I’m baaaaaaack!

Wow, it’s been a long time. Since I was last active here, my life has changed drastically. I have three little dudes now under age 7, I am a single mom, and my life feels like it’s been turned upside down. That’s a post for another time though. 

I’ll just say it now, I feel like a bit of a fraud resurrecting a theology blog when I’ve barely been in church the last few years. I decided anything that gets me back into Scripture and learning about God is probably good, though, so here I am. My ideas about how I feel most connected to God have also changed, somewhat drastically, which we can explore at some point down the road when I have it a little more sorted out myself. 

I probably won’t be any more faithful at blogging than I was before, but I intend to go through and clean this up a bit, then relaunch it with all the fire you’d expect from a heresy blog. My mom said it was too cerebral before so I’m going to attempt to make it a little more user-friendly this go-around. We shall see if I succeed or not. 

Peace be with you, friends. 

Sarah's 12th Commandment: Two Kingdoms Theology and American Politics

Facebook is a good place to throw bombs or post rants (and cute baby pictures!!), but is a poor format for serious discussion.  What started out as a mini political rant turned into a saying, then a meme, then full-blown misunderstood comments.  Therefore, I felt it necessary to take it outside... or to this blog.  You know what I mean.

Frankly, I don't know whether this belongs on my theology blog or my political blog.  I try to keep the two as distinct as the Two Kingdoms, but then folks have to go make it all messy.  Since the root issue is theology, I think this is perhaps the most appropriate place.  There is a brief, much more political, post with a link to this on my political blog, though.

Here's the comment I made that started it all (after days of annoyance at the incredible amount of dispensational premillennialist heresy thrown about on my newsfeed regarding the current political situation in Israel/Gaza--read my two posts on eschatological heresies for a definition of dispensational premillennialism, and/or read this excellent article on it by my Pastor).  I'll probably comment more on the political aspect of this on my other blog, but suffice it to say, the past week has just caused rampant heresy to appear on my feed.  To be fair, I think many don't know differently because this is what and how they were taught.  But I digress.  Back to the initial offending comment:

Please stop using religion to make arguments for or against a government policy. That isn't at all to say religion doesn't or shouldn't shape your views, but rather, to say that you can find a better way to make political arguments than simply referring to whatever your religion is. There are ways to make that exact same argument without invoking your religion... and if you can't do that without making a religious plea... maybe you should rethink your position.

This got condensed by a friend to:

Sarah's 12th Commandment: "There should be ways to make an argument for your [political] position without invoking religion. If you can't, then rethink your position."

My friend is much pithier than I (probably why he's the candidate-type and I'm the advisor-type...).  Briefly on background for those not familiar with why this would be number 12: in Republican circles, there is an oft-cited quote from Reagan (his "11th Commandment") about not going after fellow Republicans with vicious public attacks.

Then a Pastor friend of mine turned it into this masterpiece:

The initial post was meant as a political comment, but the discussion on both the initial thread and one where I posted the picture became much more theological in nature.

To avoid repeating myself, now might be a good time to go read up on Two Kingdoms Theology (or Two Kingdoms Doctrine), because that is the focal point of the theological discussion.

Immediate comments ranged from (I'm paraphrasing) "Your faith has to be part of all of your life or it isn't very strong," to "BUT... JESUS!" (although, to be fair, that last one was a sarcastic comment--however, it summarized some of the other discussion pretty well).

Let me try to break down what I am and am not saying for clarification.

I am saying that...

• Theocracies are bad, and anything that moves towards that, in full or part, is equally bad (and, frankly, unbiblical).
• An improper understanding of the Two Kingdoms (which is rampant in modern Christendom) far too often leads down the road to theocracy.
• Frankly, the idea of a Christian theocracy is no better than, for example, an Islamic state.  In point of fact, both are heresies (Islam being a very devolved Arian heresy meshed with some other stuff of non-Christian origin, and theocracies being, at best, a poor reading of Scripture, and at worst, one of the biggest blights on Christendom that I can think of), so while the ends differ, it's a similar root problem.
• God gave us wisdom, reason, and knowledge.  We should use it.  It is not persuasive to say to a non-Christian, "But Jesus says so!"  It is, however, persuasive to use common sense and natural law to make the same point.
• My comment was directed towards more than just Christianity, but all religions, including secular religions like humanism, socialism, progressivism, etc.  Even Atheists (whose belief in no God is a religion in itself) are included.
• Government involvement in any religion in any way is B.A.D!  Once it's codified in law, it can be altered to suit the state--and government rarely makes things better when it changes them.  Separation of church and state isn't to protect the state from Christians or religious influence, but to rather protect Christians from interference by the state.
• You can and should have a religious argument for policy if it makes sense.  What I am asking is for that to not be your only argument, nor your default argument.
• Force makes for very poor faith.  Using government as a bludgeon to make people "believe" anything just creates liars, which is far more dangerous to someone's eternal salvation than a corrupt government in my opinion.
• Government is meant as a curb on sin (Law).  It is about enforcing the law and judgment.  It cannot have the Gospel (grace).  Bluntly put, there is "no room for Jesus in government" because government isn't about the Gospel.  That doesn't mean Christians don't belong in politics, that faith doesn't inform someone's opinion, etc., but rather that (again) a theocracy is BAD.
• Faith does (and should) inform all aspects of a Christian's life.  However, apparently, if every word coming out of your mouth isn't from Scripture or isn't evangelizing, I guess your faith is weak, right?
• (Warning--you are about to read what is likely a very unpopular statement, but it's true):
  The Jewish people should not be considered by the Church as any different than any other non-believers.  This is not to say they should be abused, mistreated, etc.  And, before you say it, yes--Luther was wrong in his statements about the Jews, for the record.  They should be shown the same type of compassion and love we would show any of our neighbors of any religion, but to base political policy on the false notion that they're more special to Christians than anyone else is crazy.  The New Covenant in Jesus nullifies the old.  Period.  For more on this, explained much better than I could, I highly recommend this article by my Pastor (also linked about regarding dispensational premillennialism).  Further, dispensational premillennialism doesn't value the Jews at all (despite the rhetoric)!  Read here to learn more (please note that the timeline of the rapture and end times according to dispensational premillennialism isn't accurately represented here, but the end result is).  Don't believe me?  Dispensational premillennialists openly say so themselves
  (also here).

I am not saying that...

• Christians shouldn't be involved in the public arena.  Quite the contrary.
• Your faith shouldn't inform your positions or votes.  That's a willful misreading of what I've said.  I am merely saying that, when discussing opinions, policy, candidates, etc. in the public square, it's not good enough to say, "The Bible tells me so."  Sunday School songs make for poor policy discussion.
• You shouldn't ever mention your faith at all in politics.  This is more about knowing your audience than anything else.  Specific statements to religious groups are ripe for a religious argument.  But, again, that shouldn't be your only argument!
• American had no Judeo-Christian influences in its founding.  That would be historically ignorant at absolute best.  I am saying that the Founders put in protections so that a theocracy wouldn't be possible.  Of course, they didn't seem to imagine the possibility of a secular, state religion that now seems to be the "theocracy" in which we live, but that's due to their lack of evil imagination (clearly).  We do, however, have a Constitution that guides our government.  I guess the last time I checked, the Bible wasn't an appendix, article, or amendment to that document.

To briefly summarize:

God gave all humans the ability to think critically, use logic, knowledge, and natural law, to explain everything within theology that actually has an effect on Government.  In order to actually implement both politically and morally sound policy, it is vital that we discuss policy from a moral, rather than theological, standpoint.  The only difference is not invoking the name of Jesus or "the Bible says so!" trope in political discourse.  And if it is impossible to make your argument without bringing up religion, you may wish to consider whether or not it is the proper role of government.

Finally, since without a single word in there, this meme makes less sense without context.  Here's a slightly edited version that if you like, you should share!

Okay, if You say so...

I was listening to the latest Table Talk Radio episode last night, and my Pastor said something that struck me as brilliant in its simplicity.  I've been told many things by fellow Christians about being a Lutheran, from "You're all the intellectual Christians, and I couldn't understand theology the way you do because I'm not smart enough," to "You're just lazy and you don't try to solve every equation for 'x'."  Yes, gotta love the variety there.  Both are right and wrong in their own way, I suppose (although it doesn't take an astrophysicist to figure out Lutheranism or Christianity in general), but neither really hit where I'm going with this.

The beauty and comfort of Lutheranism is that we don't feel like we have to know or understand everything.  We kind of take God at His Word.  I know, crazy isn't it?

The Bible is an incredibly clear book if you read it in context (and context is absolutely key), and you know what?  The parts that I can't always understand I don't worry about.  I kind of figure that God, being all powerful and knowing way more than I do, might actually know what He's doing and if I don't always follow along, I'm okay with that.  I don't need to spend my time worrying about things my finite human mind can't understand.

The problem with Christendom today is two-fold (kind of like the comments I get about Lutherans): on the one hand, many don't care to actually know what Scripture says, they just take whatever their poorly trained, heretical Pastor gives them and accept it as Gospel (pun somewhat intentional); and on the other hand, some want to write themselves and their own meanings into God's Word (narsegete, as Chris Roseborough likes to call is).  Both miss the point: you have to read what is there, IN CONTEXT, before you can do anything else.  Yes, we all come into things with biases--we are, after all, human.  But the more you can remove yourself and your biases from your reading, the more likely it is that you will understand what you are reading, and that applies to all things... not just Scripture.

So, join me as a Lutheran, as a Christian, in reading the Word in context and simply saying, "Okay, God, if You say so," when we don't understand something.  Hate to bust your ego bubble, but you don't know everything.  Trust me.  You might figure it out later, you might never figure it out--both of which are just fine.  But don't worry about it.  It's refreshing.

Morality and Spirituality: Christians, please stop confusing the two!

For those who don't know me in "real" life, I do politics for a living.  Specifically, I do political strategy and campaign consulting.  I generally try not to cross streams between politics and theology as much as possible, but there are too many Dispensationalists (read here for a little background if you are unfamiliar with that term) in politics for me to often get away with that, much to my frustration and chagrin.

One of my biggest pet peeves both in politics and in Christendom today is the utter confusion of the Two Kingdoms--or worse, the fact that most Christians I encounter in politics don't even know what Two Kingdoms theology is.  This is something I have written about before, but I feel like it's time for a refresher after several conversations last week on the topic.  From my previous post on the subject:

Two Kingdoms Theology refers to the Lutheran teaching of the proper distinction between the Left-hand Kingdom (or the Kingdom of Man) and the Right-hand Kingdom (or the Kingdom of God).  I personally consider Romans 13 to be the original separation of Church and State document.  By this, I don't mean that they are completely severed from each other at all, but as another Pastor reminded me, it shows the proper distinction of the Kingdoms, and more importantly, the proper role of a Christian in both Kingdoms.   

I also mean by "separation of Church and State" that a) theocracies are a BIG no-no (basically, preachers are preachers and rulers are rulers, the two roles should not be combined--that is, no blurring of the clear lines between the two Kingdoms); b) that the Left-hand Kingdom is meant to not interfere with the Right-hand Kingdom (First Amendment, anyone?); and c) Christians are called to be involved in government, not using government to advance Christianity, but rather, to advance Natural Law (which we'll get to in a minute). 

For a better illustration, here are some of the differences between the two Kingdoms:

Left-hand Kingdom	Right-hand Kingdom
Kingdom of the Man (State)	Kingdom of God (Church)
Law	Gospel
Sword: Internal* and External**	Word, no swords
Power	Grace
Exists for Order	Exists for Mercy
External Righteousness	Internal Righteousness
Realm of Morals	Realm of Faith
Ruled by Reason	Ruled by Scripture

 *Internal Sword = police, etc.**External Sword = military 

Now, from the Christian (and particularly Lutheran) perspective, Natural Law is exemplified in the second table of the Ten Commandments.  The first table deals with the Right-hand Kingdom, or our faith in God, and the second table deals with the Left-hand Kingdom, or Natural Law and interaction with our neighbor.

While our faith is to govern our actions, we have to understand the clear distinction between the Two Kingdoms to properly function in the political sphere.  We are not to be like the Anabaptists (Radical Reformed), who eschew all political involvement by Christians (in the world, but as far removed from it as possible).  We are also to not be like the Dispensationalists specifically (Calvinists and Arminians alike) and Calvinists in general, who seek theocracies (in the case of Calvin himself, socialist theocracies...).  We are also not to be like the Roman Catholics, who see the Pope as the head of both the Left-hand and Right-hand Kingdoms (I'll be posting on that soon--I should note that the RCC has a right division of the two from my reading of their own church documents, my only complaint is that they put both under the authority of the Pope, which is not a correct application of a correct division, but they are far and away the closest to Lutherans on this issue).

Some pertinent notes on this topic from a sermon my Pastor preached in October 2012 (same post that I quoted above):

• Many Pastors say that you must "Take your faith into the voting booth," but that is wrong
• It is not faith, but reason, by which we should vote because the Left-hand Kingdom is ruled by reason (the Right-hand Kingdom is ruled by faith)
• We should bring not the Apostle's Creed but the 10 Commandments into the voting booth
• We don't need to elect someone who is Orthodox, but someone who understands and values Natural Law
• Pagans and Christians should vote the same, because it is by reason and natural law that we should all cast our votes
• The 10 Commandments are the Christian's "Cliff Notes" of Natural Law
• Knowing the 10 Commandments makes us reasonable, keeping them makes us wise
• The State exists for order and the Law, the Church exists for mercy and the Gospel

Beyond a misapplication/misunderstanding/total ignorance of Two Kingdoms Theology, there seems to be this misunderstanding that the United States of America is a "Christian Nation".  Because of the separation of the Two Kingdoms, and because of how utterly dangerous it is to blur the two together, that is simply impossible.  One can say that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles (although, more accurately, it was founded on Natural Law, which I would argue stems from Judeo-Christian principles since I believe that Natural Law was written on the hearts of all men by God, but that's another topic).  One can also say that America's Founding Fathers were largely (but NOT entirely, as some foolishly attempt to argue contrary to fact and reason) Christians.  In the first segment of Table Talk Radio, Episode 150, there is a great explanation of this (as well as a succinct explanation of why Dispensationalists totally get it wrong about the nation of Israel, another theological pet peeve of mine).

Finally, there seems to be this misconception that, even if we aren't right now, we are supposed to be a Christian nation.  No.  No, no, no, no, no.  Just no.  That is, again, a Dispensationalist construct.  Theocracies are dangerous and never work (anyone remember what happened to Israel and Judah when they tried doing a theocracy their way?  how about Islam? what about the Holy Roman Empire? etc.).  If man were not fallen, there would be no need for anything else but a theocracy--but we are fallen and sinful human beings, and that simply doesn't work with our fallen nature.

However, we are to be a nation of morals, based on Natural Law.  Morality, being a Left-hand Kingdom thing, is not the same as spirituality, a Right-hand Kingdom thing (see the chart above).  The two should not be confused.  I know many moral non-Christians, and many immoral "Christians".  Morality deals with Natural Law and the conscience which, as I've already mentioned, I would certainly argue are given to all men by God--but the key thing there is that all men possess this, whether or not they are Christians.  One does not need to have faith to be moral, and it is a fallacy at absolute best to say otherwise.

(Special) Heresy of the Week: Arianism (also Semi-Arianism and Macedonianism)

Happy Slappy!!!

For those not familiar with the story of St. Nicholas and Arius at the Council of Nicea, my opening remark might require a little explanation.

Rather than go into a history of St. Nicholas, Pastor and Bishop of Myra, I'd like to focus more on Arius and Arianism.  For background on St. Nicholas, please read some of the plethora of posts on the topic from places such as Ask the Pastor (Pr. Snyder), Lest Every Man Be Blind (Pr. Koch) and Aardvark Alley.  Today (6 December) is, by the way, the Feast Day for St. Nicholas.

Before we get to the fun, here's a brief synopsis of Arianism.

Arianism is the 4th century teaching of Arius which denied the divinity of Jesus and the essence of the Trinity (antitrinitarian). Arius taught that the Father created the Son as His first creation. The Son then created the Holy Ghost, and the universe after that (not the Father or the Trinity, only the Son). Christ was considered to be adopted by the Father since He was merely a creation of the Father’s, but because He had great position and authority, He was to be looked upon by humans as a God and worshiped accordingly. At the First Council of Nicaea in 325, Arius was declared a heretic (the Nicene Creed was written specifically to counter his false teachings), exonerated at the First Synod of Tyre in 335 after recanting his heresy, and condemned again posthumously in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople (where the Nicene Creed was slightly modified to combat Macedonianism). Arianism had one of the largest followings of any heresy, and it was feared that they might grow so large as to take over the church. Their main teaching, that the Son of God did not always exist, and is distinct from and “less” than the Father because He was created by the Father, existed as a human (but heretical) way to help explain the Hypostatic Union of Christ’s two natures and attempt to humanize the Trinity.

As the story goes, at the Council of Nicea there were many heated discussions between Arius and his followers, and the Orthodox Bishops in attendance.  During one of these lively exchanges, St. Nicholas is said to have slapped Arius for his heresy.  St. Nicholas was then banned from the council until he apologized.  Puts a whole new light on Santa, doesn't it?

Why would a Bishop get so worked up that he would actually resort to hitting someone?  The teaching of Arius was so pervasive at the time that many were worried it would take over the Church.  As mentioned before, it is an understandable human way to try and describe the unexplainable  but that does not make it any less heretical  

Ultimately, it comes down to how one views the relationship between God the Father and God the Son: homousian ("of the same substance", the Orthodox teaching) or heterousian ("differing in substance", the heretical, or Arian, teaching).  Now might be a good time to review my post on the Trinity for more on how the Trinity works.

While this story may be just a legend (although records of Nicholas being 'suspended' and 'reinstated' seems to verify it to a large degree), the lesson from it is very important: we should take heresy very seriously, and so what we can to stamp... or slap... it out.

And, since we're on this topic, while we don't see much pure Arianism today, we do see some Semi-Arianism (or Macedonianism) floating about from time to time.

Semi-Arianism is a slightly softer version of Arianism. Rather than teaching that the Son was created, and therefore of a different essence than the Father, Semi-Arianism teaches that the Son was neither created nor uncreated in the same sense that other beings are created (meaning He was created, just in a different sense than anyone/anything else).

Macedonianism (also known as Pneumatomachism and Tropicism) is an anti-Nicene Creed heretical sect that denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost during the 4th and 5th centuries. While distinct from Arianism, some aspects of Macedonianism are similar in that they also reject Christ as being of the same substance as the Father (but regarded Him as of a similar substance as the Father, making them closer to Semi-Arianism). Because they believed that the Holy Ghost was a creation of the Son, the 381 First Council of Constantinople added phrases to the Nicene Creed to ensure it was known and taught that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and Son and is coequal with the Father and Son.

Anti-trinitarian heresies are a particular pet peeve of mine because they deny the most basic of our Christian beliefs, or attempt to make the idea of our unity in Trinity and Trinity in unity more palatable to "logic".  Doubt there, and why even bother being a Christian otherwise?  Anti-trinitarian heresies are pervasive today in various incarnations, often more subtle or in different form from Arianism, but they're still alive and kicking.  Maybe we need to take a page out of good ol' St. Nick's book and start slapping a few heretics of our own... at least mentally.

Theological Pet Peeves

Note: I originally wrote this two weeks ago (18 November, to be specific), and just haven't gotten back around to editing and post it between Thanksgiving, illness and travelling.  Finally getting there! -S

A few weeks ago was especially unnerving for me, hitting on many of the "theological pet peeves" I have, so I thought I might put together a brief commentary on each of them.  They're not in any particular order (other than how I thought of them).

1) "Accepting" vs. "Receiving" faith
While I generally understand what Christians mean when they ask, "When did you accept Jesus?", my mind immediately reacts with "SEMI-PELAGIANIST!!!"  I know it may seem like semantics, but in all the research I have been doing of late on Original Sin, I know that no one would ever "choose" faith.  We cannot choose spiritual good.  I've spent years trying to figure out how to explain this in a concise manner, and it finally dawned on me this week.  I've always said that our role in the creation of faith is passive, not active.  But finally, the right word to use instead of accept dawned on me.  It is receive.  We receive faith.  We may reject it (which is what everyone would do, were it not for the working of the Holy Ghost), but our receipt of  faith is entirely passive.  Putting the emphasis on our acceptance (or supposedly active) role in salvation is nothing short of Semi-Pelegianism, even if it isn't meant that way.  We have to be very precise in what we say, not be lazy or sloppy in theology.

2) Saying "just" in prayers
I don't know if there is necessarily anything theologically wrong with this, but I can't stand when people use the world "just" in prayers.  It's a filler, it's annoying and it just makes me want to scream.  Another thing that drives me nuts is when people mutter things under their breath in prayer.  Again, not sure there is really anything wrong with it, but I can't concentrate when I am listening to others when I'm supposed to be praying.  Interestingly, I don't think I've ever heard a Lutheran do either of those things.  I wonder why that is?

3) Dual Covenant vs. New Covenant Theology
With all that has gone on in Israel the past weeks, I keep seeing posts on Facebook about how America has to save Israel and (yes, some people have actually said this) how America was created to save Israel, even though Israel wasn't a nation until 150+ years after we were founded as a country.  This comes from a largely Dispensational idea that Israel must be restored before the return of Christ (something I've never found in the Bible).  What the Bible does make clear is the New Covenant, which is not just for Israel but for all in Jesus.  America may have strategic or other reasons to help or "save" Israel, but using Dispensational Theology with no Biblical basis to make political decisions terrifies me.

4) End Times Signs-seekers
Jesus told us that even He does know know when He is to return.  One of the frustrations that also comes from Dispensationalism is that there are those who continue to look for signs, even though we cannot know the hour or day when Jesus is to return.  From solar flares to the UN (which is, by the by, a misunderstanding of the Antichrist, who is a religious, NOT political, figure) to waiting for an invented Rapture, I seem to see something new at least weekly.  There are even those who claim that 21 December 2012, the day the Mayan Calendar supposedly predicts the end of the world, is also the day the Rapture will happen.  These attempts to read signs that aren't there just makes the rest of us Christians look silly and loony.  It's hard for anyone to take Christianity seriously when what is known about it is just plain goofy, and not actual Christian, Biblical doctrine.

5) "Baptism is just a symbol, but you must be fully immersed and not an infant for it to be valid."

If something is only "symbolic", why do you care how it is done?  What does it matter?  Sigh.

6) "You cross yourself?  Oh, you must be a Catholic."
Um... no.  I know many non-Catholics who cross themselves: Lutherans, Orthodox, Anglicans, etc.  I wish this was something more Christians did, but no, that doesn't make me Catholic.

7) "Lutherans are intellectual Christians."
For some reason, people seem to think this is an insult.  It isn't.  What's sad is that more Christians aren't "intellectual".  What I mean by that is that they know and understand the Bible, Theology, church history, other Denominations, early Church Fathers, etc.  So few seem to dig into the meat of Christianity, and it is sad.  Our faith is not just one of belief, but also of reason.  It is very logical, but you have to understand and study. That is the greatest disservice done by American Churches today--they seem to be nothing more than fluff and entertainment, and seriously lack substance.  Yes, that is a generalization.  But I hear so often we should ignore our differences for unity.  No.  We cannot have unity without understanding our differences, and why those differences exist.  Then we can have discussions about differences and perhaps come to a place of unity.  Ignoring them only makes the divisions worse.

8) Not capitalizing appropriate references to God
I've been typing up charts from a book written by a protestant theological professor which are largely helpful, but he seems incapable of capitalizing "He" in reference to God, or "The Word" in reference to the Bible, or many other similar examples.  It has reminded me how much that drives me nuts.  You don't have to capitalize everything, but when you're specifically referring to God or His Word, it is the right thing to do.

9) "Why do you have to be so arrogant?"
I get that a lot, and it is a fair criticism to some extent.  I tend to be a very snarky person by nature.  I'm very good at speaking the truth, I'm not so good at always doing it in love.  Rather than arrogance (which I can understand how it looks that way), though, I would submit it is confidence--confidence in my faith to the point that I would die for it.  I made that vow in my confirmation, and I take it very seriously.  I have a hard time even wanting to evangelize, because I see a broken church--and why on earth would I want to bring more people into something broken?  So I spend more (most) of my time attempting to correct the serious errors I see in Christendom today.  One thing I desperately miss about the early church is the condemnation of heresy.  The Roman Catholic Church still does this to some degree, but we need more of it.  There is so much heresy in the church today, and few seem to even realize it.  And so in my frustration and sadness over this, I tend to resort to snark.  For that I apologize.  I hope you will all understand it comes from a place of confidence in my faith and wanting to not see heresy in the church.

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen." -- Martin Luther

Sermon Notes: "It's more important for us to love each other, we shouldn't worry about Doctrine..."

Reformation Sunday
"God for Us"
Text: Matthew 11:12-15

We so often here something to the effect of, "It's more important for us to love each other, we shouldn't worry about Doctrine..." today in modern Christianity.  The problem?  That's Satan speaking.

DOCTRINE IS IMPORTANT!

It is the Devil's hobby to tempt humans to sin.  His real work is in false doctrine.  He aims for the heart of the church--our doctrine, our Gospel.

Modern Christianity (especially non-denominational and/or mega-churches) often forget about doctrine and teachings--sometimes even saying that it is bad to be so divisive.  They want to focus on "deeds, not creeds".  Sadly, these are age-old heresies that Satan has used since the death of Christ to drive others away from the Gospel (which saves) and into the Law (which condemns).  If Satan takes our Gospel, he has won and he has us in his grasp.

Sadly, we live in an age of doctrinal indifference in all church bodies--Lutheranism is not exempt from this.  It is the same old struggle, the church's struggle.  Our fight for the Gospel--our fight for truth and salvation--is the history of the church.  In fact, every book of the Bible (some more obviously than others) was written to correct doctrinal error.

None of this is special to our modern times or even the Reformation.  The church has had false teachers from the beginning.  The church has had many "reformers" along the way.  So what made Luther different?  While other "reformers" were crying out against the sins of individuals in Rome, Luther was focused on false doctrine and false teaching.  While others were grasping at mere feathers, Luther grabbed "the goose by the neck, and set a knife to the throat." (from Table Talk)

The Reformation was a time of great theological controversy.  The chief question of the day was, "How is a man to gain salvation?"  Luther's answer was in Christ alone, through no work of our own, through Faith Alone given to us by Grace Alone as given to us in Scripture Alone.  Works are a mere result of faith, not what give us faith, nor can they earn us any form of merit.

Luther stood not only against Rome, but all false teaching in all churches (especially Arminian, Calvinist, Radical Reformed and Zwinglian).  Those divisions were largely (at the time) over the Lord's Supper.  Luther wrote more about the Lord's Supper than any other doctrinal topic because he knew that the Lord's Supper is the Gospel.

The Reformation was not about Luther, but about Jesus, about restoring the Gospel to primacy in the church.

There are probably more false teachings  and teachers now than ever before.  The sum total of modern theology seems to be: "God is a nice guy who wants us to be happy."  But the Scriptures say more--much, much more.  The Scriptures teach Christ crucified.  The Scriptures teach the Gospel.

At the end, Pastor read a beautifully dramatic rendition of "A Mighty Fortress", a hymn we had already sung in the service.  The words are truly incredible.

1 A mighty fortress is our God,
A trusty shield and weapon;
He helps us free from ev'ry need
That hath us now o'ertaken.
The old evil foe
Now means deadly woe;
Deep guile and great might
Are his dread arms in fight;
On earth is not his equal.

2 With might of ours can naught be done,
Soon were our loss effected;
But for us fights the Valiant One,
Whom God Himself elected.
Ask ye, Who is this?
Jesus Christ it is.
Of Sabaoth Lord,
And there's none other God;
He holds the field forever.

3 Though devils all the world should fill,
All eager to devour us.
We tremble not, we fear no ill,
They shall not overpow'r us.
This world's prince may still
Scowl fierce as he will,
He can harm us none,
He's judged; the deed is done;
One little word can fell him.

4 The Word they still shall let remain
Nor any thanks have for it;
He's by our side upon the plain
With His good gifts and Spirit.
And take they our life,
Goods, fame, child, and wife,
Let these all be gone,
Our vict'ry has been won;
The Kingdom ours remaineth.

(My favorite part of Reformation Sunday are all the wonderful hymns we get to sing, including one of my all-time favorites, "Thy Strong Word".)

Heresy of the Week: Millerism

This week's heresy is one of the eschatology vein.  It is what happens you don't take God at His Word ("But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,but only the Father. Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come." Mark 13:32-33) and instead trust on your own cleverness to "know" or "divine" or "prophesy" about God and predict His return.

Millerism is an eschatological heresy of the 19th and 20th centuries. The founder of Millerism, William Miller, a Baptist lay minister, believed he could know through prophetic interpretation the date of the Second Coming (he guessed 1843, then 1844, clearly neither being correct, an event which was called "The Great Disappointment"). He initially kept this analysis to himself, but after sharing with a few skeptical acquaintances, he decided to start preaching and writing about this publicly. His articles were published all over America and even into other countries (such as Great Britain, Australia and Canada) and had a wide readership. After "The Great Disappointment", many left the Millerite movement, returning to their old denominations (most were originally Baptist, Presbyterian or Methodist), while a significant number became Quakers. Still others in the Millerite movement became the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and also significantly influenced the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Bahá’í also credits Millerism for the analysis of Christ’s return and said the timing was right, but the location was incorrect.

William Miller is just one in a long line of those who claimed to prophesy the return of Christ (for a long, but incomplete list, read here).  Since the time of Christ, there have been those who have claimed to know when He would come again, and perhaps more disturbing--many who claimed to be Christ who had returned.

Millerism is important, however, because it caused the founding of one denomination (Seventh-day Adventist), and heavily influenced another (Jehovah's Witness).  More than most false prophets of the end times, William Miller has had a lasting impact on many today, continuing to lead them astray and to put their faith in the false prophecies of men rather than the Word of God.

Even now, we have those saying it will be on 21 December this year (2012)--funny how that's the same day the Mayan calendar supposedly predicts the end of the world (it doesn't, it is just the end of one calendar and the beginning of another but that's a totally different story).  Sounds to me like someone just got lazy with that one.  But they have celebrity endorsements!  So it must be true... *sigh*

Attempting to predict the return of Christ when we are told very clearly in God's Word that the time is unknowable makes an utter mockery of our faith.  It makes other Christians look bad--guilt by association, because it seems the loudest are also the nuttiest.

Lutheran vs. "Lutheran"

As much as I tend to be harsh on other sects and denominations, I would be remiss if I did not discuss the conflict within the name "Lutheran".  Not all who claim that name share our Evangelical Catholic faith.

The way I see it, there are two kinds of Lutherans:

• Evangelical Catholics (Confessional, Quia Lutherans)
• Variata Lutherans (Pietist, Quanteus Lutherans)

Luther's Seal

What is a Lutheran?

Lutherans (Evangelical Catholics) believe in Sola Fida, Sola Gratia and Sola Scriptora: Faith Alone through Grace Alone as revealed to us in Scripture Alone.

Book of Concord

Lutherans subscribe to the Book of Concord, which clearly states our Orthodox doctrine and Biblical teachings on any theological topic of which you may think.  However, exactly how a Lutheran subscribes to the Book of Concord is very important, and this is where the "division" begins to appear.  A Quia subscriber says we subscribe to the Book of Concord because it is wholly faithful to Scripture.  A Quanteus subscriber says we subscribe to the Book of Concord only insofaras it is faithful to Scripture.

Augsburg Confession

We also have to understand the difference between the Unaltered Augsburg Confession (UAC) and the Variata.  

At the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, Lutheran princes presented the Augsburg Confession as our cornerstone declaration of faith.  That document, as presented at the Diet of Augsburg, is the Unaltered Augsburg Confession.  

The primary author of the Augsburg Confession, Philipp Melanchthon, decided to make changes to this document in 1540 and 1542 in an attempt to reconcile the Lutheran Church with the Geneva Church (John Calvin) by entirely changing the Orthodox "real presence" teaching of Holy Communion to the heretical "remembrance" teaching of John Calvin.  This is known as the Variata.

While I don't know if this is a strict rule of thumb, I do not know any Quia subscribers who subscribe to the Variata, nor do I know any Quanteus subscribers who subscribe to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession.

Pietism

This "creeping Calvinism" in the Variata is only the beginning, however, of the "liberalizing" of some who claim the name Lutheran.  In the late 17th century, the Pietism movement began with Philipp Jakob Spener. It was not only influential in Lutheranism, but also inspired the Methodist denomination (John Wesley) and the Brethren movement within Anabaptism (Alexander Mack).  Eventually, Pietism even influenced the Holiness Movement and Pentecostal churches.  This movement further confused and "protestantized" portions of the Lutheran church.

In the Pia desideria, written by Spener, six proposals as to how best to restore the life of the church were made (from Wikipedia):

1. the earnest and thorough study of the Bible in private meetings, ecclesiolae in ecclesia ("little churches within the church");
2. the Christian priesthood being universal, the laity should share in the spiritual government of the Church;
3. a knowledge of Christianity must be attended by the practice of it as its indispensable sign and supplement;
4. instead of merely didactic, and often bitter, attacks on the heterodox and unbelievers, a sympathetic and kindly treatment of them;
5. a reorganization of the theological training of the universities, giving more prominence to the devotional life; and
6. a different style of preaching, namely, in the place of pleasing rhetoric, the implanting of Christianity in the inner or new man, the soul of which is faith, and its effects the fruits of life.

Strangely, this sounds much like today's non-denominational Christianity, and more importantly, the mega-churches that have invaded and degraded the catholic Christianity in America.  Pietism also placed a significant emphasis on "simple" Christianity--reducing it to the lowest common denominator in an attempt to re-unify the Church (which, as we can see today, has not worked).

Who are American Lutherans?

In America, we have three predominant denominations of "Lutherans" (there are others, but smaller in membership):

• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA, or as I prefer, E?CA--I'll explain below)
• Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS, of which I am a member)
• Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS, often considered the most "conservative", but not the most "confessional")

What's the difference?

The ELCA is by far the most liberal of the three American "Lutheran" denominations.  They practice the ordination of women and homosexuals (if they are in a committed relationship--not necessarily even married).  They practice open communion (allowing anyone to commune, regardless of their belief on Holy Communion).  They claim on their official website to subscribe to the UAC, but I have never met an ELCA member or Pastor who does not subscribe to the Variata.  They are Quanteus subscribers to the Book of Concord.  They value social justice and heavily promote it on their official website.  The ELCA was formed after liberal members of the LCMS walked out of Seminary during the SeminEx (Seminary in Exile) starting in 1974.  These were seminarians, Pastors and Professors who wanted to "Calvinize" and liberalize the pure teaching of the Gospel.  I call them "E?CA" because they aren't Lutheran, but I'm not exactly sure what they are.  I don't even like them using the word "Evangelical", for that matter.

The LCMS is the most confessional of the three American "Lutheran" denominations.  They are Quia subscribers to the Book of Concord, and hold fast to the UAC.  While there is some creeping liberalism in this Synod, the current leadership (President Pr. Matthew Harrison) and a number of solidly confessional Pastors are helping to stamp out that trend and ensure that Evangelical Catholicism is synonymous with the LCMS in America.  There are remnants of thought from those who left in the 1970s to form the ELCA who want to transform the LCMS into another liberal synod, which, since they already have that option available in the ELCA, is absolutely silly to me.  Thanks to good leadership and a more confessional massing of Pastors than we've had in awhile, I am very hopeful that trend entirely goes away.

While WELS is certainly more conservative than the ELCA, they aren't quite the same as the LCMS.  From what I can tell, they are also Quia subscribers to the Book of Concord, and subscribe to the UAC.  The three main areas of difference between WELS and LCMS are over fellowship, the role of women in the church and the Doctrine of the Ministry.  Largely, though, they are a conservative and fairly confessional Synod (but much smaller in membership than the ELCA or LCMS).

What does this mean?

A meet and right Lutheran question, clearly I am of the opinion that the ELCA (E?CA) should not be considered Lutheran.  They do not hold to proper Lutheran or Evangelical teaching, nor do they seem to value basic Christian tenets in their faith.  I would even dare to say they are clearly a Pietist remnant, once that is dangerous to the name Lutheran in specific and to catholic Christianity in general.

On the other hand, both the LCMS and WELS (while slightly different) are much more conservative, confessional and in the vein of proper, Orthodox, Evangelical Catholic Lutheranism.

Lutheranism defined

The "cover photo" from my Facebook Page, taken from another solidly confessional Lutheran.

When I speak of Lutherans, I mean a Quia-subscribing, UAC-confessing, Evangelical Catholic, thoroughly catechized, confessional, orthodox, Christ-centered, cross-focused, catholic and apostolic, Word and Sacrament, Law and Gospel, traditional and liturgical Lutheran church.

Others who claim the name Lutheran, but are not even some of the above, are nothing more than Pietists, and I do not consider them to be Lutheran, no matter how frequently they use that name.  They are a blight on the name Lutheran and they do not represent our Evangelical Catholic faith.

Heresies of the Week: Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism

Semi-Pelagianism is my "favorite" heresy, not because it is good, but because it is so darn entrenched today in Christendom.

But, to better understand Semi-Pelagianism, we must first look at Pelagianism, so you actually get two heresies this week.

Pelagianism is a 4^th century heresy that denies that Original Sin tainted human nature (humanity is considered inherently good rather than fallen) and teaches that human will is able to choose good or evil without Divine aid.  It is also known as Limited Depravity.  In essence, they taught that while Adam’s sin sets a bad example, that action does not have consequences on his progeny.  The role of Jesus is to set the good example in contrast to Adam as well as providing atonement for sin.  Thus, every human has full control and responsibility for obeying the Gospel as well as for each sin.  Humans are sinners by choice; not victims of Original Sin, but criminals who need pardoning.  Mormonism is considered by some to be Pelagianist.  Pelagianism is the only heresy to also be condemned by every major sect of Protestantism as well as the Anglicans.  The Catholic Church condemned it on several occasions: Councils of Carthage (412, 416 and 418), the 431 Council of Ephesus, the 529 Council of Orange, and the 1546 Council of Trent.

In contrast, Semi-Pelagianism is a modified Pelagianism heresy which teaches that the beginning of faith is an act of free will, with grace interceding later to help grow faith (as opposed to full Pelagianism, which teaches all of faith is an act of man)—but grace is not fully needed, as man can choose to keep faith and choose good on his own.  The Roman Catholic Church’s teachings on faith (that the initiative comes from God, but man works in synergy with God through free will to come to faith) is a Semi-Pelagian teaching.  Because of their extreme emphasis on free will, Arminianism is also borderline Semi-Pelagianist (although the emphasis in Synergism is in a different order than Semi-Pelagianism).  It was originally thought to be the bridge between Augustinianism (emphasis on grace as taught by St. Augustine) and Pelagianism (emphasis on free will), but was condemned as heretical in 529 by the Second Council of Orange.  The 1577 Lutheran Epitome of the Formula of Concord also rejects Semi-Pelagianism.  

As mentioned in the description, both Roman Catholicism and Arminianism (the largest of the protestant sects as discussed in a previous post--comprising most of American protestantism, although I don't know anyone who would admit to being an Arminianist, even if they are) are at least partially Semi-Pelagian (which I will explain in further detail below).  

Before that, though, a little more about Pelagius, the heretic whose name was given to Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism.  Rev. Alex Klages wrote up a summary of Pelagius in two parts, found here and here.  Interestingly (probably because he is a Lutheran minister), he begins his post with this:

"I figured it was about time to dredge up one of the more major heretics, if for no other reason than the debate in which he and St. Augustine were engaged is still very much alive today. There are few true Pelagians, but I would assert that semi-Pelagianism is essentially the default theological position of North American culture." (emphasis mine)

Briefly, Pelagius...

• was an Irish preacher in the late 4th and early 5th centuries.
• was, by all accounts, a well-educated and pleasant man.
• wrote a well-received position on the Trinity, and was largely respect until his position on man's fallen (or lack thereof) state and his teaching that man can choose to stop sinning became known.
• made theological enemies with one of the greatest theologians, St. Augustine, over his heretical doctrine of Original Sin and the state of man.

Thank you, Google, for awesome image searches.  This appears to be the most common picture of Pelagius floating around the internet (sans the commentary on the side, which someone obviously added).  According to Wikipedia (the only source I could quickly find--and don't judge, I have several studies from my speech and debate days that say Wiki is by and large more accurate than any other encyclopaedia) this is a "17th century Calvinist print depicting Pelagius."

The controversy Pelagius started was in his answer to the following questions: 

• Can man not sin? 
• Is man inherently good or fallen?
• What is man's role in his faith and salvation?

There are essentially three positions in response to these questions: Pelagianism (1), Semi-Pelagianism (2) and Augustinianism (3) (paraphrasing Rev. Klages from his first part on Pelagius, since he so succinctly summarized this).

1. It is possible to not sin (posse non peccare).  Man is inherently good or neutral.  Man has free will in all situations to choose the spiritual correct thing.
2. It is possible to not sin (posse non peccare).  While man is inherently sinful (Original Sin), he isn't entirely fallen and still has the opportunity to choose good (more neutral).  Man has free will to "choose" and "initiate" faith apart from grace, but needs God's grace to intercede for it to grow (however, man can "choose" to keep faith apart from grace).
3. It is not possible not to sin (non posse non peccare).  Man is inherently sinful (Original Sin).  Apart from God's grace, man is unable to ever desire the spiritually correct thing.

Or, put another way (from Rev. Klages' Part Two on Pelagius):

Perhaps the best way of distinguishing between the three possible positions has to do with God’s grace vs. our part in salvation:

• Pelagian: one can be saved apart from God’s grace if one tries hard enough, although belief in Jesus makes it easier.
• Semi-Pelagian: God’s grace does most of the work, but there is always something left to the believer to “seal the deal,” whether that be personal preparation beforehand or good works after the moment of salvation.
• Augustinian: God’s grace does it all. The human will is not the determinant of salvation.

Lutheranism teaches, in line with Augustinianism, that:

• It is not possible not to sin (non posse non peccare).
• Man is inherently sinful (Original Sin).
• Apart from God's grace, man is unable to ever desire the spiritually correct thing (Isaiah 64:6).
• Because man is tainted by Original Sin and unable to desire the spiritually correct thing apart from God's grace, man has a passive rather than active role in receiving salvation.
• Man's "role" in salvation, if it may be called that, is to reject faith, not to receive it--because man can only desire spiritual evil apart from the grace of God; so no matter how much we think we would want it on our own, we cannot "choose" faith because of Original Sin... it is simply impossible to do this.

This teaching is also known as Monergism.

Conversely, Arminianism teaches, in line with Semi-Pelagianism, that:

• It is possible to not sin (posse non peccare).
• While man is inherently sinful (Original Sin), he isn't entirely fallen and still has the opportunity to choose good (and, indeed, must choose good because God can only offer faith, man must "receive" it).  
• God offers faith, but man has to "choose" to "accept" faith on their own, through "prevenient grace", which God gives to all sinners.
• Man's "role" in salvation, as a "response" to "prevenient grace", is to freely "choose" to "accept" faith in God
• Once man "accepts" faith, God justifies man and continues to give further grace to sanctify man.

The primary difference between Synergism and Semi-Pelagianism is that in the latter, man can choose to have faith without grace, whereas in the previous, man can only have choose to have faith as a "response" to "prevenient grace".  Synergism is a heresy that will be covered in further detail in a later week.

Roman Catholicism, too, teaches a modified Semi-Pelagianism, that:

• It is not possible not to sin (non posse non peccare).  
• Man is inherently sinful (Original Sin).
• Grace is the gift of God in Baptism.
• Grace overcomes the taint of Original Sin, and then, with the aid of that grace, man can choose to do the spiritually correct thing and earn a storehouse of merit sufficient to overcome the punishment for sin (i.e. one can willingly do spiritually correct things if they continue to build their storehouse of merit through penance and Communion).

Lutherans would consider this Semi-Pelagianism because it asserts that man's works help in their salvation, when, as Isaiah 64:6 says, our best works are but filthy rags.  The teachings of Purgatory and Indulgences further this Semi-Pelagian idea that we can "work off" our sins or "buy" merit that is freely given in faith and already sufficient from Christ.

Calvinism is usually considered to teach Monergism, which is largely correct (although an incorrect form of Monergism), but many Calvinist/Reformed churches are extremely Legalistic.  Legalism is another form of Semi-Pelagianism, because it teaches that you must keep the Law in order to be "good enough" for salvation.  This form of works-righteousness is certainly in the vein of Semi-Pelagianism, even if they correctly teach of man's total depravity (in their case, before salvation).

Rev. Klages' Second Part on Pelagius has other good examples of the prevalence of Semi-Pelagianism in the modern church (and has been an excellent resource for my post, thanks to Pr. Snyder for suggesting that blog!).  To assemble my initial summaries, I used largely the writings of Early Church Fathers (specifically, St. Augustine in this case) and New Advent, which while Catholic, is an excellent resource overall on heresies.

While there is nothing new under the sun, most heresies have died out by now and future "Heresy of the Week" posts will likely be shorter and from a more historic perspective (rather than tying them into the modern church).

Bible Study Notes: Revelation 20:1-6

We're working our way through Revelation (we touched on Revelation 19:17-21, but didn't spend much time there today) and are now dissecting the various interpretations of Revelation 20 and eschatology (study of the end times).  There will be more notes to follow over the next few weeks, as we continue reading through Revelation 20, but here's what we covered today.

There are four main eschatological views:

• Historic Premillennialism (not common anymore, actually existed somewhat before Christianity in Judaism)
• Dispensational Premillennialism (first taught by the Gnostic heretic Cerinthus in the mid-2nd century, largely developed in the 1830s-1870s and most common protestant, specifically Arminian, eschatological belief)
• Postmillennialism (popularity has waxed and waned, most popular at the turn of the 20th century but died out around WWI, slight resurgence today especially in Reformed, or Calvinist, churches)
• Amillennialism (the proper eschatological view subscribed to by Lutherans and Catholics) -- perhaps more properly called "Realized Millennialism" as "Amillennialism" is a derogatory misnomer (meaning literally "no millennium")

Another lovely white board drawing from Pr. Wolfmueller

All four eschatological beliefs have some similarities in their timelines:

• Death of Christ
• Resurrection and Ascension of Christ
• Gifting of the Holy Ghost to Christians
• <...something happens...>
• Resurrection of the Dead
• The Final Judgment
• Eternity

It's what happens in-between (the <...something happens...>) that is different, and in different orders, for each eschatological view.  Here are the "in-betweens" for each type:

Historic Premillennialism

• The church age
• Tribulation
• 2nd coming of Christ
• 1,000-years kingdom on earth (during which Satan is bound)
• "Satan's Little Season" (where he is loosed for the final battle)
• 2nd 2nd coming of Christ

Dispensational Premillennialism

• The church age
• Christ sort of comes back for the "rapture" (invented in the 1830s)
• 7 year tribulation: 3 years of "peace", then the Antichrist comes and persecutes the converted Jews
• (2nd) 2nd coming of Christ
• 1,000-years kingdom on earth (during which Satan is bound)
• "Satan's Little Season" (where he is loosed for the final battle)
• (3rd) 2nd coming of Christ

Postmillennialism

• The church age
• "Golden age"
• 1,000-years kingdom on earth (during which Satan is bound)
• "Satan's Little Season" (where he is loosed for the final battle)
• 2nd coming of Christ

Amillennialism

• The church age = 1,000-years kingdom (the death of Jesus caused Satan to be bound)
• "Satan's Little Season" (where he is loosed for the final battle)
• 2nd coming of Christ

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

What does Revelation 20:1-4 say about the end times?

• The Millennium begins with the binding of the devil (which is accomplished in the death and resurrection of Jesus)
• After the Millennium, Satan must be released for a time for the final battle
• The resurrection of the dead and final judgment follows

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

Now for a few notes on Dispensational Premillennialism:

• Teaches that God works in different "dispensations" or "economies" of salvation, usually 7:
• The Garden
• The Fall
• Noah
• The Patriarchs
• The Law
• The Church (or Grace)
• The End Times
• They base much of their teaching on the 70 weeks in Daniel (which are really week-years, or 490 years)
• Jesus was rejected by the Jews at 69 weeks
• There is a pause (called the "great prophetic comma") between Jesus and the 70th week
• The Rapture removes the church so God can "deal" with Israel in the 7 years Tribulation
• Question they can never answer: Is the 2nd coming at the rapture, after the Tribulation, or at the end before the final resurrection?
• They say that about 2/3rds of the Jews will become "believers" during the Tribulation, and 1/3rd will be killed in the Great Persecution by the Anti-Christ
• One of the three pillars of Dispensational Premillennialism is the Distinction between Israel and the Church (Dual-Covenant Theology)
• During the 1,000-years Kingdom, Jesus reigns on an earthly throne in Jerusalem and continues to offer sacrifices in the rebuilt temple (which is utterly ridiculous and unsettling, since He already made the final sacrifice on the cross)
• At the beginning of the 1,000-years kingdom, those raptured and who died in the Great Persecution during the Tribulation will be resurrected with heavenly bodies, but the believing Jews who are still alive will remain with their earthly bodies and can still marry, have children, and die of very old age (500+ years)
• The 5th or 6th generation of the Jewish converts will rebel and join with Satan in the final battle at the end of the 1,000-years kingdom
• Dispensational Premillennialism comes from the incorrect reading of the Bible as if it is about Israel, not Jesus
• Dispensational Premillennialists use Matthew 24:36-44, 1 Corinthians 15:50-58, and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 to "prove" the rapture, but that is through a misinterpretation of the texts (trying to get the text to say what they want it to instead of proper exegesis of Scripture interpreting Scripture)
• Dispensational Premillennialism teaches that Jesus was only crucified, died, buried, resurrected and ascended as "Plan B"; "Plan A" was to get the Jews to believe and He wasn't supposed to die (which is also utter nonsense)

In other words, Dispensational Premillennialism ends up looking like a ransom note, with snippets from various verses from various parts of the Bible all hobbled together to fit preconceived ideas rather than letting the clear Word of God interpret itself... and some of it, they honestly just made up.  The majority of Dispensational Premillennialism was invented in the mid-1800s.

Sermon Notes: Law and Gospel and the Two Kingdoms

This week's sermon came from our Gospel reading Matthew 9:1-8 (with references to our Old Testament reading from Exodus 20:1-8, 12-18).

Pastor prefaced the sermon with a note on politics, or more specifically, the two kingdoms and the role of law (the 10 Commandments, or our interpretation of Natural Law) in Christians deciding how to vote.

I won't recount the entire sermon, since the audio is online so you can listen for yourself, but I wanted to make a few observations about Two Kingdoms Theology in general (some of which comes from a previous Bible Study) as well as some of the points Pastor made both in the sermon and our discussion of it in Bible Study following service regarding the Christian's role in politics and voting (as well as the rest of the Sermon--since we can't have the Law without the Gospel!).

Regarding "Two Kingdoms Theology"

Two Kingdoms Theology refers to the Lutheran teaching of the proper distinction between the Left-hand Kingdom (or the Kingdom of Man) and the Right-hand Kingdom (or the Kingdom of God).  I personally consider Romans 13 to be the original separation of Church and State document.  By this, I don't mean that they are completely severed from each other at all, but as another Pastor reminded me, it shows the proper distinction of the Kingdoms, and more importantly, the proper role of a Christian in both Kingdoms.  

I also mean by "separation of Church and State" that a) theocracies are a BIG no-no (basically, preachers are preachers and rulers are rulers, the two roles should not be combined--that is, no blurring of the clear lines between the two Kingdoms); b) that the Left-hand Kingdom is meant to not interfere with the Right-hand Kingdom (First Amendment, anyone?); and c) Christians are called to be involved in government, not using government to advance Christianity, but rather, to advance Natural Law (which we'll get to in a minute).

For a better illustration, here are some of the differences between the two Kingdoms:

Left-hand Kingdom	Right-hand Kingdom
Kingdom of the Man (State)	Kingdom of God (Church)
Law	Gospel
Sword: Internal* and External**	Word, no swords
Power	Grace
Exists for Order	Exists for Mercy
External Righteousness	Internal Righteousness
Realm of Morals	Realm of Faith
Ruled by Reason	Ruled by Scripture

 *Internal Sword = police, etc.

**External Sword = military

Now, from the Christian (and particularly Lutheran) perspective, Natural Law is exemplified in the second table of the Ten Commandments.  The first table deals with the Right-hand Kingdom, or our faith in God, and the second table deals with the Left-hand Kingdom, or Natural Law and interaction with our neighbor.

From that perspective, here is how the Commandments shape up as compared to Natural Law (my own analysis based somewhat on Pastor's Voter's Guide to the 10 Commandments):

Commandment	Natural Law
4th Commandment: Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother, that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.	Establishes earthly authority  (not just parents, but “masters”: teachers, bosses, rulers, etc.; also places emphasis on a stable family unit)
5th Commandment: Thou shalt not murder.	“Do not encroach on other persons.” (keep in mind that “murder” ≠ “kill” -- that is, self-defense and justified wars do not fall under the “murder” category; also places emphasis on the government respecting all life)
6th Commandment: Thou shalt not commit adultery.	“Do all you have agreed to do.” (especially since from a state perspective, marriage is essentially contract law, and adultery would be a violation of your contract)
7th Commandment: Thou shalt not steal.	“Do not encroach on [other persons or] their property.” (economic issues and theft fall under this commandment--something interesting we discussed was that socialism would also fall under this commandment)
8th Commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.	“Do all you have agreed to do.” (again, contract law—also addresses slander)
9th Commandment: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house.	“Do not encroach on [other persons or] their property.” (eminent domain)
10th Commandment: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, not his maidservant, not his cattle, nor anything that is they neighbor’s.	“Do not encroach on [other persons or] their property.” (cross-applies to the 7th commandment and theft of personal property/items)

Of course, we can then argue how much of a role the government has in some of these issues.  Anyone who knows me politically knows I take a pretty extremely libertarian (or limited government) stance, especially when it comes to social issues, but that's a different discussion for a different blog.  But as you can see, the second table of the Ten Commandments works well with natural and common law (I used Richard Maybury's summary of common law above because it is that with which I am familiar and ridiculously succinct to boot at 17 total words).

Regarding Christians and Politics

A few brief notes from Pastor's sermon (these are the bullet points I wrote down, I've been taking sermon notes since confirmation):

• Many Pastors say that you must "Take your faith into the voting booth," but that is wrong
• It is not faith, but reason, by which we should vote because the Left-hand Kingdom is ruled by reason (the Right-hand Kingdom is ruled by faith)
• We should bring not the Apostle's Creed but the 10 Commandments into the voting booth
• We don't need to elect someone who is Orthodox, but someone who understands and values Natural Law
• Pagans and Christians should vote the same, because it is by reason and natural law that we should all cast our votes
• The 10 Commandments are the Christian's "Cliff Notes" of Natural Law
• Knowing the 10 Commandments makes us reasonable, keeping them makes us wise
• The State exists for order and the Law, the Church exists for mercy and the Gospel

Regarding the "Rest" of the Sermon

Now, before I go into the "rest" of the sermon, I wanted to briefly discuss Law and Gospel, since this is another fairly uniquely Lutheran thing--and is important to understand the distinction between to understand why this sermon was so well constructed.

The Law is what God demands of us, but because of Original Sin, we cannot fulfill.  The Gospel is the "good news" of God that forgives our sins and gives us what we cannot do on our own.  It is not simply Old vs. New Testament, nor is it always easy to distinguish in modern Christendom (sometimes even inside the Lutheran church).

I bring this up because, more obvious than usual, the Law and Gospel were very clearly defined in this sermon.  Our Left-hand Kingdom duty in politics is clearly covered the by Law.  But no good Lutheran sermon would be complete without the Gospel.  So today we had the story of the healing of the paralytic.  My notes:

• Jesus' words ("Take heart, My son; your sins are forgiven.") were likely shocking and offensive to the onlookers
• The man came for healing, not forgiveness of sins, why would a paralytic need forgiveness of sins?  Wouldn't he rather "need" his arms and legs healed?
• Jesus was questioned by the scribes, who thought Jesus was blaspheming
• Jesus poses an interesting question to the scribes: "Why do you think evil in your hearts?  For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'?"
• Both require higher power, but for us, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven' almost seem harder, not easier (luckily we have Jesus who does that for us), but it was the most important thing to say
• He forgives sins so that we may know the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive our sins
• Like many, the paralytic very well may have been consumed by thinking his disability was caused by his sin (which, in a way, it was--or specifically, his sin nature which brings death, disease and decay)
• Jesus wants all to know that nothing in life will prevent us from receiving forgiveness of our sin, even if we think we don't deserve it.
• Melancholy sometimes sets in when we think of the state of this world, especially politics (because it is the Law)--but the Gospel undoes this for us
• Christ tells us to take heart and be of good cheer--we are forgiven and He will come again

So, as you see, this brings it full-circle--the balance of Law and Gospel in another great sermon.  I spent a lot more time on the "politics" side of it than I did the actual sermon side--probably because I am surrounded by politics usually--so I would encourage you to listen to the sermon for yourself, since it brings a better balance than I did.