative differences. We must cooperate with Christians from other faith traditions, but we need to preserve out distinctives too. We in the AFLC do try to do that, at least here at the Bible School and seminary.

This doesn’t surprise me. When I first came to Utah I found out that the LCMC was big with a number of ELCA churches in the area. I spaoke to some of the local leaders and was informed that they accepting students as candidtates from the Salt Latke Theological Seminary. In fact the local ELCA congregation tthat was going LCMC had a pastor from there. When I toured there wasn’t one Lutheran on the faculty. When I asked about this I was told, “well, we only teach doctrine we leave polity up to the individual churches to which our students are ordained.” The guy couldn’t seem to grasp that the last thing we as Lutherans would allow to separate the body of Christ was polity, that we find that a rather foolish thing to split over when we are in agreement in doctrine, but that it is actually doctrine that separates us from Presbyterians. Oh well, they guys I have known from that school were all nice. Just seem a bit mislead.

The LCMC is a total hodge-podge of congregations that may not necessarily share much in common, other than a deep antipathy for the homosexuality decisions of the ELCA. When, or, if that is the “tie the binds” they have very little ground to stand on.

There is a large collection of charismatic, Evangelical, non-Denom styles and types of theological concerns in the LCMC.

Ironically, the pastor is simply espousing the same kind of assertions made here in the USA back in the mid to late 1800s by S.S. Schmucker who actually prepared a “recension” of the Augsburg Confession, the core Lutheran confessional statement, in which…yup, he ditched the Biblical doctrine of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

What goes around, comes around.

“Keeping it real”?!!!! this guy is a walking parody of early 90s gibberish.
Second. There is nothing complicated about Luther’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. It is fairly simple. Jesus as the God man gives us the body and blood we sacrificed on the cross for our sins as the Paschal lamb, because, well the Paschal lamb must be eaten, that was the whole point of the sacrifice, to eat what was sacrificed. Otherwise it does you no good. Jesus gives us his sacrifice to be eaten so that its benefits might be applied to us. He is God, he can make bread and wine be his body and blood, St is called a miracle. Just as it is miraculous that he forgives our sins.
Third, Luther was very “Stubborn” about this because he knows that the church does not live, does not exist apart from the means of grace, to which the Lord’s Supper belongs. But if it becomes a mere meal of remembrance on our part, where we are the operators the gospel is lost, and the forgiveness of sins attached to the Lord’s Supper is no longer forgiveness of sins. No, It is simple, either Christ is doing something for us in the supper, giving us his body and blood for the forgiveness of sins, or we are trying to earn the forgiveness of sins by something we do in the supper. And if the Lord’s Supper is distorted in such a manner than it is not long that that the whole gospel of Christ is distorted, and you have the mess you have in reformed churches where no one knows if they are actually saved or not, and the sovereignty of God becomes the gospel rather than the Cross of Christ.
I know six year olds that understand the Lord’s supper. It is not complicated. God does what God wants. Deny that, and I don’t care to hear you talk about the sovereignty of God, you have no idea. You deny his sovereignty, you deny the gospel with your works.

Pr. Dellsel asks “What if Martin Luther had continued to assume that just because he had been baptized as an infant, he was already a Christian?”

Um, didn’t Luther say pretty much just exactly that–well, maybe not the infant part–but precisely because “I am baptized,” that I know that I am a Christian?

What elese are you supposed to trust in, your “feelings”?

Sheesh, he might as well be a Mormon.

Dr. Veith gave the site above – which I quote a portion of what Detzell had to say. I find it refreshing, giving the truth regarding “baptism” – I have often stated that one must repent, believe the Gospel and then be Baptized. Infant Baptism will save no one, without repentance of sins, and Belief in Jesus Christ.

By Dan Delzell
What if Martin Luther had continued to assume that just because he had been baptized as an infant, he was already a Christian? What if Luther never applied the Gospel message personally to his own soul….through faith….by trusting in what Jesus did for him on the cross? Look at all his teen and adult years where Martin Luther was spiritually dead….even after he had been baptized as an infant. Many teens and adults are in the same condition today.

So just be cautious if infant baptism is something your church practices. It doesn’t guarantee that your child will grow up knowing the Lord….or will die one day knowing the Lord. Every person who desires to know Christ must repent and believe the good news, whether he was baptized as an infant or not. (see John 3:7) If he does repent and believe, he will then begin to follow Jesus. That’s what Christians do.”

Read the rest: http://www.christianpost.com/news/infant-baptism-and-5-point-calvinism-are-limited-88498/

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
John 3:7

SKP @ 16

” I also fully expect that the Vatican and the See of Constantinople will soon be revising their liturgies and doctrines to conform to the clear exposition of Scripture laid out by Pr. Delzell and quickly confirmed by your judicious exposition of Scriptural bolding. Hallelujah! Amen, amen.”

Yes, I can see why you would next look to the Pope of Rome to revising their beliefs, after all, Luther brought with him many of the beliefs of the Roman church, injecting his beliefs on Baptism – with not one passage of Scripture to substantiate such a belief.

At the very least, I would think that he would have the honesty to deny his affiliation with Lutheranism if he’s not willing to assert Lutheran doctrine.

See, this is what I don’t get. If I were in leadership in the LCMC, I’d be calling for this guy to be excommunicated; he’s denying something core to Lutheranism. That’s like a Baptist condemning immersion, or a pentecostal condemning speaking in tongues: it is an attack upon a root doctrinal stance, and it undermines the very truths espoused by the church in question.

I brought this up on the Steadfast Lutheran website, but I’m really puzzled as to why there isn’t a stronger emphasis on modern church discipline in the church (Lutheran and otherwise). Seems like the church is too eager to be “big tent” on too many things that shouldn’t be sanctioned.

Grace @ 2o

Clear reading of the word of God, eh?

“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” 1 Peter 3:21

Grace @ 20 – Following up on what Jeff @ 21 notes. So you’re saying that Polycarp, one of the first martyrs of the Church and personally acquainted with John blew it. Just totally bagged the teachings imparted to him by one of the apostles. Maybe it was John who got it wrong. That’s it! We need to immediately strip his Gospel, the Revelation and those little letters right on out of the Bible. Or maybe it’s Ignatius’s fault. Maybe he totally screwed up what John had told him. Then again it could have been Barnabas that really botched the Baptism thing. He did say that Christian baptism offers remission of sins and life in the living fountain that is Jesus Christ. Oh, no! He also said this most heretical of things: that the Israelites would reject “that baptism which leads to the remission of sins.” Doubly damned is he! Or maybe it was Irenaeus who did it. I mean that Irenaeus character was a mean old cuss, saying things like denial of baptismal regeneration is to deny all of Christianity! He got the whole thing wrong! You and Pr. Delzell have to be right. I mean who are these guys who heard directly from the apostles, corresponded with the likes of Timothy and Titus, collected the books that became the New Testament and taught the early members of the faith from Rome to Antioch to Jerusalem to Alexandria. They were all obviously heretics! Minions of darkness. Benighted souls enslaved to Satan to lead man astray until the miraculous insights of Pr. Delzell could be confirmed by St. Grace the Enlightened. Thanks be to God!

Neither do I Grace, but that is why in the interpretative balance regarding what the Apostles wrote and a good interpretation of those texts, I’m willing to take a flyer on the students of the apostles themselves who were the ones who put the Bible together and issued the first commentaries on the content and meaning of those texts. You say you believe the Bible, but you apparently don’t put much trust in the men who put it together. That starts to smack of a quasi-Marcionism and Biblical dilettantism.

Therefore on the subject of Baptism, I can put up the views of Irenaeus against those of Dan Delzell, or the views of Ignatius against those of Grace. Guess who gets the prize? The guys who, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, began to put the New Testament together. I’ll take their understandings of basic tenets of the Christian faith over that of any pastor posting on Christianity Today when that pastor begins to directly contradict the clear teachings of Scripture and the body of interpretive commentary put forth by the guys who were taught by the apostles directly. Pr. Delzell has subtly, but dangerously, questioned the efficacy and power of Baptism in a manner that is in direct contravention of Scripture and the interpretations of the early Fathers. His argument is found desperately wanting and sorely lacking in merit, unless and until he clarifies his argument with reference to Scripture, historical exegetical commentary, and the clear exposition of Scripture found in the Book of Concord. If he does not, then he should no longer consider himself to be a pastor in the Lutheran Church.

There are several questions raised here. The first is whether Scripture teaches Infant Baptism. The section on Infant Baptism in Luther’s Large Catechism gives what I believe is the Christian, Scriptural, and Lutheran position on the matter, affirming Infant Baptism without the shadow of a doubt.

The second question is whether if we cannot see any evidence in life for what we believe, does that mean our beliefs or even the clear teaching of Scripture are wrong. More than once I have posed the question about the fact that 90% of those German who committed atrocities during WWII were baptized – as infants, may I add. Unfortunately, here the Confessions leave us only with David, who supposedly lost both faith and the Holy Spirit when he had Bathsheba’s husband killed and slept with her. But that is a position which Scripture does not support. Even as David repented, something he could not do without faith and the Holy Spirit, so any of those 90% could have. That is why Scripture tells us the terrible story about David, so that we would know that no sin is beyond God’s forgiveness.

My first concern is that no one has given any individual the right to decide who is and who is not a child of God. Our Lord, when He comes to the final judgment, will decide that. But there is also no question that it is the duty of parents, relatives, teachers, pastors, and friends to nourish the seedling of faith which God has planted in every baptized infant. Scripture abounds with passages about this, and I think that we can attribute the huge number of people who do not appear to be living out their faith, to our failure to do this. I am reasonably certain that this was the case with those 90%.

Nevertheless, we should not think that our Savior, Who paid so high a price for the lives of His people, will abandon them even if they live contrary to the faith of the Church. After all, He is the Good Shepherd Who searches for His lost sheep. He may not find them on our schedule, but He will find them on His. The mercy of God is infinitely greater than the mercy of even the best man.

But Scripture indeed teaches that a true child of God can deny the faith and reject the Holy Spirit and inherit eternal death. We do not know if and when that happens to a person. But we should not jump to the conclusion that even one who has committed a terrible sin has committed “the sin against the Holy Spirit.” God only gives up on them at the moment of death, and He has saved many an instant before that.

Peace and Joy!
George A. Marquart

Grace @ 24

“The Gospel was taught FIRST HAND by the LORD Jesus Christ to HIS Apostles. They are the ones who penned to paper what they witnessed FIRST HAND. All others who followed were not FIRST HAND WITNESSES, they were not at the Cross when Christ died, nor were they given instruction as Acts 1 tells us – 40 days the LORD Jesus Christ spent with them, giving them instructions.”

So does that mean we throw out the books written by Paul? He did not receive instruction from Jesus during those 40 days. And if we are to ignore everything done by the people who came after the Apostles, then we should get rid of the New Testament because they put together by these people.

Phil @ 29

YOU WROTE: “So does that mean we throw out the books written by Paul? He did not receive instruction from Jesus during those 40 days. And if we are to ignore everything done by the people who came after the Apostles, then we should get rid of the New Testament because they put together by these people.”

Paul was chosen by God, he was thrown down on the Damascus road –

Paul makes it crystal clear, that he did not receive his education from ANYONE except, but by revelation from Jesus Christ, to say otherwise is to contradict Scripture. No man is mentioned, God didn’t use man in this case, Jesus revealed it, it was His revelation to Paul.

For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:12

It then becomes obvious, that Paul was very different from other men. Christ’s Apostles accepted Paul as such.

God has different ways to do what he wishes, his ways are not ours, nor are we expected to make excuses and change what the Word says. Clearly Jesus revealed to Paul what he was to know and preach. Paul was a dynamic evangelist.

The Damascus road was God’s plan, and to instill in Paul the ability instantly to know the Word of God, Acts 9:15-20

I liken this to the 144,000 Jewish men, all virgins, who will be let loose as we read in Revelation – I would imagine, these men will be endowed with ‘INSTANT KNOWLEDGE’ of the LORD JESUS CHRIST, and the Gospel, which will be breathtaking to anyone who witnesses these men, all Jews, from the 12 tribes of Israel, and being VERY MUCH like Paul the Apostle.

Grace @ 31

So did Luke and the authors of Jude and Hebrews receive the same revelation from God? They were also not Apostles.

Phil @ 33

No one is sure who penned Hebrews – most believe it was Saint John the Apostle

As for Jude:

Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Matthew 13:55

Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
John 14:22

He is identified NOT as “Iscariot” – I believe the writer of Jude is the half brother of Jesus.

George @ 36

“I have to come to the defense of SKPeterson @32. Indeed, although I did not use the words “and damnation” there is no problem adding them to what I wrote, inasmuch as eternal death and damnation are one and the same thing. My question to Grace is, “Did you think I was writing something other than “eternal death”?”

Trying to rescue SKP from misquoting you, in order to save whatever, wasn’t clever. Then to make it more laughable, you play ‘rescue.

Then you go on to state: “I have no choice but to regard these people as true Christians at some point.”

George, anyone who denies Christ will be “denied” by Christ. That doesn’t equate to heaven or eternal life with the LORD.

But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 10:33

If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:

2 Timothy 2:12

deny

arneomai – ar-neh’-om-ahee

disavow, reject, abnegate:–deny, refuse.

I don’t believe for a moment, that those who helped slaughter the Jews and others during WW2 are going to Heaven. That is unless they were truly sorry. Most denied their participation. Romans 13 doesn’t work here, but there are thousands who would love to apply it to the holocaust.

Christopher @ 38

“This guy is down the street from our LCMS congregation (quia confessional). Love to see our Pastor debate this denier some day.”

What do you think the results would be?

fws @ 40

fws,

Do you mean this Nadia Bolz-Weber?

ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM9Y5S3UYi8

Go to YouTube
Play video
Rev. Nadia is the founding pastor of House for All Sinners and Saints in Denver, Colorado. She is the author of “Salvation on the Small Screen? 24 Hours of Christian Television” (Seabury 2008) and…
00:20:48
Added on 7/20/12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM9Y5S3UYi8&playnext=1&list=PL0CCE802D1207EB83&feature=results_main

You need to go to GOOGLE to make the LINK work.

Grace @ 37 – Yes we know. You have your conclusions and you’re willing to quote the Bible selectively to make your point. You’ll misread what people say and then insist that your interpretation of their words is correct despite the clear reading of their comments (I suspect your reading of the Bible may be much like that of your reading of people’s comments here). Much like the Cheshire Cat, the Bible means exactly what you want it to mean, at a time and place convenient for you. And if it doesn’t suit your argument it is ipso facto irrelevant. So, in any instance of theological discussion on these pages you regularly misquote, misapply, or misinterpret the Bible, and usually some mixture of all three to the point where you begin to deny central tenets of what defines orthodox Christianity (i.e., your packing your bags for the heresy cruise).

Now, as to Ms. Bolz-Weber. You will not find much agreement with her by many of us who are regulars on this page about many different topics within Lutheran Christianity. However, beyond your ever so subtle ad hominem what precisely in the link Frank provided is especially offensive to you? Apparently, she could not ever say anything right because she is wrong or questionable about other things. Is she wrong about several things? Yes. Does that make her wrong about everything? No. You just don’t like what she’s saying, don’t have a good argument against it, and want to discredit her statements through a personal attack.

here is the link grace was looking for I think….. it is actually not too bad….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM9Y5S3UYi8&list=PL951AF87653647B9B

SKP @ 49 Boy is that a good analysis! Sounds like the problem we Christians have everywhere — even among ourselves (LCMS) too.

Regarding, Nadia. When she first stepped onto the stage and announced she was a “pastor,” I was very sad. However, I liked the way she “sounded.” She gave a good testimony. But as regarding Scripture she does not belong as a “pastor.” I like her emphasis of that of reaching to really really lost people. She would be one that would seek after the Prodigal Son. (But really, the Father was the wiser in letting the Prodigal sink to his lowest so that at that point he could really come home.) Her point of Grace is right — to all who are undeserving, which includes all of us. I do wish, in the LCMS, we would be coming to a stronger realization of Justification and Grace as Luther and St. Paul found it. I hear too many pastors beating around the bush with all kinds of other things like they themselves have lost the message. I believe Nadia discovered that deep Grace for herself. I just wish she wasn’t disregarding Scripture (as well as the whole ELCA) with regards to calling herself, and setting herself up, as a pastor. She could certainly have a ministry some other way. Never in the Bible do I see a “softening” or a “disregarding” of sin. All you have to do is look at the cross. It is both penalty and love. Never in the Bible do I see, from beginning to end, that God ever opened a provision to a woman to be a shepherd/pastor. In a very narrow sense, I will stand on the fact alone that Jesus only chose men to be his disciples/apostles. That is enough description for me. Nadia could teach. She sounds very good in that way. And in some ways we need her to give messages such as she does. I just pray it doesn’t lead to softening or disregarding sin.

SKP @ 49

SKP WRITES:

“Grace @ 37 – Yes we know. You have your conclusions and you’re willing to quote the Bible selectively to make your point. You’ll misread what people say and then insist that your interpretation of their words is correct despite the clear reading of their comments (I suspect your reading of the Bible may be much like that of your reading of people’s comments here). Much like the Cheshire Cat, the Bible means exactly what you want it to mean, at a time and place convenient for you. And if it doesn’t suit your argument it is ipso facto irrelevant. So, in any instance of theological discussion on these pages you regularly misquote, misapply, or misinterpret the Bible, and usually some mixture of all three to the point where you begin to deny central tenets of what defines orthodox Christianity (i.e., your packing your bags for the heresy cruise).”

SKP, I didn’t misread your quotes at all, you misquoted George, and then George came to rescue your skewed, misquote, @ 36 – and now you don’t like it, so you choose to accuse me of misquoting others, when I don’t. You don’t like the fact that no one can deny Christ, if they do, Christ will deny them (Scripture used in my post @ 37) All the gibberish you’ve concocted is an excuse for your misquoting George.

fws

No that isn’t the video – when I use the correct LINK, it comes up wrong. I’ve used it before so I know that it once worked.

Dr. Veith says that he does not expect non Lutherans to believe like Lutherans.
He does expect those men who call themselves Lutheran pastors to subscribe to Lutheran doctrine.
Good, I’m all for that.

Now, if we could agree that Grace 1. is not Lutheran; 2. does not believe Lutheran doctrine
and, if Grace could do Lutherans the favor of accepting the difference rather than telling us
what Lutherans should believe, (by her lights) we would surely save a lot of space here!
[Of course, if Patheos pays by the linear inch I withdraw the suggestion!] 🙂

When someone gets into the “who misquoted who” mode, I just skip those posts.
Sorry about that! (If I want to know what George really said, I’ll go back and read George).

The LCMC is a total hodge-podge of congregations that may not necessarily share much in common, other than a deep antipathy for the homosexuality decisions of the ELCA. When, or, if that is the “tie the binds” they have very little ground to stand on.

This is really key. Just being against homosexuals, because… well, why? They are just sinners like the rest of us. If some denomination opposes affirming homosexuality because the Bible teaches against it but then has women pastors even though the Bible teaches against it, well then, you betcha, they are just plain confused. Just glad I escaped the ELCA and all their little spin offs. It just would be so incoherent and inconsistent and just not a good place to bring up your kids.

“Word of God as total truth, they aren’t inerrant (commentaries)” Grace @60
Grace, with all due respect — you wouldn’t even be Calvary Chapel if it werent’ for Martin Luther. HE was ALL ABOUT Scripture ALONE — Grace ALONE — Christ ALONE — and Faith ALONE. His message of justification and grace and imputation and propitiation — came from Scripture ALONE. That’s why he translated the Bible so all the common people could have it. He at one point wanted his words to be burned so that there was only Scripture ALONE. I don’t fault Martin Luther for all the misinterpretations of him. That is common human sin. GOD used him at the right time to do what HE wanted Martin Luther to do. I don’t think Martin Luther even wanted the job much like Moses. But he did it nevertheless. If it werent’ for him you would still be Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. (In that case, I would choose the Orthodox.)

So why doesn’t it just become another generic evangelical non-denominational church like all the others? I suspect they are. Their church sign just hasn’t caught up with their theology yet.

“let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world”

That is the point. Luther was not encouraging people to sin. He was speaking to sinners. Of whom I am one. My sin account is huge. Probably even bigger than that what is stated above. So am I to say because I have so many sins in my account therefore Christ rejects me? No. The ONLY unforgiveable sin is the sin against the Holy Spirit. The sin of rejecting Jesus Christ and His atonement.

Abby,

Your rendition of Luther’s remarks is not correct, there is no way one can cover up what he stated. It’s not in the Word of God.

“No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”
Martin Luther
(Weimar ed. vol. 2, p. 371; Letters I, “Luther’s Works,” American Ed., Vol 48. p. 281- 282)
On the day of the Feast of St. Peter the Apostle, 1521

@69 Is King Solomon in heaven? He had a thousand wives and concubines. How many people did King David kill/murder in war which he loved so much that God would not him build the temple?

Forgot to say, these were David’s words.

Just in the sense of categorizing, there really are only two “spirit” buckets here. It’s interesting to note those two; the only group that actually trusts in and are assured by, to the individual, their baptism, especially in time of trial is Lutheran/Lutheran doctrine. None of the other groups trust in their baptism: Rome does not, Baptist do not, Reformed do not, Methodist do not, nor do any of the cults etc…etc… The same with the Lord’s Supper. I.e. Lutherans go to sleep at night fully assured (or they should at least) that if they die to night because they are baptized, they know they’ll wake up in heaven. Not so with the other groups. Now there’s a reason for that.

Home runs all Pastor Bror, Paul and Pat and Jon. It IS that simple, it IS that issue, loose that and you loose everything eventually and the Gospel becomes a distant echo never touching the ground. It’s kind of like Chesterton once wrote about the empirical evidence of sin is so without denial that one wonders why we refuse to see it. Same thing here, my three year old and four year old understand the Lord’s Supper (and baptism) more than most adults. It’s not as if the words in Scripture are not crystal clear. It’s not an intellectual issue. I’m mean in general one can even say, even an atheist hypothetically who doesn’t believe in God can say, “Well if God is indeed GOD, then He can do whatever He wills and miraculously and well above our grasp and understanding…a ‘Zeus’ as a “god” battling another “god” both who came into being by something else, neither is really a god.” So if God says, “this is” and “that saves”, it does not really matter one single wit if one understands “how” or even if ALL the world baptized turns away, it takes nothing away from the sacrament. It’s like this, God told Noah this boat would save. Not because of its unique engineering design, but because God spoke it into being and said “build this it will save”. All the rest of the world said, “Hath God really said Noah?” And well their observations and reasoning and laughter did really matter in the end, the ark saved anyway and they perished anyway.

So while I care in that I don’t want to see people turn from their baptism and perish, I really don’t care on the other hand a single micron that they don’t trust their baptism, I do, “I am baptized”. Their falling away does nothing whatsoever to the salvific nature of baptism or the Lord’s Supper any more than those that scoffed at the Ark, and neither do other (false) doctrines that say it does not. One can clearly defend the sacraments without leaving a single word of Scripture, one cannot defend the counter doctrines without leaving the scriptures.

Bror’s right on the money, where the Lord’s Supper (and I would add baptism) is disconnected and taught what it is not and does nothing and is symbol/sign for the most part, you loose the Gospel eventually. Oh it may not happen immediately and you’ll find a few within trying to sustain a decent Gospel against the rising tide, but it disappears eventually.

The devil’s done a very crafty trick here. He’s managed to label, via doctrines of Rome, Reformed and Baptist and all in between, what is Gospel as “law” and works, and what is really law and works as “gospel”. So that when we hear “be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins”, “so to baptism saves you”, “rise up and be baptized washing away your sins” and so forth (all very clear Gospel = YOU>>>BE>>>Baptized>>>receiving forgiveness, the holy Spirit, salvation = Good News that YOU in particular received this in fact!). All that the devil Jedi mind tricks into, “Well Baptism does not do anything and trusting in that is trusting in works”. That’s a head scratcher, let me get this straight, to actually receive forgiveness from God is my works? And to assess that God’s will is for me and I’m saved/elect/reborn is done by observing my changed life of better/good works or the work of my believing, that I DO, that’s “gospel”? Thus, the devil has weaved a massive delusion and turned RECEIVING passively from God into law and works, and DOING actively works into “gospel”.

And this gets into all sorts of psychotic doctrinal twist like poor Calvinistic/Reformed leaning Baptist children who sing “Jesus loves me” and at Christmas time all those wonderful Christmas hymns with those “for me” pro nouns in them, who are unbaptized and later ask mom and dad at home at pillow time, “am I elect”, “I’m don’t want to go to hell” (actual quotes by the way). You have to wonder in their poor minds and hearts if they wonder how much Jesus loves them or not.

Salvation is always in the abstract for an abstract group of hypothetical elected John 3:16s, and the sacraments become abstract sacraments with signage that is not the reality (pure abstraction) with no concreteness at all. This is the way spiritualizing works and its pure Gnosticism. So, one has an abstract baptism pointing to an abstract Christ and an abstract forgiveness that is “for” an abstract person, but no concrete baptism giving a concrete Christ and a concrete forgiveness that is FOR a concrete “for you” in particular person. Then it is no wonder that the laity and pastors of such confessions eventually have construct a concrete touch stone to get away from the abstraction so they can have a “for me”. It’s not accidental that Arminianism and Wesleyanism comes out of Reformed thought. Nor is it accidental that charismatic things of all sorts developed out of reformed and baptistic thought. One as a concrete individual person cannot survive in abstraction of “for” me abstract salvation. Nor can amalgamations of said like individuals. So movement begins that says, “here is Christ, there is Christ (concretely) or here is the Spirit and there is the Spirit (concretely)”. From intellectual Calvinism’s “if you believe” to high end charismatics barking like dogs…or even finding God on the golf course every Sunday, its concrete. All are seeking that lost concrete “for me” thing that says in essence: “Here is God’s disposition and will in particular expressed to you”. But not the water, bread and wine, those are only signs of a reality in abstraction.

Another interesting exercise to go through is take ALLLLL those words of men from ALLLLL those denominations on the sacraments, especially the Baptist and see if the Scripture Words match them. For example Baptist and Reformed saying baptism doesn’t do anything or similar, versus Peter who says, “baptism saves you”. You can do that all day long with the scriptures, because they are quite plainly spoken and one not need even explain them, “this is My body”, another word does not need to be said, not another single word from a man, “this is My body” very simple very plain. Noun verb adjective noun, “This is My body”…very, very, very simple. So intellect is not the problem. Same thing “for the forgiveness of your sin”, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very simple and plain. All mostly single syllable words with maybe a simple multi-syllable word. Two very, very, very simple prepositional phrases.

The test question really is no more complicated than this in any given confessional/denominational construction, “how do you know Jesus died FOR YOU?” And the answer HAS to pass the mustered of your confession otherwise (e.g. one cannot appeal to John 3:16 for yourself, then turn around and say, “John meant only the elect”).

So good to know that Gracie is right. And millions and millions of Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans and others who espouse infant baptism are lost, lost, lost.

What a comfort.

Abby,

Don’t underestimate what I’ve read, JUST BECAUSE I DON’T AGREE with you or others on a variety of subjects. 😆 that one won’t work

Abby @ 80 YOU WROTE: “If you have read more — you don’t understand.”

That’s a silly excuse to use when someone doesn’t agree with you. ‘If they don’t agree, they don’t understand. It’s used by kids who believe their ideas/beliefs supersede that of others, including parents.

“Suffer the little children to come to me and forbid them not. For of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.” Jesus

Abby @ 83

That is the exact portion of Scripture I posted @ 70, it’s from Matthew 19:14 – you might want to scroll up and read the passage and what I wrote: 🙂

Bror,

The word you used “knocked up” is offensive.

As for infant Baptism – it isn’t in the Word of God. That’s it!

@88 Are you speaking about “decision theology?”

Parents are just as helpless in wiping out their own sins as they are in wiping out a child’s sin. I’ll agree with you on that. Thing is if you think the parents are trying to wash away a child’s sin in baptism, well then I’m inclined to think you believe you wipe away your own sins in baptism. You have a few things confused here.
The only person washing away anyone’s sin in baptism is Jesus. And Jesus is not helpless to wash away sin. He does it. He does it to anyone he wants regardless of age. But he does it in baptism, and he wants to do it to everyone. He tells you it is for your children.

If one does not understand justification, one understands nothing.

Bror @ 91

I gave you these passages yesterday.

YOU WROTE: “Could you please show me a verse that says one must first repent, then believe then be baptized?”

For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. 2 Corinthians 6:10

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mark 16:16
There you have repentance, Salvation and baptized!

You brought the subject up @ 26, and I answered you regarding Act 2:38 and 39

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

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.
Acts 2

REPENT and BAPTIZED –

Infants cannot repent, they don’t have the ability. When parents brought their children to Christ, it was to pray and bless them, not Baptize them. Christ never mentioned once, Baptizing children, not once.

Grace,
Adults can’t repent! They don’t have the ability! What part of this are you not getting. If it is something we do we are saved by our works, by what we do. Adults are no more able to repent then children. God works repentance in us 2 Timothy 2:25, God is the one who grants repentance, gives repentance. And he does this in baptism just as much as he gives faith in baptism.

Bror –

Let her be. If she understood justification, this would all be a moot point. If she understood verb tense and mood in Greek, the “repent” issue would be a moot point.

She does not. And no one will get the concept across to her in a few cross-postings.

jb @ 99 YOU WRITE: “Let her be. If she understood justification, this would all be a moot point. If she understood verb tense and mood in Greek, the “repent” issue would be a moot point.”

Don’t flatter yourself, I understand far better than you imagine.

18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
Acts 3

 ‏

It’s very difficult for many individuals to repent, it goes against the grain. However Jesus stated the following:

20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:

21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
Matthew 11

you don’t really get it do you Grace. It isn’t that it is difficult, it is impossible. It is as impossible as believing itself, because it is one and the same thing. It is either gifted by God or it is impossible.

Free Will? Where does the Bible speak of such a thing? Why did Jesus have to die on the cross? if we were perfectly free to earn our own salvation? What on earth are you talking about?

Then, Grace, you need only to freely choose not to sin, and you have no need of Jesus. Gee, that was quick and easy!

As I said, you have no concept of justification, so you must necessarily somehow credit yourself in your salvation. And that is, by the way, precisely what the RCC teaches, and baptists (Capital B or not), and half a gazillion other Reformed faiths teach. The Pharisees taught that – against which Jesus most vociferously argued. Muslims are huge into work-righteousness.

Wait . . . this was about free will, right? Heh. Amazing. Most amazing!

Outta here. Clueless is clueless.

Bror,

“Apples”

That is not a brilliant comment Bror. The Bible doesn’t tell us what fruit Eve and Adam ate – but your Sunday school approach has been made by many an unlearned so callled teacher.

If anyone believes they don’t have FREE WILL, then they can claim, and do whatever they decide, and it is not their fault. That encompasses anything –

Do you turn left when you should have turned right (at the right hand curb) at a stop light with four lanes to your left? If you do, you won’t have a license very long with such behavior, and your insurance company will most certainly TAKE NOTICE.

Do you decide to go to a porn film, when you know it’s wrong, and cheats your spouse? If you do, you’re doing so out of your own choice, ie: FREE WILL

I think you all get the idea. We do have FREE WILL. There are all too many denominations who want to blame their sin, not on themselves but the excuse they don’t have FREE WILL, to do what is right, rather than what is wrong, or anything that happens – never upon their choice. It’s a snarly subject for the most stubborn of souls.

Ladies and gentlemen. If we’ve learned anything in the years that Grace has been commenting here, it’s that she has a serious problem with reading comprehension. She never fails to misread the Scriptures, or Church history, or Luther, or the comments of the people participating here. She never fails to take great pride in her misreadings. She never fails to attack the biblical faithfulness of anyone who tries to correct her. She never fails to suspect the motives of anyone who so much as asks her a question. No one has ever made the least bit of headway with her, and no one ever will.

yeah, I might be trying to say something like that Mikeb.
Tom, Yep! I know. trust me I know. but the last couple days, I have been suffering from this. The good that I would I do not, and the bad that I would not, that I do.
I guess I think I should just continue to ignore Grace, the most ironically named person in the history of the world. I have done so for years and years now. Infact, I even have cut back my participation on this blog, due to her belligerence. But the last couple days, I have not been able to keep myself from feeding the troll. Please forgive me.

Greetings, all! A fascinating conversation and kudos to all who keep their cool and respond to each other without too much anger. I know how Grace feels (about the Gospel), and I can see how her opponents thinkk. Altho I come from a Lutheran background and was baptized in an early LC at 6 mos (I just turned 81), and don’t remember my baptism, I still feel that it was a defining moment in my life. I was raised for 18 years in a Methodist church (very fundamental and Wesleyan holiness) under Arminian teaching. Many yeaars later I began to realize what the reformed tradition was about and it definitely changed my Christian life, but I had many agonizing doubts. A book called FULL CIRCLE, by Roz Rinker helped (a Free Methodist missionlary). I enjoy reading these posts, for some reason, due to my grandmother’s insistence that there are 2 sides to most stories , they are very edifying.

 ‏

TE Schroeder @ 22

“Okay, “I can’t resist.
Grace, what is the point of being baptized? Why should someone do it?”

Post 98 will answer your question very nicely. Perhaps you should read this thread, then you wouldn’t have had to ask. 😉

 ‏

 ‏

Grace,

I read post 98 and have to ash, can you better explain it? I think you could do a better job of explaining why one should be baptized, what baptism does, and what it means.

 ‏

“Sin wilfully” equals “Free Will –

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Hebrews 10

mikeb and all the rest who would like to argue this Sunday –

I have posted Scripture, which defines my belief. It is Scripture, God’s Word, not the words of others who have chosen to re-define the Bible.

Try enjoying the big football game today, it’s only a short time away. 😉

Grace @ 129

Argue? I just asked a yes or no question… I thought you were to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you? Or does your bible not include Peter’s first epistle?

Grace at 98…not to be argumentative, but to try and explain my understanding of one way to look at the verses where Jesus (or anyone) says to “repent”…..just because he asks (commands?) it, does not mean we can do it, it’s that simple. Sometimes maybe he asks us to do things we can’t because he wants to emphasize our total dependence on Him?

He also ask us simply to “believe” and to “be born again” (as per Nicodemus..spelling?) but as he told Nicodemus, we cannot accomplish this “being born again” command…how it happens cannot be explained, it is like the wind, a holy wind, the Holy Spirit!

So don’t want to speak for anyone here, and perhaps am wrong, but do remember reading some things that point out, just because we are commanded to do something, it does not mean we can do it, at least on our own, but surely with God’s help!

Same similar thing with “free will” in a sense. As it has been explained to me, we do have “free will” with respect to sinning…it’s kind of our nature to do that, if you will (no pun intended!), but with regard to doing the will of God, and most importantly, being born again and believing in His Son as our Savior, we do not have free will, but it’s all a work of the Holy Spirit and all from Grace, if you will 🙂

cheers!

Such free willers as Grace are the exemplar example of the bondage of the will. For she refuses to freely receive the grace of God as it is given in the sacraments. Infants show this forth and are, if one might speak this way, the least resistant. Yet, lovers of free will are the perfect examples that they WILL NOT and in fact refuse that which is the true and actual grace of God.

In short when in the sacraments the Lord of the Church and the Holy Spirit says “I forgive you” and you despise that, you are showing forth the very bondage of the will. One is like a fish that cannot grasp he’s wet. Worse yet, to continue to do this is to despise the grace of God and at length in danger of committing the unforgivable sin through such hardness of heart. Such need to repent. Or one then will be damned, not because God would have it that way, but because one themselves will have nothing to do with such a gracious God. For God’s grace is gracious enough, but to reject THAT grace that is THAT gracious leaves one no where to go but hell. Hell is, after all, a door first locked from the inside, then at last and finally by God from the outside.

Very good, mikeb @ 136. Nicely summed up.

Mikeb….re: Tom, yes, very, very good, thank you!

SKP…well, hmmm, didn’t Paul still need to get Peter in line with the pure gospel, even after all his personal experiences with Christ in the flesh?

In any case, thanks be to God, a broken and contrite spirit he will not despise 🙂

cheers!

Larry….excellent points also, as usual 🙂

It’s enlightening that you (via scripture) seem to differentiate between someone who accepts the forgiveness from God on face value just because he says so, versus those who claim forgiveness on account of their faith in that forgiveness, that is, their belief in that forgiveness…unless am misunderstanding your comment? But nonetheless, do not want to belabor the point!

In that same context, you seem to say that that difference differentiates those who do not believe in free will (those who accept God’s forgiveness, as an act accomplished thru the works of God, thru Christ, without any effort on their part, even their “acceptance” of that grace) versus those who seem to believe in free will, who see their salvation as tied to their acceptance of the salvation offered thru the atoning works of his son? wow, that is something am going to need time to absorb, and separate the wheat from the chafe, God willing!

But, myy guess is both accept Christ and his redeeming work, but don’t express it with the same logical clarity as others, yet, as with other doctrines, such as the sacraments, it does not mean they are not any more accepted by their Savior as believers and children of God? My understanding of the Lutheran tradition, is that we understand, there can be differences on some doctrinal points, without damning anyone, or bringing us to label them outside the Christian faith? sure hope so!

In any case, once again, a broken and contrite spirit thou wilt not despise…even if not expressed in the most clear and precise terms as concerning orthodox Lutherans, but nonetheless, make sense to our Savior, who’s much more gracious and forgiving thus us…..PTL 🙂

cheers!

Bob @140,
Interesting article. I haven’t been watching the news enough to know of these events which it reports. And I guess I would with hold comment or judgment in all that, and let it go to the authorities. But I do like how the author calls Calvary Chapel a denomination. Finally someone in the media seeing through this “we’re not a denomination” mantra. It is sad that this denomination has very little lay oversight. When I see these churches and look at how they are set up, it is hard for me to imagine there isn’t any embezzlement of funds. Quite frankly the whole set up looks like a nightmare.

@ Bror
Not to belabor the fruit bit, but….
We have awesome peach orchards where we live. While peach picking for the first time with my 3 year old daughter she took a bite and proclaimed that “this must be the fruit Eve ate”!

dust @ 141 – Yes, larry was making a fairly clear differentiation between faith and fideism. Fideism is the name for the system in which people have not faith in Christ, but faith in their own faith about Christ. It is a subtle and pernicious works righteousness.

Let us get one thing straight, slaves do not have free will and we are all slaves. Rm 6:17-18
The doctrine of Free will is an illusion created by Satan to trick us into believing we can save ourselves and keep us away from the one who can save us.

Membership with Calvary Chapel explains Grace’s lack of Scriptural knowledge, all the while she thinks she goes by the “Bible alone.”

Here is some more info about this denomination: http://www.calvarychapelabuse.com/wordpress/

“our dear sister Grace”

Grace IS our sister by means of Holy Baptism
Grace IS dear, regardless of anything besides the blood of God which was shed for her.

It would be nice dear sister (or brother) Dust, if you would read the words of others with the same charity you ask of us in Reading the words of Grace. It is wrong to talk about such words as “acting”.
You cannot read hearts.

This blog is a curious attempt in proclaiming that a Lutheran pastor has rejected Lutheran doctrine….and yet does not give even one example from either of the articles to support his premise. The reason….there are no examples of his claim in either article he references. In fact, the article on baptism deals with a topic which Gene addressed in part in his blog on Sept. 14, 2012, when he stated that “someone can have been baptized as an infant but then reject the faith and become an unbeliever in need of conversion.” Very true….as my article also affirms.

It was a year ago that I responded on his blog comments concerning his criticism of my article about the Lord’s Supper. I am going to post here the comments which followed on his blog comments between myself and George A. Marquart. I will be happy to walk Gene through the baptism issue once we address the Lord’s Supper issue….if indeed he is interested in understanding and discussing John 6.

At any rate, I find Gene’s approach to “Lutheran” theology to be very curious, to say the least.
FROM A YEAR AGO
111
Dan Delzell says:
February 2, 2012 at 7:58 pm
Hello all,

I don’t think my first post went through and so I am writing again. I had a good visit with Eric Swensson a short time ago. He encouraged me to send you a few thoughts.

I appreciate the ministry of Dr. Veith and his role serving as a council member on the Council of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. We have a member of our church who just began his studies a month ago at Patrick Henry College. I will encourage him to check out this blog and to get involved in this dialogue at some point. There is a lot that Dr. Veith’s fellow council members could also add to this critical discussion about the Sacrament of the Altar. We can learn from one another in the body of Christ as Dr. Veith has seen as part of this alliance.

There is nothing in Lutheran doctrine that goes against Scripture. If any of the Lutheran doctrines contradicted Scripture, you and I would choose not to identify with anything “Lutheran.”

Jesus spoke the words of John 6 before He ever said, “This is my body…This is my blood…” All of it is to be interpreted literally. Believers in Christ are literally eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood through faith 24/7. It never stops.

The real presence of Christ is just as real in that eating as in the eating that also happens during the brief moment of communion. The real presence of Christ does not leave the believer….nor is it a different body than the body of our Lord. There is only one body of Christ.

The Bible does not teach that the body of Christ is enclosed in the bread, and hence, the Lutheran Confessions reject this teaching also. It is a mystery that believers are eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood through faith, just like the sacramental union is a mystery.
The union of Christ’s flesh and blood to faith is something that the Holy Spirit produced through the Gospel. Spiritual conversion is not a human decision, as you know.

The words “in, with, and under” do not carry the weight of Scripture. The Lord’s words carry that weight….”This is my body…this is my blood…” Those are the words of Scripture. That doesn’t mean we can understand it with our weak human reason.

If someone tries to explain it according to human reason, he is behaving very much like a Calvinist who uses his human reason to convince himself that Christ died only for those who will believe. That is not a teaching of Scripture…..nor is it a teaching of Scripture to say that our Lord’s words are to be interpreted symbolically….either in John 6 or in the Words of Institution……both are literal…both are real….neither refer to an oral eating or a chewing or a swallowing or a body that is enclosed in the bread…..it is a mystery…..This is my body…..you can use your human reason to add to our Lord’s words, or you can accept what He said at face value.

The Lutheran Confessions are correct because they faithfully present the teaching of Scripture. The real presence of Christ is not limited to a few brief moments in a believer’s life every couple weeks or so. Just as Luther became obsessed with certain things, so do you and I. We are still in these fallen bodies. We are all as guilty as Luther of being tempted to add to the Lord’s words and assume that our additions carry the weight of Scripture. They do not. Luther knew that his words didn’t either.

We all must continue to evaluate doctrine according to Scripture. I am thankful that Dr. Veith and each of you are so serious about taking the Word of God literally. My article approached the topic from all of Scripture, including our Lord’s many words in John 6. Once we understand John 6 in a literal way, we will be able to see why it is just as important to accept “This is my body” as literal too. If we jump past John 6, we are trying to add an apple to a branch that has not yet grown on the tree. Eating our Lord’s flesh and drinking His blood was emphasized in John 6 for a reason. It goes on all day for the believer according to the very words of Christ.

I thank the Lord for faithful servants of Christ such as yourselves. As a fellow sinner and one who is committed to always stick 100% to Scripture, I am grateful for my visit with Eric and for this opportunity to share with you.

God’s blessings,

Pastor Dan Delzell

121
George A. Marquart says:
February 3, 2012 at 7:38 pm
First, I was unable to discover where Rev. Denzell denied the real presence. He is talking about emphasis; the idea that the point of the Lord’s Supper is not how the elements are constituted, but what our Lord’s purpose was in instituting the sacrament.

The question, “Did Paul scold them for failing to believe that the body and blood of Christ are located within the bread and wine?” shows that he believes that the “official” MCLS interpretation of “the body” in 1 Cor. 11:29 is not accepted by everyone. And rightly so, since there are no records of any controversy over “The Real Presence” until the fifth century.

I was somewhat amused by the reference to John 6. As most of you know, Martin Luther insisted that “not one syllable” of this text has anything to do with the Lord’s Supper. I know that most Lutherans feel differently today, but it is a source of dispute.

It also struck me as being expressive of modern theological thought, when the author asked, “I have often asked people: “What about the real presence of Christ in the heart of every believer 24 hours a day?” Scripture clearly teaches the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in every member of the Kingdom of God. Does it also teach the indwelling of Christ? I am reminded of what Sasse wrote in 1960, “If indeed the true doctrine of the Holy Spirit has lost its place (Heimatrecht) in church and congregation, then it cannot be long before the reality of the Holy Spirit is also lost to us, jus as Christ ceases to be present when He is not truly taught, when His Gospel and sacraments are falsified. Here may lie the explanation of the decline of those means in the church which are to be the specific locations of the activity the Holy Spirit.”

Peace and Joy!
George A. Marquart

125
Dan Delzell says:
February 4, 2012 at 8:09 am
Here are some more thoughts building on my previous post above. When discussing the literal nature of Christ’s flesh and blood in John 6, we of course must not slip into a wrong view of justification. “Christ for us” is outside of us. “Christ in us” in not. The former concerns our justification by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ. The latter has moved into the realm of sanctification. Christ does not come to live within us before we are justified. His indwelling presence, as with the Holy Spirit, comes as a result of our justification. We must always stand guard against those who seek to deny forensic justification. As Christians, we do not rely upon a subjective “infusion of grace” as the basis of our righteous standing before God. The subjective reality of “Christ in us” is something we know about because of the objective Word which speaks of His indwelling presence. The Scriptures are clear on this matter. At the moment of conversion, Christ comes to live within the believer. The means of grace deliver the “Man of grace” to us. Once He is on the scene, a person is living in a state of grace. It is a good thing for us that this state of grace does not depend upon our efforts or our holy living to keep it going. The Man of grace delivers the needed grace 24/7 through faith. Even faith is a gift. We cannot take an ounce of credit for our belief in Christ or for eating His flesh and drinking His blood 24/7. How it happens is a mystery. God simply tells us in John 6 that it does happen for every believer. Here is a link to some good information from F. Bente regarding Osiander. It is relevant to this discussion as we bask in the joy of our salvation which Christ won for us on the cross.
http://bookofconcord.org/historical-16.php

127
Dan Delzell says:
February 4, 2012 at 12:48 pm
George has raised a critical question for us.
“Does Scripture teach the indwelling of Christ?”

Here is what we find in Scripture:

“But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.” Romans 8:10

(Just as “This is my body” is meant to not to be taken symbolically, but literally, so also, “Christ is in you” is a very clear biblical teaching. We dare not replace “is” with “represents” or “might be.”)

“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.” Galatians 2:20

(“In” means “In,” just like “is” means “is.”)

“….so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith.” (Ephesians 3:17)

(Notice Who it is that dwells in the heart of the believer, through faith.)

“To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.” (Col. 1:27)

(The literal Christ literally lives inside the believer…..if “in” means “in” and “is” means “is”)

“Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?” (2 Cor. 13:5)

(Am I in the faith? Is Christ living inside of me? Well….am I relying upon the Law to save me, or Christ alone? Do I trust in my works to save me, or the blood and righteousness of Christ?)

Natural man seeks to change the meaning of the words “is” and “in” when Scripture challenges our human reason.

“This is my body” is hard to get wrong unless you rely upon human reason to guide you.
“Christ is in you” is also hard to get wrong unless you rely upon human reason to guide you.
The sacramental union is a mystery, but taught in Scripture. The indwelling of Christ within the believer is a mystery, but taught in Scripture. Will I base my doctrinal beliefs upon human reason, or the Word of God?

And yes my friends, there are some theological implications for us as a result of this clear teaching of Scripture. It will only strengthen us in our witness for Christ and His kingdom.

That was a great question George!

129
Dan Delzell says:
February 4, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Martin Luther gave this helpful answer to George’s question regarding the indwelling of Christ. This real presence of Christ within the believer would be absent apart from faith.

Lectures on Galatians (1535; WA 40:228-29). Speaking about “true faith,” Luther says, “it takes hold of Christ in such a way that Christ is the object of faith, or rather not the object, but so to speak, the One who is present in the faith itself…. Therefore faith justifies because it takes hold of and possesses this treasure, the present Christ.”

133
George A. Marquart says:
February 4, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Dan Delzell @64 & 65. When you look at the context, the Romans 8 quote is clearly about the Holy Spirit, Who works faith in Christ in us. In all of the other verses, “Christ in us” is metaphoric, not literal. This is not just my opinion, every commentary I looked at says that. They refer to the faith we have in Christ as “Christ in us.”

I think part of our problem is that we do not listen carefully to what our Lord says. When He said, Matthew 18:20, “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them,” this would make no sense if He were already living in each of them. In Matthew 18:20, He clearly said, “Lo, I am with you always,” not “in you.”

Don’t think I am splitting hairs here, because even on the night He was betrayed, He was careful to distinguish between the words, “with” and “in” to tell us about the fact that the Holy Spirit will dwell in us – not metaphorically but in the meaning of “real presence”, John 14: 16, “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. 17 This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you.”

As to the Luther quote, there is obviously no intention to make a case for a “real presence” of Christ in us. It is all metaphoric. The “so to speak” gives you the clue.

Peace and Joy!
George A. Marquart

135
Dan Delzell says:
February 5, 2012 at 4:09 pm
I appreciate those insights and thoughts George. Commentaries aside and Luther’s quote aside, here is what we find in Scripture. Jesus told us He would be in the midst of believers as you noted in Matthew 18:20. That is an additional blessing to the passages I quoted above which show that Christ also dwells within us. They compliment one another, but do not contradict one another.

Here is an example of what I mean. The Calvinists point to those passages of Scripture which tell us Christ gave His life for His sheep. They do this as a way of supporting their doctrine of limited atonement. They set aside the passages which tell us Christ died for both the world and for His sheep. (such as 1 John 2:2 among others) We find three types of passages in Scripture: (1) Some stated Christ died for the sins of the world; (2) others state Christ died for His sheep; (3) still others state He died for both His sheep and for the sins of the world. But there is not even ONE passage stating He died ONLY for His sheep. We must use all of Scripture and not only certain passages which support our preferred point of view. Calvinists rely upon their human reason to support their erroneous belief that God predestines some people to hell.

Likewise, there are passages which state Christ dwells “with” us. There are other passages stating Christ dwells “in” us. One does not disprove the other since both are clearly taught in Scripture. Regardless of what particular commentaries may say, it is clear that Scripture uses both “with” and “in” regarding Christ and the believer. Just as in the passages which prove unlimited atonement, we will not find even ONE passage of Scripture stating that Christ dwells ONLY “with” believers and not “in” the believer. As always, Scripture interprets Scripture.

We see in the Scriptures that “This is my body” is not metaphoric and “Christ is in you” (2 Cor. 13:5) is not metaphoric.

I am curious what you think about John 6. Do you view “flesh” and “blood” as being metaphoric or literal in that chapter? Is the eating of flesh and drinking of blood by believers in John 6 something that happens “within” the believer, or does the eating and drinking happen somewhere “outside” of the believer’s heart, soul, and body?

Thank you again George for this excellent exchange of thoughts.

God’s peace,
Dan

138
George A. Marquart says:
February 5, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Dan Denzell @68. Dan, thank your for your most gracious response. Please do not get me wrong, I in no way deny the concrete, real presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Sacrament of the Altar. What I deny is that our Lord dwells in His people in the same concrete manner in which He is present in the Sacrament. It is clear, from His own words (John 14, 15, 16), that this is the role of the Holy Spirit, even as St. Peter proclaimed at Pentecost, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

With regard to John 6, I know that Luther believed it to be metaphorical. I personally believe that our Lord was, in fact, referring to the Sacrament of the Altar, that is, His real body and blood.

2 Cor. 13:5 is just as metaphoric as Paul saying a few sentences before, “Christ is speaking in me.”

Peace and Joy!
George A. Marquart

139
George A. Marquart says:
February 5, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Dan, sorry for misspelling your name. I just had a procedure on one eye and my vision is not totally cleear – I mean my concrete vision, not my metaphoric one.

George

141
Dan Delzell says:
February 5, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Thanks George.

Here is some relevant info regarding John 6. The entire paper can be found online.

A Close Reading of John 6:
Is it Sacramental and Why Does it Matter?
Nebraska Lutherans for Confessional Study – June 23, 2011 Rev. Philip Hale – St. Paul Lutheran, Bancroft, NE – halepw@gmail.com

The latter part of the sixth chapter of John has been a lightening-rod for theologians. The aim of this paper is to elucidate some of the reasons there are varied and conflicting interpretations of this section of Scripture. After the theological background is laid, the sixth chapter of John will be explained carefully in context. Only a close, sequential reading of Scripture will ultimately validate a particular interpretation. Any interpretation, no matter how creative or desirable, is not of God if it does not agree with the words He has given.
Historical Interpretations of John 6
For the interpretation of John 6, Luther has been a dominant force until the nineteenth century. A Lutheran should hear and consider his words, as the “foremost teacher,” though not accept them without comparison to God’s Word.1 He is still just a teacher, and not an authority, no matter how insightful his work.
Luther did not mince words when describing John 6 and whether it talked about the Lord’s Supper: “In the first place the sixth chapter of John must be entirely excluded from this discussion [of the Supper], since it does not refer to the sacrament in a single syllable. Not
1FC SD VII, 41; Kolb-Wengert, 600.
only because the sacrament was not yet instituted, but even more because this passage itself and the sentences following plainly show, as I have already stated, that Christ is speaking of faith in the incarnate Word.”2 He did not waver on his position. In His thorough “Great Confession on the Lord’s Supper,” he refused to examine John 6, because “the sixth chapter of John does not refer at all to the Supper.”3 This chapter of John came up frequently in discussions about the Lord’s Supper. Most of the theologians who denied that Christ’s body was orally received went first to John 6:63a,4 rather than to the words of institution.5 But Luther’s position, was not just a polemical tactic.6 We have 21 continuous sermons on John 6:26-71, which cover 192 pages in the American Edition of his works.7 Here he instructs God’s flock on the benefits of faith.
Virtually all Lutherans until the nineteenth century followed Luther’s position on John 6.8 The exceptions are not known as orthodox Lutherans.9 In Luther’s time, the Roman
2The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), LW 36:19. 3Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper (1528), LW 37:360. 4“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing.” All passages NKJV unless otherwise noted. 5Hermann Sasse, This is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the
Altar, Revised Ed. (Adelaide, Australia: Openbook, 1977), 191. 6In over 200 references to John 6:53-63 in the American Edition of his works, “Luther never, however,
uses John 6 to specifically refer to the Sacrament of the Altar.” Mark P. Braden, unpublished paper, 2003 (given to me by the author), 33.
7Martin Luther, Sermons on the Gospel of St. John: Chapters 6-8 (1530-31), trans. Martin Bertram, vol. 23 of Luther’s Works (LW) (St. Louis: CPH, 1959), 5-197.
8John Gerhard (1582-1637) is cited on both sides of this issue. His view on a doctrinal level is clear. In answering whether John 6 sanctions communion in one kind, he says: “John 6 does not refer to the consecrated bread in the holy supper, but rather to the bread of life, which comes down from heaven. Also, it is not characterized as a sacramental, but rather as a spiritual nourishment from the body and blood of Christ.” Yet, in a more nuanced view he could include the words of John 6:53, without explanation, in a chapter entitled “Concerning the Sayings and Types of the Old Testament Which in Advance Foretell This Sacrament.” In poetic style Gerhard compares Christ to the tree of life in Eden and says His flesh is food indeed. Many verses in this chapter are qualified in their application to the Supper. For instance on Isaiah 25:6, he comments: “In all this the prophet is actually speaking of the spiritual meal which God the Lord has prepared in the holy Gospel for grace-hungry souls. But since the holy Supper is a seal which is attached to the Gospel promise, one can rightly apply this text to it.” Here we have a more sophisticated position: homiletically there is more leeway in using the words of Scripture, whereas the church’s doctrine must have a reliable foundation on clear Scripture. A Comprehensive Explanation of Holy Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, 1610, trans. Elmer Hohle, eds. David Berger and James D. Heiser (Malone, TX: Repristination Press, 2000), 214, 341-344; 214.
9The syncretist George Calixtus, and the pietists John Ardnt (1555-1621) and Johann Albrecht Bengel 2
church was by no means unified on the issue. There was much tradition both for and against a sacramental interpretation. Augustine’s exegesis on John 6 proved influential for Luther and many in the Roman church. Luther’s opponent Cardinal Cajetan held the same basic position as Luther, just as did Calvin.10 The Council of Trent came to no conclusion on the matter.11 Chemnitz summarizes the catholicity of Luther’s interpretation, which Luther claimed was simply Augustine’s: “For when Christ in this sermon speaks concerning his flesh and blood, all interpreters, ancients and those more recent, as many Lutherans and Calvinists, and also the papists, understand by these words the very person of Christ, with all his benefits and merits.”12
Besides a few isolated theologians, this teaching is consistent among Lutherans until the modern era. In the nineteenth century, Wilhelm Loehe advocated a more sacramental interpretation.13 Both Warner Elert and Herman Sasse followed suit.14 Why do many modern Lutherans no longer follow Luther in this matter?

143
Dan Delzell says:
February 5, 2012 at 7:28 pm
George,

Even though we know that Luther’s opinion about John 6 does not have the same authority as the words of our Lord, I cannot seem to locate where Luther stated a belief that “flesh” is metaphoric and “blood” is metaphoric in John 6.

If indeed our Lord intended His words about His flesh and blood here to be understood as metaphoric, what do you think he intended these words to represent? What does “flesh” represent? What does “blood” represent?

Since we are convinced that Christ did not intend “body” to be understood as metaphoric in the Words of Institution, what might convince a person that “flesh” and “blood” in John 6 are not meant to be interpreted just as literally? Does our human reason suggest this to us, or does Scripture teach us to interpret one literally and the other as merely representing something else? If so, we should have some idea of what it represents. Do we get to pick and choose when to interpret our Lord’s words about His body and blood literally and when to interpret them as metaphoric?

Thanks for your insights George and for the opportunity to share these thoughts.

God’s peace,
Dan

145
Dan Delzell says:
February 5, 2012 at 8:33 pm
I just came across this beautiful statement of faith on the website for “The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland.” Notice that these Christians in the Lutheran church believe that “Jesus Himself comes to dwell in our hearts.”

Jesus Christ
Jesus was a historic person. He called twelve men to be His disciples, who followed Him. He paid attention to those who were held in contempt by others. He spoke for the oppressed. He healed the sick, cast out demons, and even raised the dead.

His signs and wonders were connected to proclaiming the Gospel of the coming of God’s Kingdom. His deeds attracted much attention. Contemporary historians also mentioned Him.

After Jesus’ resurrection, the disciples realized that His death on the cross was the atoning sacrifice once and for all. The salvation promised to the people of Israel was also for all nations. This realization became the starting point of the Christian faith.

The salvation is a gift of God
We can receive the salvation that Jesus prepared by believing that He suffered the punishment for our sins. The faith by which the salvation is obtained is a gift of God. When we are convinced of God’s grace and love, Jesus Himself comes to dwell in our hearts. Martin Luther taught that Christ is present in faith itself. So faith provides us with the salvation God has prepared.

Jesus Christ is the core of the Christian faith. He is God’s special revelation. Jesus lived the life of an ordinary man, yet without sin. The Gospels tell us that he ate and drank, rejoiced and wept. He felt pain and agonies of life like each one of us.

But He was not only an ordinary man. Jesus was God’s envoy, God’s Son. Jesus was God’s incarnation, becoming flesh (John 1:14). God showed His love towards people by living a man’s life. Christ was both man and God. God’s becoming a human being is a secret of faith.

Christ is hope in the world
Jesus’ disciples regarded Him as the Messiah, the Savior of the people of Israel. After Jesus’death and resurrection they understood that the Messiah wanted to free all nations from sin and guilt. Christ is a sign of hope in the world. God raised Him from the dead and showed that death is not the end of everything.

After the resurrection, Jesus returned to His Heavenly Father. Now He has all power in heaven and on earth. On the Last Day, Christ will gather all nations before Him to be judged. Then those who believe in Him go to heaven and those who have abandoned Him will be separated eternally from God.

147
George A. Marquart says:
February 6, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Dan, re. “I cannot seem to locate where Luther stated a belief that “flesh” is metaphoric and “blood” is metaphoric in John 6”, please go to posting #71, yes, your own, the one just before you asked this question, and about 23 or so lines down you will come to this Luther quote, “In the first place the sixth chapter of John must be entirely excluded from this discussion [of the Supper], since it does not refer to the sacrament in a single syllable. Not
1FC SD VII, 41; Kolb-Wengert, 600.
only because the sacrament was not yet instituted, but even more because this passage itself and the sentences following plainly show, as I have already stated, that Christ is speaking of faith in the incarnate Word.” When “flesh” is used to mean “faith”, this, as I understand it, is a metaphor. met•a•phor – noun. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable. A thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, esp. something abstract. OK?

Peace and Joy!
George A. Marquart

148
George A. Marquart says:
February 6, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Dan, re. “I cannot seem to locate where Luther stated a belief that “flesh” is metaphoric and “blood” is metaphoric in John 6”, please go to posting #71, yes, your own, the one just before you asked this question, and about 23 or so lines down you will come to this Luther quote, “In the first place the sixth chapter of John must be entirely excluded from this discussion [of the Supper], since it does not refer to the sacrament in a single syllable. Not
1FC SD VII, 41; Kolb-Wengert, 600.
only because the sacrament was not yet instituted, but even more because this passage itself and the sentences following plainly show, as I have already stated, that Christ is speaking of faith in the incarnate Word.” When “flesh” is used to mean “faith”, this, as I understand it, is a metaphor. met•a•phor – noun. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable. A thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, esp. something abstract. OK?

Peace and Joy!
George A. Marquart

149
Dan Delzell says:
February 6, 2012 at 4:27 pm
Thank you George. Your insights are very helpful. I sure appreciate it.

Blessings,
Dan

Dust @ 154 “well, yes, cannot read hearts, but can read comments and just thought could recall that Grace had asked you several times, and politely too, to not use that term when you refer to her?
Perhaps she changed her mind…it is a gentlewoman’s prerogative”

Dust, you’re right I have not changed my mind. Thank you for remembering 🙂

fws 2 158

You believe homosexuality is not a sin – you’ve argued it many times on this blog – sexual immorality, preached and supported is against what the Bible teaches. I am trying to be thoughtful, but at the same time, I doubt the reasons for my request have flown over your head.

I

Pastor Delzell,
May the Lord bless your discussions with Dr Veith!

The main test question used to see if someone believes in the Real Presence in the Lutheran sense of that term is to ask this question:
“What is it that unbelievers receive with their hand and mouth in the Sacrament of the Altar. Calvinists believe that only believers receive the body and blood of Christ, since it is faith that makes it so.

Lutherans believe that also unbelievers receive the body and blood of Christ. This might explain why Luther rejected a sacramental understanding of John 6, even though he also sees it as an allusion to the Blessed Sacrament. It is helpful to note that the Gospels were written after Pauls Epistles. So it could be expected that the hearers of the Gospels would be hearing them through the lens of those Epistles.

fws @161
From the article by Pastor Delzell on Holy Communion:
“Amidst the many chains which fell off Martin Luther when he placed his faith in Christ alone, he couldn’t seem to shake loose of his Catholic obsession with the communion elements. You won’t find this obsession in the teaching of our Lord or His apostles.

Even though the Lutheran church does not teach that believers chew Christ’s flesh or swallow His blood at the Lord’s Supper, there nevertheless tends to be an enormous emphasis upon “the real presence” of Christ in the bread and wine.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-lords-supper-helps-christians-keep-it-real-68318/#m7ZCdVHPu2wybK57.99 ”

Didn’t you address the issue stated in the second paragraph somewhere else recently? I couldn’t find your comment, but according to what you stated we Lutherans do believe actually believe that Christ’s body and blood is what we are taking. Usually your comments are quotes from the BOC.

These quotes from the “Lord’s Supper” article by Pastor Delzell seem to me to be denying (in a fuzzy way) the Real Presence: ”

“Before Jesus ever instituted the Lord’s Supper, He taught what it means to “eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood.” (John 6:53) The words of our Lord in the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John clearly lay out the biblical teaching on this matter. Jesus said, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” (John 6:54-56) This eating and drinking of Christ’s flesh and blood is a spiritual eating and drinking.”

“A preoccupation with “Christ’s body and blood” being located in the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper misses the point of the meal. It is a misguided fixation held by many today.”

“Did Paul scold them for failing to believe that the body and blood of Christ are located within the bread and wine? Not at all. That did not become a major source of contention for another 1500 years. Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli got into it over whether the bread and wine are merely symbolic, or actually contain Christ’s body and blood. Interestingly, both men ended up signing the Marburg Articles of 1529 which stated their agreement on 14 out of 15 basic Christian doctrines. The only exception was the doctrine describing the communion elements.”

“Was their sin the failure to believe something technical about Christ’s body being located in the bread and His blood being located in the wine? No.”

“What do you call the fact that Christians are spiritually eating Christ’s flesh and spiritually drinking His blood 24 hours a day through faith?”

“We see in Scripture why it is so critical to keep it real at the Lord’s Supper.”

It seems to me that he is alluding that the body/flesh and blood and not really necessarily “real.” The realness he seems to be talking about is only a “spiritual realness.”

Abby @ 165 – The Lutheran view of the Real Presence is not that of Rome, but it is more akin to the view held by the Eastern Orthodox. It is a mystery. We believe it because Jesus says it is his body and his blood and we leave it at that. We don’t try to figure out how or when there is some sort of transformation, i.e., we don’t hold to the human intellectualizing of transubstantiation and simply let God be God.

@155 “At the moment of conversion, Christ comes to live within the believer. The means of grace deliver the “Man of grace” to us. Once He is on the scene, a person is living in a state of grace. ”

“At the moment of conversion. . .” — would this not be baptism?

Please delete my comment in moderation, it is a duplicate. Thank you.

Skp,

I disagree. We Lutherans are closer to Rome than the Orthodox on the teachings of the Blessed Sacrament. This is especially true as to the underlying Christological issues that are so intimately intertwined with all that. Not to mention soteriological considerations. Transubstantiational theory is really a very minor and disconnected aide point. And many roman Catholics now explain even transubstantiation in a way that Confessional Lutherans would not have much of a problem with. The errors and mysticism of the eastern is , in contrast, of profound concern.

George m!

+1 on your comments on Holy Baptism.

Abby has produced quotes from this Same pastor that seem problematic. He seems to hold to a spiritual eating that would have the real presence depend upon faith. His wording is such that it would appear that his belief is that an unbeliever would not receive the body and blood in the Blessed. Sacramwnt. At best, his wording is very unfortunate.

Yes, Abby has hit on the problem with Dan’s statements concerning the supper. Martin Chemnitz does a great job distinguishing this spiritual eating of Christ’s Body and Blood by faith, with the sacramental eating of Christ’s Body and Blood blood in the supper. Furthermore, Lutherans just don’t have a complicated teaching on this. Our teaching is, is means is. It is actually quite simple. Our Lord said it, we believe it.

Nowhere in the article does he say that with Communion Christ actually gives forgiveness of sins. The article never includes “given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins” in conjunction with Communion.

This institution of the Supper seems to be very plain and simple–body/bread, cup/blood, forgiveness of sins, like Bror said.

Institution of the Lord’s Supper : Matthew 26:26-29
26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

fws@172 “He seems to hold to a spiritual eating that would have the real presence depend upon faith. His wording is such that it would appear that his belief is that an unbeliever would not receive the body and blood in the Blessed. Sacramwnt.”

He does say that:
“Religious people who have not been born again through repentance and faith in Christ are not spiritually eating His flesh and drinking His blood. In those instances, their participation in the Lord’s Supper provides no spiritual benefits. A preoccupation with “Christ’s body and blood” being located in the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper misses the point of the meal. It is a misguided fixation held by many today.”

Abby:

I agree with you and Dr Veith.
This man appears to be a calvinist in the most classic sense.
Then there is this: The pastor wishes to identify himself as a Confessional Lutheran.
Dr Veith is na UberConfessional Lutheran.
Let´s pray that Dr Veith will walk this Pastor through that section of the Formula of Concord that delas with the Real Presence, and then also…

that part of the Formula that deals with the Two Natures of Christ.

Always, Always: a John 6 spiritualization of the Blessed Sacrament directly betrays a Christology that denies the communication of Attributes and other doctrinal articles that have an urgent pertenence to the assurance that what Christ did is truly “for YOU!”

George Marquart discussed the Real Presence with this pastor earlier, but I don´t think that that conversation managed to get to the heart of the matter. “what is it that unbelievers receive with their hand and mouth in the Blessed Sacrament.

For sinners like me, weak in Faith, repentence and anything worthy, this question is really, really important.
I go to the Blessed Sacrament holding God to his Promise he offers me therein, in view of my Baptism.
If any of this depended upon my Faith as to quality or quantity, I would really need to despair!

abby @ 178

This quote , without any doubt at all, identifies this pastor as a Calvinist as regards the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar.
The Pastor claims to adhere to that Lutheran Confessions. He has stated that he wishes to be truly Lutheran.
That is a very , very hopeful and promising !
The pastor will be dialoging with Dr Veith. Awesome. Dr Veith will , most certainly , not only take him to the Formula of Concord, but also carefully go through the related Scripture passages, and show him how this really , really , really all has to do, centrally so, with that heart trust in the “for YOU!” that is the very essence of the Holy Gospel.

So let´s pray for this pastor who so desires to be truly Lutheran!

Frank @ 180 – You hit on another thing, which I think larry addressed somewhere up above as well. The Calvinist view begins to deny the incarnational aspects of Jesus, and begins pushing straight for Eutychianism. Take those works of man, Stadler! Ha!

fws@182 The additional sad thing is, not only has he done this with Communion, he also did it with Baptism which is the focus of this post. I wonder why he kind of fell of the wagon like this? As you said, he wants to retain the name of Lutheran, but denigrate the Sacraments. It is a puzzle. Unless it could be a way, he thinks, of making “Lutheranism” more appealing to outsiders who denounce these things already. But what he presents is not Lutheran anymore.

SKP,

I’m more than aware of the Scripture you post. I also understood Abby was quoting Delzell.

My point is, Paul was not one of the “Reformers” it’s absurd.

I do believe, after all the study I’ve done, etc. that Lutherans for the most part are a second rung to the Roman Catholic Church. For that reason, including ‘traditions, which are very rarely called as such, are very much alike.

The RCC looks to the Pope, Lutherans look to Luther – – yes, they both comment on the Bible, but it’s their leaders which they march after.

 ‏

☆ Born Again Christians look to the LORD Jesus Christ, because HE is God the Son – The Word of God is inerrant, the books of any and all the so called “reformers” are not.

 ‏

Second rung makes it sound as if there is some sort of ladder to God. That would be something Lutherans emphatically reject. As Lutherans we are Western Catholic, no doubt about it. We reject the errors of Rome where Rome has erred. Where there is no deviation from Scripture we stand in accord with Rome and with any other communion of the Body of Christ. That is not following Luther around like he’s the Pope.

You seem to think that everything Luther or Rome or Constantinople or anyone born before 1900 has to say about God, Jesus or any other aspect of theology is, by definition, wrong. I think that if that is your view, you’re wrong. If you want to argue that you follow only the Apostles and what was written in the Bible, then you do need to seriously explain why your reading and understanding of the Bible is at such variance with others throughout history. If I must weigh one interpretation of what the Scriptures say and mean, why should your view prevail over that of, to recall previous posts, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Barnabas, Ambrose, Augustine, Tertullian or hundreds of others?

SKP @ 192 “You seem to think that everything Luther or Rome or Constantinople or anyone born before 1900 has to say about God, Jesus or any other aspect of theology is, by definition, wrong.”

Don’t assume, or make up such such drivel –

195 tODD

Switch and match won’t work tODD – You don’t comprehend what the Bible states, unless you bait and switch Scripture.

Find a hobby, this one isn’t working for you.

 ‏

The Roman Catholic churches make clear that infant Baptism removes sin, Lutherans believe the same thing.

Belief must precede Baptism, infants are unable to believe, they are but babes.

Jesus never once commanded that parents Baptize their infants. HE did bless them, and laid hands on them and prayed, but never Baptized or stated they should be Baptized

Jesus Christ never mentioned “Baptism” in the passages of Scripture which speak of “Suffer little children” – This has been distorted for a very long time.

13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence. Matthew 19

Verse 13 makes clear the children had been brought so that Jesus could put HIS hands on them and pray. That doesn’t mean Baptism, it means touching them and praying. The Scripture is crystal clear. It is man who chooses to change the clear meaning of God’s Word.

Usage of this passage of Scripture (Matthew 19) is distorted when you try to change the meaning from “laid his hands on them” to baptism.

Children can understand sin at a young age. I was seven when I repented of my sins, and received Salvation. Infants are not able to understand. There is not ONE SINGLE passage of Scripture, where we are told to Baptize infants – but alas, the Roman Catholic Churches, and Lutherans do so, and believe that it removes sin from the infant.

Sorry (@201), that was supposed to read: “Guess which one is a teaching of God. (Hint: It’s the one your salvation kind of depends on, frankly.)”

The problem with Grace and others who deny the waters of Life to infants is this:

They do not believe that infants are by nature, children of wrath. They don’t believe that infants are enemies of God. Instead, they believe that the natural man, flesh born of flesh, can desire to seek God and decide for him by the natural, inborn power of natural law (rom 2:15) that is the Divine Law God has placed in all natural men.

So they ignore what scripture says about the natural man, which all start out as babies…flesh born of flesh, nor born by their own will or chiding, bound and enslaved to sin… And who must be reborn from above, with a power that is also not of their own will or choosing.

Grace and such others deny what the bible says about the natural man and his free will, which is really that natural law of Romans 2:15 that is indeed of God. But this free will and natural Law is veiled by the veil of Moses, just as saint Paul says! It is blind to the Law of the Spirit and of Christ. It is blind to spiritual things. And so Holy Baptism foe infants is …foolishness for the free will and reason of Grace.

Grace:

flesh gives birth to flesh. Natural man gives birth to natural man. And st Paul says that natural man, with his free will is able to know spiritual things how?

spirit gives birth to spirit. You , and babies. MUST be born again. How? By water and the Spirit! By Gods promise and word placed in the waters of baptism.

naaman the leper in II kings was cured by what Grace? Was it the water that cuts him? Was it Elisha? Was it his beat logical thinking? What was it that cured Elisha of his leprosy? Where did God place his Promise Grace?

Grace: you are reasoning just like naaman in that story!

Grace, your drivel cup overfloweth.

Jesus said “Go and baptize all nations”. Later in Acts we have “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.”

What part of “all nations” excludes children? What part of “all his” does not include children or infants?

Moreover, where does Jesus say “Baptize in my name, except for the children. They have to come to a mature understanding of faith before they can do so”?

Also, we don’t argue necessarily that “suffer the little children to come unto me” is the be all and end all of Baptismal theology. You keep setting up a strawman in your own image, a canard, that obscures the fact that you can’t come up with any other verses to provide support for your position. In fact, if we take all the passages where “baptism” is explicitly mentioned there isn’t any mention of anyone’s age except where we can infer that some were adults. But then we have the “and all his household” which leaves the age question entirely open. Your argument is weak at best, false and damaging to the truth at worst.

You’re wrong Grace. Your drivel cup does overfloweth. This is most certainly true.

The last paragraph was a mistake – sorry.

Tom,

The passage you have given does not apply to Infant Baptism.

Grace:

God also demands of us this: be perfect just like I am perfect.
and he also demands that we love him with All our heart, soul and mind.

Does that imply that we are able to do those things?
Yet you say that God’s demanding repentence and faith must, logically. Mean we can do those things.
Really?

This is a beautiful passage of Scripture.

13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.

14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

15
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them. Mark 10

Jesus Christ touched them, and blessed them – that is not Baptism.

And why are infants able to receive the kingdom? Because God makes them able. Same with adults.

The teachings of (wo)man (@201):

Infants are not able to understand.

The teachings of God:

But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

So, contrary to Grace’s heretical teaching, Jesus tells us that not only can a little child have faith, but they are, in fact, the exemplars — not adults like Grace, who pollute their teachings with justifications not found in Scripture.

And, as Tom noted, the Greek word that Jesus uses there is παιδίον — the same word using in Luke 1:59 to describe an eight-day-old infant!

Grace will teach you that God cannot give faith to a child, because God is not able. Grace will tell you that God is not able because man is not able to understand at such a young age.

Again, Grace, if ignorance were a hindrance to salvation, you too would be eternally condemned.

Also, if your understanding of Greek word order importance were correct (it’s not, but thank God your ignorance is not enough to separate you from your Savior), then Matthew 28:19 would require us to baptize first, and only afterwards teach. But, again, yours is an argument made from ignorance of Greek.

Anyone with faith can repent. Infants can have faith, because God promises it to them through baptism. Which he said in Scripture.

tOOD @ 221 – – “The teachings of (wo)man (@201):

That is not what I wrote – you scramble and scrape to change what I state. 😆

Grace,
What do you think is cute about the vile idiocy you spout here?

Bror, I still follow his teachings, if they’re biblically sound. But not his example in loving my own neighbors. 😀

@189 “The RCC looks to the Pope, Lutherans look to Luther – – yes, they both comment on the Bible, but it’s their leaders which they march after.”

This is who the Calvary Chapel follows:

“While Chuck Smith was still a member of a denominational church, he claimed that a prophecy came to him in which the Lord said to him that He was changing his name. His new name would mean “Shepherd” because the Lord was going to make him the shepherd of many flocks and the church would not be large enough to hold all of the people who would be flocking to hear the Word of God.[11] In December 1965, Smith became the pastor of a 25-person congregation and in 1968 broke away from the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel in Santa Ana, California. Before Smith became their pastor, twelve of the 25 members attended a prayer meeting about whether or not to close their church: they reported that “the Holy Spirit spoke to them through prophecy” and told them that Smith would become their pastor, that he would want to elevate the platform area, that God would bless the church, that it would go on the radio, that the church would become overcrowded, and that he would become known throughout the world.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvary_Chapel

Many people have come to know Jesus Christ as their Savior through Calvary Chapel. That doesn’t mean it’s a perfect church.

There are people from every ethnic group who attend Calvary Chapels. There is no ethnic group that stands out among the rest, or dominates the church.

Grace has been asked many important questions, asked to defend her understanding of scripture yet apparently she wants to talk ethnic demographics…

There is no book of Smith, or anything like it! (Grace @ 232)

And there is no “Book of Luther,” or anything like it, in Lutheran churches. If you think there is, or the Book of Concord is such a book, you’re ignorant of Lutheran churches and the role the BoC plays (which is pretty much zip in a lot Lutheran churches).

@230 “Today there are over 1,000 Calvary Chapel Churches in the United States – there are over 300 abroad.”

Grace, in the world — there are 73,995,576 Lutherans; 300,000,000 Eastern Orthodox; and 1 billion Roman Catholics. All who believe in the Sacraments of Holy Baptism (for infants) for the forgiveness of sins and the Sacrament of Holy Communion (Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood) for the forgiveness of sins.

The Eastern Orthodox extends back to apostolic days 2000 years ago. The Roman Catholic church goes back nearly or as far, claiming it’s founder as St. Peter.

Martin Luther: “Martin Luther was born in Germany. He is well known as the founder of the Lutheran branch of Christianity. He studied theology at the University of Erfurt. As a young man he became a monk but he realized that he obsessed with the actions and lost touch with Christ. So he then decided to become a priest and later taught theology at the University of Wittenberg. He became a Doctor of theology in 1512. . . Some of the most famous works of Luther include his book Table Talk which is a devotional book still used today. His translation of the Bible, Luther German Bible, which was later used for reference to create the well known King James Version.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_scholarship#Martin_Luther_.28c.1483-1546.29

Martin Luther was picked by God to expose and stand up to abuses from the Roman Catholic church. He needed to do what he did at the very time that he did. He did not set himself up to do any such thing. It was absolutely essential for him to correct Rome’s theology at the time. And even today, we Lutherans are still standing up against their wrong teachings. And we need to be.

@236 Nicholas….I rarely get into conversations on Dr. Veith’s blog but I will say that Grace is hardly a “troll”. She comes from a background similiar from mine until I became a member of the LCMS church. I understand what she is saying. And she is sincere. May the Lord keep all our hearts tender and receptive to His Words and teachings.

Genesis 12, “the LORD said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great. . .”

Genesis 15: “And he (the LORD) brought him (Abram) outside and said, ‘Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.’ Then he said to him, ‘So shall your offspring be.’ And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.”

Genesis 17: “This is my (the LORD) covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring . . . So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.”

Thank you to Todd and Tom @212, 218, 221:
“Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.” (Mark 10:15)

“Child” = Greek paidion = young child, an infant. Any way you look at it, Jesus is saying you must receive the kingdom of God the way an infant receives it – which isn’t possible unless an infant can, indeed, receive it.

And, as Tom noted, the Greek word that Jesus uses there is παιδίον — the same word using in Luke 1:59 to describe an eight-day-old infant!

Luke 1:59: “Now the time came for Elizabeth to give birth, and she bore a son. . . And on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child.” (John the Baptist)

Luke 2:21: “And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.” (This was the first blood Jesus shed.)

Acts 7:8: “And he gave him the covenant of circumcision. And so Abraham became the father of Isaac, and circumcised him on the eighth day, and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of thee twelve patriarchs.”

Colossians 2:8-15: “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead . . .”

Galatians 3:27-29: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ . . . you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”

Romans 9:8: “This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.”

1 Peter 3:18-22: “ . . . when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Acts 2:38,39: “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

Acts 16:13-15: “One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, . . .After she was baptized, and her household as well . . .”

Acts 16:29-33: “ . . . the jailer . . . said, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ And they said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, you will be saved, you and your household. . . And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds, and he ‘was baptized at once, he and all his family.”

Just as Abram was commanded to circumcise all offspring belonging to his house as well as anyone who belonged to him by purchase making them a part of the old covenant of promise, so also we are commanded to baptize as part of the new covenant of promise. Circumcision was done at 8 days old. Baptism is also given to babies to make them part of the promise. “. . . the promise is for you and your children. . .” Acts 2. Baptism saves, 1 Peter 3.

tODD @ 242

YOU WRITE:

“As such, she is entirely dependent on the good graces of Dr. Veith, who, for whatever reason, has decided that letting her continue to interrupt useful discussions with her mindless, copy-and-paste lectures from Calvary Chapel 101 is somehow edifying. “

I have never “copy pasted” any lectures from Calvary Chapel – I may have given a news article, regarding Calvary Chapel,….. however, I don’t need to copy a “lecture” to post on this blog. Your excuses regarding my backing Scripture against doctrine which doesn’t hold up under Scripture is appalling.

Dr. Veith, has read tombs of your posts, which are miss-matched and mixed, to make whatever point you don’t have. Needless to say, he has been patient with you, perhaps myself included. But if you bring me into the mix, – count yourself one as well.

Todd @242 I understand. I don’t think Grace’s church has cleaned up all the ages old church dysfunction either. I will listen to the church fathers — even those still claimed by the RC and the Orthodox and the Dr. Luther before I would give up 2000 years of lineage all the way back to the apostles. I’m sure the Holy Spirit has been capable of keeping His truth intact just as He has been able to keep the Bible inspired and inerrant. Until He returns again and we won’t need any of this anymore.

This is an aside: What is a troll? Sometimes I think I am one. I hear that word but have never heard what it means 🙂

Grace (@243) managed to type:

Your excuses regarding my backing Scripture against doctrine which doesn’t hold up under Scripture is appalling.

That doesn’t even make sense as an English sentence, but I’ve already provided you several examples of Scripture (@196) that you simply deny or refuse to acknowledge. You, of course, decided instead to start your own discussion about ethnic groups (@231). Anything rather than discuss the Scripture you claim to have read, I guess.

Dr. Veith, has read tombs of your posts, which are miss-matched and mixed, to make whatever point you don’t have.

Seriously, maybe it would help for you to post your comments in whatever language is your native one — it’s clearly not English. (So much for your vaunted intellectual capacity by which you have supposedly merited salvation, eh?)

Anyhow, do say more about Luther and the Jews. Tell us all about how many centuries you spent studying the topic. Do go on.

Todd @248 “Abby (@245), I don’t mind having a discussion with someone I disagree with. As you know, we don’t exactly see eye to eye on a lot of (non-Lutheran) topics, ourselves.”

I can’t remember disagreeing with you! It must have a long time ago. I think I like you very much! Especially as a Lutheran. I think you discuss very well. Even with your oppositions. I always enjoy reading your comments, along with several others. Keep it up. I bet you are a great husband and daddy.

I’m not sure that Grace is intellectually incapable of having this conversation. I am beginning to think it is an emotional issue with her. I think she i too emotionally invested in CC, being the right church, the only church. So she can’t have the discussion. I would grant that she seems to be somewhat intellectually impaired in our conversations, and perhaps she won’t be applying for Harvard next year, probably not even a community college, but I think this is exacerbated by her emotional hangups.

I forgot random bolding, underlining, and italicizing are added for effect.

You guys are funny!

Larry @254: “As Luther well said one of the things false teaching does do…it gives faith something to do, ie defending and expressing itself.” I love that! If you can’t sit and take it anymore, you just have to jump on the bandwagon.

I felt the emotional reaction too, that Bror talked about with Grace. It reminded me of this: “Now when they heard these things, the were enraged and they ground their teeth at him . . . And they cast him out of the city and stoned him.” I have to say, I don’t do as well in rebuttal as you guys do so I don’t try most times.

Here is the beginning of Dr Franciso’s lectures: http://vimeo.com/19197212 and http://vimeo.com/27720097

I used to do the “Apple of His Eye” type “witnessing” to the Jews on the streets of New York. You can still see some of their extreme adverse reactions to Jesus.

Grace @240 “God . . . may well have . . . chosen Luther, — BUT . . .”

Do you know more than God?!!

I don’t agree that arguing with Grace gives faith something to do (and I can’t find a source for the supposed Luther quote). Faith is directed toward God, its object; it doesn’t need anything to do that isn’t also directed toward God. Rather, false teaching gives love something to do. (And love can be very tough!) Somewhere behind all our frustrations is the hope that Grace can be freed from falsehoods. We had that hope in the beginning, years ago, and I don’t think it’s dead yet (though I wrongly pronounced it dead back @ 117).

Another brief discussion regarding the distinction between infant/believers baptism: http://vimeo.com/45999188

Lutherans believe in the “invisible church.” At the bottom line, only God knows who we are and will judge acccordingly. I love it that our big 3 are Word, Baptism, Holy Communion. All securing us in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Abby:

tODD and Larry…a laugh a minute…yep, a regular barrel of monkeys, that’s them. 😀

@ 267 & 268

It seems the and HTML tags are not working.

agh!

sarcasm tags!

Kerner @272 I’ll include you too! I am known to have a strange sense of humor. I love irony.

@273 I agree and Kerner’s comment is well taken, cracked me up!

@272, 273 — That included SKP too!

Abby,

Yes the “gospel” coalition is anything but that. There is hardly a greater misnamed, both words “gospel” and “coalition” than that. Also note how such a “union” is steering away from the idea of church as the point of unity and steering toward the “coalition”. They cannot build their churches on the Word alone because they’ve tossed the sacraments away which UNIT the church and form the body, so they form a coalition based on “like mindedness”. It’s the logical extension of the sacramentarian (Baptist, reformed, et. al.) grasp of the congregation of believers. Rather than “called out ones” by the Word and sacraments, they are the “like minded ones” on pretty much everything but the Word and sacraments. Hence Luther saying that the enthusiast cannot agree on what the sacrament is but they only agree on what it is not, which is it is not what Jesus says it is.
An ironic discussion over at the “gospel” coalition. But its always telling. Lynda Ms question is not unlike my own in such and tons of others I’ve talked too. They always theologically punt to maintain their false doctrine. And it needs to be called that plainly false, deceptive, antichristic doctrine.

What will happen is that one becomes deluded about how one is actually saved and assured in one’s works OR one will silently and increasingly despair. I suspect if the truth does not come in this young lady will go towards the later based on her question.
They never really answer the real questions do they. This quote from the opening:
“In a nutshell, I’d say yes, you do need to be baptized—for the first time! That’s because baptism is for believers, and you seem to be telling me that you were definitely not a Christian when you were “baptized” at 13.”

Let’s just peel that apart a bit shall we:

First, an obvious question to Baptist lay and pastor’s alike because this poor soul is asking a question about her baptism.

What then was the service when Lynda M was 13? Was it a baptism?
Did the congregation witness a baptism when Lynda M was 13 and the even was being implemented?

If they say it was a baptism, then what is the sine quo non of baptism? Because note that he replies “for the first time” and with an exclamation point “!”
If they say it was not a baptism, then what is the sine quo non of baptism? Because note that he replies “for the first time” and with an exclamation point “!”
Thus, if it was not a baptism, then what was the “vain” worship service being offered?
What then, and the answer is obvious, is the for this poor soul asking, is the basis for Lynda M’s (re) baptism “for the first time!” That Lynda M has faith, that’s what the so called pastor replies, “That’s because baptism is for believers”. I.e. those possessing faith. Thus, Lynda M. must base the assurance of the fact that she would ACTUALLY be baptized in the finding and fact of her faith and NOT the Word of God itself. This is faith in faith and antichristic to the core for it foist faith, and as a work, and not the Word or even name of God for baptism.

The questions continue:

Since as this Lynda M’s example expresses a real thing struggled with under those doctrines, the all baptistic pastors and lay a like cannot say for sure that they have ever really seen a baptism in particular. They can in general say due to the likelihood of the shear weight of statics say that given all the people baptized through time and space, then surely we’ve seen a baptism, we just cannot be for sure which one actually was a baptism and which was a vain rite our pastor performed. So how do they know at a given baptism they’ve witnessed a baptism?

Lynda M was baptized in particular at 13 by a particular pastor with a particular congregation at that location and time some years ago, so I’m sure they thought “I’ve just seen a baptism” and even cheered and being a good Baptist church called the congregation up to huge/shake hands with 13 year old Lynda M over her baptism. How utterly SHOCKING it must be to those still alive to find out in the writing of this question and answer from this “pastor” that they saw nothing more than a dip in some water and no baptism at all, and their pastor did nothing but dunk a person in water and they hugged and shook hands just because she ‘got all wet’ in public.

How does this said pastor know HE has faith and HE was actually baptized? Because that’s the question at hand he offers her. Then SURELY he can give a testament of how HE knows?
Furthermore, since baptism is for “believers” only, i.e. possessors of faith, and only possessors of faith are really saved, and only possessors of faith will not be damned eternally, then how does HE know HE possesses faith? How does HE know that HE is forgiven and HE is saved and HE is baptized and HE is assured and HE possesses eternal life and HE is Christ’s and HE will be in the Kingdom of God and HE will not be damned in hell and HE is not fooling himself?

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and what he instructs of her he must instruct of him self, otherwise he’s an overt hypocrite on his own doctrine. But he’ll never answer that, not really. He’ll wiggle around with some scriptures in hand but he’ll never really answer that.

Dr. Veith,

You posted articles and LINKS, regarding Rev. Delzell “Lutheran pastor rejects Baptism, Lord’s Supper on February 1, 2013, from a variety of sources.

Rev. Delzell wrote a post to you (below) five days ago. He was very polite and humble, asking you to engage him, regarding the subject at hand. I have wondered why there has been SILENCE on the request? I’m sure everyone would like to know what the outcome has been. Would you please let us know.

Sincerely, Grace

160
– Dan Delzell says:
February 4, 2013 at 11:34 pm
“I just e-mailed this to Dr. Veith. We will get on this….and hopefully get back to all of you with the results of our dialogue. There is much ground to cover on both topics….but it is more than worth the time for the sake of Christ’s church.”

 ‏

Greetings Dr. Veith,

I was contacted by a pastor in the LCMC from New York (Garry Seefeldt) concerning your recent blog about my article which addressed infant baptism. I guess Garry has some Missouri Synod professors he works with who brought the concern to him after seeing your blog. I am sending you, my brother in the Lord, what I posted on the comments section of your blog earlier this evening. I am copying this e-mail to Rev. Seefeldt since he and I had such a wonderful discussion about it on the phone yesterday for over an hour and a half. He and I stand united in our belief in Christ, His inerrant Word, and the Lutheran Confessions which are a true explanation of biblical doctrine.

I would be very happy to have a discussion with you about both of the articles you have criticized, and I would be thrilled to discuss the doctrines of baptism and the Lord’s Supper with you.

May the Lord bless you in your ministry.

In Christ,

Rev. Dan Delzell
Wellspring Lutheran Church
Papillion, Nebraska

Grace….hmmm, perhaps one should not equate “politeness” and “humility” with sincerity?

On the other hand, why the hail not 🙂

cheers!

Grace…re: 283. Just my impression that one should not overlook the substance of the Pastor’s comments, just because one may perceive them as “Polite” or humble” for in the final analysis they may not pass the test of “sincerity”…like my comments 🙂

Cheers!

Dust,

When someone takes a subject, such as “Lutheran pastor rejects Baptism, Lord’s Supper” on their blog, posts many articles and LINKS, – – many people make comments regarding the content – and then the individual in question, ie; Rev. Dan Delzell, comes forward, on this blog and makes a request – is it not only thoughtful, kind and proper to engage them in their beliefs, answering questions, and conversing with them on the subject?

If it’s important enough to blog about, why is it not important to answer a request? And why would you or anyone else question their sincerity?

Nicholas,
Fairly common occurrence, I don’t think any of us expected her to.

By researching the allegations, did you mean asking your pastor about them?

Grace typed (@294):

How much gossip is spread throughout any and all churches and denominations, that would include YOURS Bror.

Oh, we Lutherans don’t need to spread gossip about our own denominations, Grace — we let you do that for us! Of course, you seem to do so without any “DEEP DESIRE to reach the truth”, which I guess is kind of ironic (but, let’s be honest, it’s also kind of hypocritical).

I think it’s fascinating — if not outright telling — that you would rather spend time here discussing abuse allegations than Scripture, Grace. Frankly, I don’t blame you. I think your denomination is more easily defended with regard to the abuse allegations than it is with regard to Scripture.

Oh, but I guess you’re too busy to respond to Bible verses. You usually are. I guess because you’re so busy studying the Bible?

If abuse allegations were not brought up on this blog, there would be no reason for me to respond.

Nicholas has a hobby!

Below are two (2) attemps by Nicholas to accuse Calvary Chapel. The last one @238 has two LINKS. And then there are the typical ‘several who chime in, with nonsensical attemps to make it tangible evidence.

__ 236__ Nicholas says:
February 6, 2013 at 9:24 pm
“Interesting also that Grace has not responded to the epidemic sex abuse and coverup in Calvary Chapel, or the cultic “Moses model” leadership.“

__ 238 __ Nicholas says:
February 6, 2013 at 10:47 pm
Calvary Chapel info:

TWO LINKS ABOVE @ 238. The accusations are made, but the results of such investigations are rarely mentioned, giving viable NEWSPAPER REPORTS – only blogs serve as the news media. Going from site to site, with no LINK to a viable NEWS report.

 ‏

Hey folks, time out for a moment so we can make sure the record reflects that at 8:10 pm on February 10, 2013 Grace made us all aware that some things you read on the Internet are not true. Wow!–What an insight. I suggest you all pay attention and take heed.

You may resume your discussion now.

I’ll be hoping Grace will return to the subject of infant baptism and once-and-for all admit that 1 Peter 3:21 means what it says when it declares that baptism save us–not simply by washing away of the filth of the flesh, but by the answer of a clean conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I would caution many of you, who are inclined to believe most everything on the internet, to PAUSE before you copy paste the material you believe is the gold mine of truth.

Grace, remember when you used to copy and paste things here that you found on anti-Lutheran sites? I’ve never, between then and now, heard you admit you were wrong to do so.

Also, surely by now you all must have noticed that Grace’s Bible doesn’t contain 1 Peter 3. Or Acts 2. Or else she surely would have come across those passages in her near-infinite time of studying the Bible without being influenced by anyone in her denomination.

In fact, I think I read on IHateMartinLutherSoVeryVeryMuch.ResurchSite.Biz.JP that Luther actually wrote 1 Peter 3 and Acts 2. Which is why people who don’t rely on the words of men will never read those chapters.

 ‏
Nicholas you’ve done it again – 😆

 ‏
YEP, YEP you’ve posted these LINKS – What else can you do but post the same stuff over and over again? :razs:

 ‏

 ‏ 😛
 ‏

Sometimes I’m unreasonably informed and sometimes reasonably uninformed. And other times? Well, this is a family program.

As to Grace, she is equal parts frustrating and a laugh riot. Predictable as the rising and setting of the sun.

The above comment was in response to Grace, not you SKPeterson.

Just so we’re all on the same page, it’s a day later, and Grace would still rather discuss her denomination’s alleged cover-up of child rape and sex abuse than Scripture.

I mean, just ponder that. She’s that afraid to discuss the plain meaning of 1 Peter 3 and Acts 2.

“So, what does your denomination teach about baptizing infants?” “Well, we probably haven’t abused any of them, if that’s what you’re asking! You’re asking a foolish question you don’t have! Besides, every church has a few child abusers!” “I, er, no … what?”

Abby @314

You note one passage of Scripture from John 3 In your last paragraph.

A man, which is noted below in verses 3 and 5, is not an infant, it’s an adult. There is no mention of infants. In fact there is no mention of infants anywhere in Scripture to be Baptized. Much of what you’re trying to rectify regarding Baptism is “traditions of men” the Roman Catholics have always been steepd in “tradition” ignoring what the Bible states. Now there are other denominations, which follow the same path as the Roman Catholics, that doesn’t make it Bilical.

1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said to him, Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that you do, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus said to him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said to you, You must be born again.
8 The wind blows where it wants, and you hear the sound thereof, but can not tell from where it comes, and where it goes: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
John 3

My presenting is amateurish, I know. The historial references I gave for the big 3 churches in the world are NOT based on the traditions of men. But from Scripture and the teachings of Christ Himself to his prophets and apostles. Sacramental Baptism and Holy Communion are defined Scripturally — and I might add, simply. We take Jesus at His word. We know what meaning of the word “is” is.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2013/02/lutheran-pastor-rejects-baptism-lords-supper/#comment-255759

Abby @ 317 and 241

You gave a great deal of Scripture in post 241, but it did not include infants. It doesn’t because there are no passages that do.

I disagree with you regarding “traditions of men” – it’s practice began some years after Christ died on the Cross, arose, and the Apostles penned, through the leading of the HOLY Spirit, what we now have as the Bible (God’s Word) which is inerrant. The “traditions of men” is not valid, it never measures up to God’s Word. Just because it’s been done for centuries doesn’t make it right, Scriptural, or of the LORD Jesus Christ

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Colossians 2:8

Abby @ 320

Repentance, is asking forgiveness for ones sins. I repent all the time. I don’t need to wait until I attend church to hear a pastor forgive me of my sins – the reason being, he cannot forgive me, only God can forgive sins. There is no mediator between myself and God for forgiveness, I can go straight to the LORD, immediately, when I have sinned, either in thought or deed.

And here’s another one for the Whack-a-Mole of Heresy that Grace is playing (@321). Grace says:

I don’t need to wait until I attend church to hear a pastor forgive me of my sins – the reason being, he cannot forgive me, only God can forgive sins.

Now here’s what the Bible says:

Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Now, let’s all sit back and watch the woman who thinks she’s all about the Bible only and not the traditions of man explain how the Bible doesn’t mean what it plainly says, and how we should listen to what her denominational leaders teach.

Abby (@324), it’s not — not to Grace, at least. We’ve been over this (specifically, John 20:23) many times before. And because we’ve been over it many times, Grace will somehow use that fact to ignore what has been pointed out to her repeatedly, even though she of course continues hypocritically to repeat her man-made heresies here. Grace, rude as she is, feels free to continue to spew her spiritual poison over and over, but she likewise refuses to listen to Biblical correction. Repetition is for her, not the rest of us, you see.

The Disciples who were assembled together, it is to them Christ Jesus spoke; the statement in verses 21 and 22 was to them, not to the future popes of Rome, or pastors, then or fifteen hundred years later, but to His Disciples.

☆
19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD.
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
John 20

☆ The Apostles had power that was not given to those today. – – Rome, and the Pope believe they have the same importance today, and so do other groups and denominations, the directives in John 20 were to the Apostles.

☆ The Apostles were chosen of the LORD, they are different than you and me. When they were given the task of spreading His Word, their gifts were multiplied. They were able to heal, speak in other’s tongue/languages, and many other things. They spent 40 days with Christ after His Resurrection, they had in that time, more seminary, more Biblical knowledge than you or I – they also had power that was a special gift, that we don’t have.

Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. Luke 9:1

Do you know anyone today who has that kind of power? I don’t.

This is my point, the authority was given to the Disciples of Christ, by Christ, His Apostles, not to you or anyone else, it wasn’t HANDED DOWN, like the Roman Catholic Church believes, and other churches.

The Word of God does not state, that anyone needs to obtain absolution for their sins from a pastor or priest. The Bible states something very different:

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1 Timothy 2:5

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness
1 John 1:9

The Roman Catholic Church, and others believe they have that power to extend absolution, but misunderstand that only Christ can forgive sins.

Abby, just as a bit of background, you should realize how very, very repetitive Grace is being here. When I say that she’s simply not thinking, I mean it literally — she’s quite literally repeating herself verbatim from past discussions.

For instance, do you see where Grace says (@327), “Do you know anyone today who has that kind of power? I don’t.” If you’ve read enough of Grace’s repetitious nonsense, you really should recognize that phrase. Here’s a sample of her repeating that exact phrase, over and over, in chronological order:

patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2010/09/the-rich-man-lazarus/#comment-90727

patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2010/09/the-rich-man-lazarus/#comment-90752

patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2010/09/the-rich-man-lazarus/#comment-90807

patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2011/02/the-2nd-biggest-denomination-nondenominationalism/#comment-156492

patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2011/04/lutheranism-as-the-emergent-church/#comment-71455

patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2011/05/if-you-forgive-the-sins-of-any-they-are-forgiven-2/#comment-66561

patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2011/05/if-you-forgive-the-sins-of-any-they-are-forgiven-2/#comment-66565

patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2013/02/lutheran-pastor-rejects-baptism-lords-supper/#comment-255086

patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2013/02/lutheran-pastor-rejects-baptism-lords-supper/#comment-256466

So if you troll through those comments, you’ll see that Grace quite literally has written nothing new here. She’s not responding to you. She’s just copying and pasting old arguments. She’s not listening, much less understanding, anything you say.

Doesn’t mean others aren’t listening here, of course, which is why I’ll reply to her silliness in a bit.

So, again, Grace has said (@321):

I don’t need to wait until I attend church to hear a pastor forgive me of my sins – the reason being, he cannot forgive me, only God can forgive sins.

Which is a mixture of truth and deception — this is how the Devil plays his game, of course.

Can only God forgive sins? Of course! And yet, here Grace is quoting her spiritual forebears when she asks “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Luke 5) In that case, they were upset that Jesus was forgiving people. They thought they were being holy in acting offended, and they were right that only God can forgive sins. But, in their unbelief, they denied that Jesus was God. Yet Scripture tells us that “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to [Jesus]” (Matt. 28), so we know that he had authority to forgive others.

And Scripture also tells us that Jesus gave the authority to forgive to his disciples. He did so in John 20 (to most of the disciples), as well as in Matthew 16 (spoken just to Peter) and Matthew 18 (spoken to all the disciples). But Grace, in her zeal to appear righteous, acts offended like the Pharisees, denying that Jesus has given this authority to his disciples (that is, those who follow Jesus). It’s not clear if she is simply denying the plain words of Scripture, or if perhaps she is denying that Jesus had the right or ability to give that authority to his disciples. Either way, not a safe place for a Christian to stand.

Still, there is much ignorance in Grace’s argument. For one thing, she insists (as she has in the past, over and over) on making attacks on the papacy, even though there are no Catholics arguing here that I know of. Grace, however, is especially ignorant on the relationship between Catholicism and Lutheranism, so she insists on decrying the papcy. To that extent, we agree, even if she doesn’t understand that.

She also doesn’t understand the phrase “means of grace” (I know, I know — oh, the irony). She thinks that there is a difference between the forgiveness that a pastor pronounces and the forgiveness God pronounces. Just as her theological forebears thought there was a difference between the forgiveness of Jesus and that from God. Both groups, of course, are sorely mistaken, because they ignore what Scripture teaches (and think that their zeal is worthy).

Furthermore, Grace creates a straw-man as to the nature of this passage: “I don’t need to…” she says. Now, is any Lutheran arguing that one “needs to” go to a pastor to be forgiven? Of course not. Here Grace is tilting at Catholic windmills again, because she can’t tell the difference between various groups (oh, she’ll tell you she’s studied them for years upon years, but the proof is in the repetitively nonsensical pudding). Anyhow, of course Lutherans confess their sins directly to God, and we know that he has forgiven them in Christ. Yet we also know the comfort of being told we are forgiven by someone other than us. We know how that can be a blessing that removes doubt — as God surely intended it. So Lutherans don’t talk about “needing to” have a pastor forgive us. We talk of “getting to”, even “wanting to”. But here Grace plays the old “Did God really say…” game.

So Grace clearly has issues with God’s chosen means of Grace. She believes Scripture when it says that she is forgiven, but she denies Scripture when God tells us in it that we have forgiveness through the bread and wine, the water and the Word, or the Word and speaker. She is, in effect, telling God that he cannot use these things. If you ponder it long enough, you’ll see gnosticism lurking in her thinking. She wants to place God in a “spiritual only” box, and deny him the ability to use things of the material world.

There are most likely more then have been cited above. The answer to the same questions, when they are asked OVER, and OVER AGAIN.

The problem is; when the subject of repent, repentance, forgiveness, forgive or absolution, are brought up on this blog, it’s always the same questions, which I answer with the same answer. The next hurdle is; the question: “you didn’t answer my question” but I did answer – the individual asking wants a different answer – until I give the answer they want to HEAR, they persist in stating their grievance, of my not answering their question.

It goes in CIRCLES, as if my answer will change.

Grace @333: “. . . on this blog . . .” are the key words. “The problem is; when the subject of repent, repentance, forgiveness, forgive or absolution, are brought up on this blog, it’s always the same questions, which I answer with the same answer.”

If you know where you are, and what our answers are going to be — why does that surprise you? I used to work with a Jewish woman — who worked with Lutheran pastors for many years. (She was from Venezuela and she translated Hispanic for them for Hispanic ministries.) Even though she never converted to Christianity she had absorbed way more than she herself even realized. I knew this from talking with her. She was more cognizant of Lutheranism than you can understand, especially since you’ve been here so long as Todd has said. So, I am really puzzled. For as long as you’ve been discussing these things with us you have not absorbed any understanding at all.

Abby @ 35 “For as long as you’ve been discussing these things with us you have not absorbed any understanding at all.”

I do understand Abby, the “absorbed” part, doesn’t mean I agree with it – what I understand is, that most of the people on this blog who are Lutheran, are ‘cradle Lutheran’s – They were raised, like Roman Catholics to believe exactly what they are told. Both Roman Catholics, Calvinists, and Lutherans learn a great deal of their doctrine from books, such as the B of C, The Institutes, and other books which were either written by John Calvin or Martin Luther, or written by those who agreed with them.

I was raised in a Christian home, my father was a pastor. However, being taught from childhood, certain doctrine, through study, I changed. That’s because I studied the Bible on my own, taking the time to evaluate what I believed, and why. Having said that, I realized that some things, through endless study of the Bible I could not agree with. I also found that it is more than possible to study the Bible without outside influence.

I understand much of Lutheran doctrine, but that does not mean I agree with it. This thread is interesting to me, because of the pastor who made the statements about “infant Baptism” – that caught my eye. As you know I don’t agree with infants being Baptized.

It’s important for you to understand, there are people who don’t take every doctrine, and believe it completely. That would include Calvinism, Luther, and a host of others. That doesn’t mean I disagree with everything.

My source is the Word of God.

Oops, wasn’t quite done replying to Grace’s “argument”, but family duties called for a while. You’ll understand if playing with my children (who, frankly, frequently display a better understanding of biblical principles than does Grace) takes up some of my time.

Anyhow, Grace’s argument is still self-refuting. Remember, she claimed (@321) that a pastor “cannot forgive me, only God can forgive sins”. I’ve already shown the many, many Scriptural problems with that statement.

But, even from the standpoint of reason, it’s still crap. Why? Because of the way Grace tries to ignore John 20:23. She says:

The Apostles had power that was not given to those today.

Get that? She concedes, in her own argument, that the Apostles (John says “disciples”, but whatever) actually had the authority to forgive sins. Which means that, no matter how much she tries to limit her argument temporally, she has proven her thesis to be false! She has explicitly admitted that God can work through men to forgive sins! She denies her own base claim.

But don’t get me wrong — her argument is stupid for other reasons, too. “The Apostles were chosen of the LORD, they are different than you and me.” Which, in her mind, means that anything they did is something we can’t do today. Like, you know, teach others what Jesus taught. Or baptize people. … Whoops! Yeah, obviously Grace doesn’t believe that. (She was baptized, wasn’t she? But wasn’t that something only the Apostles could do?!?!) So instead, we see this: Grace asserts herself (or, more honestly, her denominational leaders’ teachings) as the sole arbiter of which of the apostles’/disciples’ actions can be done today. Grace says it’s okay to teach and baptize, because Grace thinks that’s okay. Grace says it’s not okay to forgive, because Grace doesn’t like that. And so Grace claims to be the ultimate interpreter of Scripture. … Just like the Pope! (Except, frankly, that most Popes generally seem like pretty smart guys.)

tODD @ 339

“She concedes, in her own argument, that the Apostles (John says “disciples”, but whatever) actually had the authority to forgive sins. Which means that, no matter how much she tries to limit her argument temporally, she has proven her thesis to be false! She has explicitly admitted that God can work through men to forgive sins! She denies her own base claim.

The twelve are referred to as “disciples” and, or “Apostles” – I thought everyone knew this. It’s right in the Bible. It isn’t “whatever” –

1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.

2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Matthew 1

This should clear it up for you tODD – there are many other FACTS, which you have twisted about, but this is a good start.

@331 “So Grace clearly has issues with God’s chosen means of Grace. She believes Scripture when it says that she is forgiven, but she denies Scripture when God tells us in it that we have forgiveness through the bread and wine, the water and the Word, or the Word and speaker. She is, in effect, telling God that he cannot use these things. If you ponder it long enough, you’ll see gnosticism lurking in her thinking. She wants to place God in a “spiritual only” box, and deny him the ability to use things of the material world.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUUM_BervTo

See, Grace (@341)? This is such a perfect response from you! (Perfect as to its Grace-ness; the quality of the argument is, of course, far from perfect.)

You ignore almost the entirety of what is said to you, choosing instead to focus on one tiny thing that was in no way a major point at all. You then blow that one thing into a comment that is incoherent, and then you feel like you’ve made some sort of a general response.

And, of course, you will complain if I make any follow-up questions (noting that you didn’t actually reply to the actual argument) by claiming that you’ve already replied. Even though — and here I belabor the point for your sake — you in no way rebutted anything I said.

Also, hate to break it to you, Bible Scholar, but John does not use the word “disciples” to refer exclusively to the Apostles (aka the Twelve). Read John 6:60ff. Note how John contrasts “the disciples” (many of whom left Jesus at that point) with “the Twelve” (who did not). Also, the intelligent person may note that I said “John says ‘disciples'”, but your rebuttal quoted to me from Matthew.

Honestly, go away, Grace. You’re terrible at this. Seriously.

If you really think that your teachings need to be represented on this blog (only you could hazard a guess as to why, though you’d be unable to communicate the reason to us, of that I’m sure), please find someone at your church who can craft a coherent argument and actually reply to things said to him.

Maybe you could hire a ghost-writer. You would talk to them at length about all the vast stores of knowledge you’ve amassed, and he would try to boil them down into something that makes sense. Only, he wouldn’t have to actually tell the rest of us here about them. You could just talk to him, and he could keep it to himself. Because, honestly, that would be just as edifying as your typing things here. Because you’re terrible at discussions. Have I made that clear?

Also, please go away.

oops, @346 wrong video

I give up — wrong video.

Was thinking of a verse that sticks in my mind in light of some of the discussions. Today is Ash Wednesday. I think that John 13:35 is good to remember. Wishing one and all peace, joy and thankfulness to our great God. Lord Jesus, come quickly.

You’re welcome, Grace. …..and the greatest of these (commandments) is love. I’ve fallen behind in my memory of scripture. I guess I’m thinking of the bottom line.

No, Grace does not refute anything, that is a very wrong choice of words. Refuting would mean that she actually engaged in argument in an intelligent way managing to show the other person’s position false. No, Grace ignores the argument re-posts hers and belligerently refuses to accept the a point or understand the conversation she has joined in.
Yes, Grace, Please leave. Just go away. I do not bid you Godspeed.
” Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.” 2 John 9-11

For all the folks asking Grace to just leave, I want you to put your Luther caps on and put the best construction on things:

No one is completely worthless. They can at least serve as a bad example.

I am certain that I can speak also for the good Dr Veith in saying what must be said to make you feel welcome here and valued.

No, I think there comes a time to say goodbye. To ask a person to leave, because they have shown that they are not interested in having conversation. As Todd says.

Todd & Bror
http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/nadiabolzweber/files/2012/09/JesusHealstheDeafMute.jpg

This pastor says it all way better than I possibly could.
Faith comes by hearing. Hearing comes, alone, by the Word of God.

We need to simply focus on the doing of our work here.
We need to leave the business of results to God.

tODD @ 360

I think my comment didn’t come across as I intended. I am certainly not questioning Grace’s “worthiness” as a person. She is, as far as I can tell, our sister in Christ. The very same Christ died on the cross as much for her as for you and I.

However, as a scholar, even an arm-chair scholar, she serves a bad example, one that we should not emulate. And her worth–perhaps contribution is more apt?–on this site is as a guide to show us how not to engage. She’s a bomb thrower, yells fire in a crowded theatre, abuses her freedom–whatever “bad” conduct you can say she’s probably done it on this blog but in so doing she points so many of us to search the Word so that we may give an answer for the reason for the hope that we have. She’s a bad example when we’re talking decent and scholarly discusson, but like so many “bad” things she can still serve God’s purposes.

few @364

“Against love there is no law.”

Sometimes love is the stinging hand of rebuke. St. Paul shows just that in the same chapter of Galations that I believe you are referencing. Read ch. 5 v. 12 closely and tell me it’s not.

However, I think you’re saying that we should keep our discussion on the merits and not on one’s antics. I would whole-heartedly agree, at least if that’s what you are saying. But, sometimes, its hard to separate behavior from argument. Love isn’t all warm and fuzzy, hand-holding and singing Koombya. Sometimes love is actually the Law, condemning us and prompting us to amend our actions. Yes, love is patient and kind. Love shows compassion and mercy. But love is not afraid to take a stand, for “love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” (1 Cor. 13:6-7)

I will ask that Grace stay. She is useful in her role as bad exegete (eisegete) and theological foil. True, she frustrates, but like iron, she also sharpens.

SKPeterson,
How is she, Grace, a foil? I mean I can’t stand baptist theology, which is what she espouses whether she cares to admit it or not. She belongs to a baptist, if not Baptist, church but she can’t distinguish that. She thinks she is nondenominational… In any case, I can’t stand the theology. But we have had others here who have espoused the same theology and we were able to get along with them. I think of DonS, and even BikeBubba who could be belligerent in his own right, but would finally concede a point, or at least engage it in conversation. Grace, has over these last years, not engaged intelligently once to my knowledge. In fact it has become the running joke that when she shows up and comments the discussion has ceased to be intelligent, has gone off the tracks. A foil, would be one who is intelligent and can actually read an argument and understand it enough to engage it and try refute it. Grace poses no challenge, does not make one pursue scripture, or dig deeper into their own theology. She just quotes gibberish, over and over again, making you respond with the same scripture over and over again. It gets tiresome. In fact it makes one want to leave board altogether, as it even derails the intelligent conversation that otherwise goes on.

Bror @ 371

Bror! I LOVE pastors like you. You tirelessly seek to defend and preserve and proclaim the forgiveness of sins for sinners like me.

You really do have a shepherd´s heart, and you see the damage that junk theology has in both the christian and temporal lives of men and women. And so you call a thing for what it is.

Your voice, as a called and ordained “sent one” needs to be heard here. The situation is pretty desperate. This forum is a place where voices like yours would be heard by those who normally would not hear such a voice. So don´t stop. Please.

SKP @372
Don´t stop SKP. You have the right impulses. We have been given such incredible mercy for our own failures to hear what God´s Word says. Often we willfully fail to hear what God´s Word says don´t we? And so we , sadly, fail to receive God´s will for us, which is Always for goodness and mercy to be done.

Instead we reach for doing some form of sacrifice , precisely aimed at calming our restless consciences.
So we can understand right where Grace is at can´t we?

So God calls us, through men and women like Grace, to be living sacrifices, unconcerned with the fact that our task is to die (we are already dead to all that in Christ) so Old Adam can get outta the way and so we can return , 70 times 7, to repeat the same Word of God to the same circular arguments of Grace.

Rinse and repeat. And… rinse and repeat some more. Dying to self looks like that. There is no Life there.
It´s not supposed to feel good.

And we just do that. again and again.
And we let God´s Word do it´s work.
And we learn the discipline that is necessary for the fruits of kindness and mercy and love to be done in our Old Adams.
We focus on doing it a little better each time. Killing ourselves that is.

It looks like this: we focus on doing what us for us to do, and we leave the business of results to God.
God´s Word WILL work on Grace, and … at the same time… it will work even more on us , each and every time we repeat, over and over and over, the same stuff
And the end of that “stuff” is, alone, alone, alone, to have us and others trust , alone in that “for YOU!” for the forgiveness of sins.

Luther: “True christianity is use-less on Earth, except to God and a troubled conscience.”
So what is it we want for Grace? for her to become more logical? to acquire better Reading comprehension skills? to be a more enjoyable debate partner? to be more polite?
Those would be good for her to decide to do… but that is not what we Lutherans pray for her to have really is it?

And it is , alone, God´s Word that can work that heart-trust in her. Just as it is, alone, our repeating that same God´s Word of Promise , over and over and over and….. will work that one thing needful in each of us and preserve us in the same.

Bless you two good men!

mikeb@374 I like the way you state that. Pastor’s might be relieved of some “conversion” stress if they would remember the passage of John 6:44 http://www.esvbible.org/search/John+6%3A43-47/

mikeb @ 374

Wow Mike.
That is one of the most awesome posts I have ever read,
We read in Genesis the prophecy of all that.
So the men and women who were lead outta Egypt were told that all would happen beforehand.
Amazing that they STILL just refused to get it.

Just like ME most of the time.
Lord have mercy! +

kerner @ 376

What a cogent and compelling argument.
I would expect nothing less from our very own Legal Eagle.

So I think that settles the matter.
Who could argue with this?

To All:

I am going through one of the most challenging times of my life.
I am being made to work through some personal issues that I have , apparently , either refused to deal with before or wasn´t ready to deal with before.
Apparently God thinks I am ready now.
It´s been … um… interesting.

I need your prayers. as in really , really need them.
Pray for me for constancy and faithfulness in my vocations regardless of how I feel at any moment.
Pray for me that I remain focussed on the needs of others rather than my own,
and at the same time that I do what is necessary to be a faithful steward of what God has given me as to my own health and financial wellbeing.
And pray that I seek out God´s Word and prayer. That most of all,
That I cling to those two words “for YOU!” that is about hiding all my own Works inside the Works of Another so that I can get some rest from my conscience which is constantly accusing me.

Thank you!

fws@381 “. . . get some rest from my conscience which is constantly accusing me.”

I also. Isn’t this the problem Luther had? And he discovered the answer. But that didn’t eradicate his problem forever. It was the devil he battled with. (“Luther: Man Between God and the Devil”) Luther said he had to preach the Gospel to himself everyday because he forgot it everyday. Because we are Christians, we are targets of the Devil — mili-second by mili-second.

I can only trust, bottom line, that He will bring me home. I can’t do it.

I meant it when I said I will pray for you. I did already today.

abby @ 383

God has promised to bring it all home if we cling to God´s Word and gladly seek to hear and apply both the Law and the Promises contained there.
So we must not despise God´s Word and prayer!

This is what we can do of our own natural powers and will:
We can show up in church and hear a sermon!
So we need to do ALL we can to encourage and welcome to church , especially those who are on the fringes of society and seem trapped in some “lifestyle” issue that they seem reprobated to.

With man it is impossible. But with God, all things are possible.
And he directs us, alone, to his Word, to make that possible.
Even for Grace. Even for gay men like me. Even for (fill in YOUR name here).

“For the Promise IS for you! and for your children!”

“Nothing in our hands we bring. Simply to the Cross we cling. “

I agonize over doubting quite a bit. When it comes I know it shouldn’t be there. As you said, I go to the Word, I go to church to hear, I go to Holy Communion as much as I can get it. (I now found a little LCMS church way out in the country from me that offers a weekly Wednesday evening Confession/Absolution service with a devotion and with Communion. Only about 30 minutes long. I love it! I may sound to RC in saying this, but if I could find a daily one I would go.

When I wrote what I did about the grandmothers, I forgot to finish a thought which was to say that “they were at rest.” http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2013/02/lutheran-pastor-rejects-baptism-lords-supper/#comment-256308

I observed this in my two grandmothers all the way to their deaths. Their faith was simple. Maybe even tiny, like mine. They were untrained but they knew the basics. They were faithful.

I love to study doctrine and theology. But I know that that does not save me. The only thing that can is the simple faith of a child. In my mind I go back to the faith I had as a child to teach me how my faith should be now. It was uncluttered and simple. And joyful.

There has never been a time that I have not loved being at church. I love all our pastors for the faithful work they do for us. And I grieve when people give them so much trouble.

Anyway, God bless you. Our struggles cannot seperate us from God. Because we do have faith.

abby @ 387

“Our struggles cannot seperate us from God. Because we do have faith.”

Amen. And even when we don´t: God is faithful.

dust @ 390

God, at least for today, is granting me the grace to trust in that and have a calm heart and mind.
Thank you so much for your prayers.

fws: Sorry, just because a thought enters my mind doesn’t mean I should speak it! 🙂

fws: I know you know these: Matthew 12:15-21 “. . . a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench, until he brings justice to victory and in his name the Gentiles will hope.”

Matthew 11:25-30 ” . . . Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”

Just keep coming.

fws at 381…

“and at the same time that I do what is necessary to be a faithful steward of what God has given me as to my own health and financial wellbeing.”

Am praying for you and your issues with those “imposters” in this world…have been down that road too brother, and know God will provide a “way out” FOR YOU!

You know: In all these things, we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us 🙂

cheers!

Maybe a good end to this thread, from Pr. Bryan Wolfmueller. A video, approx. 1 hr, 9 min. : “Becoming Lutheran from Evangelicalism” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kwGL2liaFY