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. 

"Judge Not": What Does This REALLY Mean?

"But there is one more thing that we should be said about this text, because it is often used against Christians (or anyone, really) who would say that there's a right and a wrong in the world. ... Or especially thinking about the Supreme Court decision on Friday, when we say that marriage is for family, a man and a woman bound up together until death, we hear that same response, the words of Jesus quoted back to us, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."  Or this question, "Who are you to judge my love?" 

Now I think it is a bit ironic this weekend that the 'judge not' folks are rejoicing in the judgment of five people called judges.  But when Jesus forbids judging, He does not intend to destroy the law.  He's not smashing the Ten Commandments, like Moses in the wilderness.  He's not declaring an end of right and wrong. 

And the answer, by the way, to the question, "Who are you to judge?" is: "I'm a human being."  It's the fundamental act of human society, of ethics, to judge the things that we love, the things that we want, and the things that we do, to see if they are good or if they are bad. ... Making a judgment about what I love and what I want is the fundamental act of humanity, and the more we forget this, then the more lawless and dangerous our culture will become. 

But look, when Jesus says "Judge not," what He is doing is reserving the final judgment for Himself.  Jesus knows that if we are the judge, there are only two judgments that are possible: either the prideful judgment of ourselves and each other, that we're all good, which is the dangerous delusion leading to hell--self-justification and self-righteousness; or the despairing judgment that we are sinners beyond the hope of redemption.  Those are the only two options when man is judge.  But when Jesus is judge, there is a third, and a correct, and blessed option.  He judges us guilty of our sin--all of them--but then, by His blood, by His death, by His resurrection, by His lovingkindness, and by His mercy, He judges us--He judges you--to be innocent, clean, guiltless, righteous, and holy.  So we judge not, because Jesus, who died and rose again, is our judge in mercy and kindness."

Pr. Bryan Wolfmueller

Full sermon audio can be found here--it is well worth the listen, as this was the end of the sermon.

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!

Adult Confirmation: Introduction, Law/Gospel, Scripture

Today was the start of Adult Confirmation at my church.  I'm going just as a refresher (I was confirmed when I was 14) and so my husband would have company while attending.  Since I took copious notes (5 notebook pages), I thought I would share them here.

Catechism

What is a catechism? A catechism is the Bible boiled down, like Cliff Notes.  Luther's Small Catechism, the basis of our confirmation studies in the LCMS, consists of several parts:

• Six Chief Parts:
• 10 Commandments
• Apostles' Creed
• Lord's Prayer
• Baptism
• Confession and Absolution
• Lord's Supper
• Explanation (what is properly Luther's Small Catechism)
• Short explanation (added on later)

Law and Gospel

Boiled down even further, the Bible can be summed up in two words: Law and Gospel.  These two words are the very essence of the Bible.

Law	Gospel
Word of Command	Word of Promise
God’s “Do”s	God’s “Done” (it is finished)
Description of God’s Holiness and command to be holy like God	Declares “You are holy.” (by faith and not works)
Summarized in the 10 Commandments (Natural Law)	Summarized in the Creeds
Shows us our sin and the need for a Savior	Shows us our Savior
Can only condemn	Comforts
Threatens	Saves

There are 3 uses of the law:

1. As a Curb
2. As a Mirror
3. As a Guide (or rule)

The necessary conclusion of the Law is: I need help.  I need a Savior.

Old Testament Law is divided into three categories:

1. Moral Law (Natural Law, the 10 Commandments)
2. Civil Law (bound up to Israel, our civil law is now bound to secular governments)
3. Ceremonial Law (fulfilled in Christ)

Ceremonial law:

• Belongs only to the Old Testament
• Points us to Christ
• To now practice any ceremonial law is to deny the work, life, death, and resurrection of Christ: it denies Him as the fulfillment of the law and as Savior of the world

(an interesting note about Hebrew: the word for "whole burnt offering" is holocaust)

New Testament "ceremonial law":

• Baptism
• Confession and Absolution
• Lord's Supper

There are only two religions in the world:

• The Religion of Law (all religions except...)
• The Religion of Gospel (...Christianity)

It is very important for a proper distinction of Law and Gospel. "Glawspel" is nothing more than diluted law.  We confess that, outside of the Lutheran church, the proper distinction between Law and Gospel does not exist.

There are two sources for knowledge about God: Natural and Revealed.  Natural knowledge of God comes through Creation and the Conscience.  Revealed knowledge of God comes through Scripture.

We learn from Nature that God is:

• Big (creation)
• Good (order)
• Mad (we are bad)

Nature shows us only law.

Revealed to us in Scripture is:

• God's name
• Triune nature
• Salvation

The revealed God is Gospel.

Consciences can be broken when:

• It tells us we are guilty when we are not
• It tells us we are not guilty when we are
• It tells us we are condemned when we are saved

The Devil works on two things:

• Your conscience
• The Church

The Bible

This was the "Bible in 15 minutes" summary given by Pastor.

Old Testament:

• Written by the prophets
• Written in Hebrew
• 39 books in 5 'sections':
• Torah (Books of Moses, 5 books)
• History (12 books)
• Wisdom (5 books)
• Major Prophets (4 books)
• Minor Prophets (13 books)
• The major theme running through the whole Old Testament is the promise of Jesus, the seed--every word, every person, every event is driving you towards Christ.

Between the Testaments is the Apocrypha (mostly written in Greek).  We believe it to be helpful, but not sacred or inspired.

New Testament:

• Written by the Apostles
• Written in Greek
• 27 books in 5 'sections':
• Gospels (4 books)
• Each book follows the same basic pattern with two major sections in each: the birth and ministry of Jesus; and His death and resurrection
• Acts (history of the early Church, 1 book)
• Pauline Epistles (named for "to whom", 13 books)
• Catholic (universal) Epistles (named mostly for "by whom" because they were addressed to the whole church, 8 books)
• Prophesy (Revelations, 1 book)
• Three major authors in the New Testament:
• Luke: author of Luke and Acts
• Paul: oversaw the writing of the Gospel of Luke and book of Acts, authored the 13 Pauline Epistles
• Peter: oversaw the writing of the Gospel of Mark, authored 1 and 2 Peter

Next week, we tackle the first table of the law (Commandments 1-3, by the Lutheran numbering--there are about 5 different ways to number the Commandments, which we will talk about next week).

Hopefully you can make sense of my notes, if not--please comment and I'll be happy to clarify!

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.

The Office of the Pope and the/an "Antichrist"

I know, to my Roman Catholic friends, that sounds very harsh.  So instead of presenting the Lutheran perspective on this (which you may read at the link), I'd like to give you just the words of the Roman Catholic Church on this teaching, with minor commentary on the passages.  I've tried to keep everything in context, although some passages are rather lengthy.  I included links to where the entire documents I quote from can be read in full so that you can investigate the context for yourself if you so choose.

The purpose of this post is not so much to change the minds of my Roman Catholic friends, but rather to explain where I come from when I say that the office of the Pope is an Antichrist because I know it angers some of them (and from their perspective, I can understand why).

Before that, however, I would be remiss if I didn't define "Antichrist".  Contrary to what Dispensationalists, Classic Pre-Millennialists, and Post-Millennialists errantly teach, the Antichrist is a religious, not political, figure.  There is not only one, but many, Antichrists (1 John 2:18).  An Antichrist is anyone who puts themself in the place of God or who promulgates false teaching.  I could easily make a laundry list of protestants who certainly fit the latter portion of that definition (for example, I would include folks like Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Patricia King, Beth Moore, Charles Finney, Jacobus Arminus, and maybe to a lesser extent, even John Calvin--and we haven't even gotten to the heretics I write about weekly).

The Christian Cyclopedia defines 'Antichrist' as:

Term used in the NT (1) of all false teachers (1 John 2:18; 4:3) and (2) of one outstanding adversary of Christ (1 John 2:18). Characteristics of the Antichrist are mentioned, e.g., in Daniel 11; 2 Thessalonians 2.

As to why Lutherans consider the Office of the Pope to be an "Antichrist", I give you the following Roman Catholic documents.  Keeping the definition of Antichrists above in mind (anyone who puts themselves in the place of God or who promulgates false teaching), the words below kind of speak for themselves.


From the Bull Unam Sanctam (1302):

"Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter].  Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' "

Vicar means "to stand in place of".  The Pope, as "Vicar of Christ", stands in place of Christ since they cannot be two, but one.  This is essentially their first argument, that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, to the Pope having dominion over the Left and Right Hand Kingdoms (a discussion for another time).

"This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]*. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christians are subject to anyone but God (not the Pope, not Peter, not anyone).  The only way for Catholics to make the argument that all humans are subject to the Pontiff is by saying the Pope stands in place of Christ.  This, then, would fall under both false teaching and placing oneself in the place of Christ, both of which fall under the definition of an "Antichrist".

* Probably not the time for this discussion, but Jesus' statement "On this rock I shall build my Church" refers to Peter's confession ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."), not Peter in specific.  Additionally, "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven," etc. refers to the Office of the Keys, not Peter specifically.  A simple look at the original text in Greek makes this very clear.


From Session 6 of the Council of Florence (1439):

"We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons."

Again, nowhere in Scripture is the Pope (or anyone but God) given "primacy" over the world, nor is Peter or the line of Popes given authority to stand as the "Vicar of Christ", nor is anyone but God the Father of all Christians.  It is dangerous to put one's trust in man rather than God, especially when God gives no man such status.


Interestingly, The Council of Trent (following the Lutheran and protestant reformations) does not mention the Pope (at least on this topic).  Considering it was such a point of contention, and that both Lutherans and protestants raged in many ways against the Pope, one would think that would be the prime topic of such a council.


From Session 4 of Vatican I (1870), First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ:

"4. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.   

5. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the Church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41]."

Christ, not Peter (or the Office of the Roman Pontiff) is the Cornerstone and foundation of the Church.

"6. And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the Church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation, we judge it necessary, with the approbation of the Sacred Council, and for the protection, defense and growth of the Catholic flock, to propound the doctrine concerning the 1. institution, 2. permanence and 3. nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, upon which the strength and coherence of the whole Church depends."

The strength of the catholic church (universal church) is faith in Christ, not faith in the primacy of the Pope.



From Session 4 of Vatican I (1870), Chapter 4:

"6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.  Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60]."

In other words, Peter never sinned in his teaching and the Pope (office) has never sinned in its teaching.  Nevermind that Peter was called "Satan" by Christ and told to get behind him (Matthew 16:13-23, the previous verses included for context--just after Peter's confession of faith that is the foundation of the church, he dares to rebuke the Lord and is rebuked himself), denied Christ three times (the only mortal sin is denial of God and blasphemy of the Holy Ghost--Matthew 26:71-75, Mark 14:66-68, Luke 22:54-62, and John 18:15-27), hypocritically participated with the Judaizers when it suited him (Galatians 2:11-21); and nevermind that Catholic doctrine has 'evolved' and sometimes contradicts itself because of the proclamations of various Popes.  No, none have ever erred or sinned in their teaching, including Peter.  (Sorry, I really was trying to keep the snark to a minimum...)

"7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell."

See the previous comment.  Always speaking the truth and with never-failing faith.  Was Peter's faith never-failing when he denied Christ?  Was he truthful when he denied his Savior?  When he rebuked Jesus?  When he participated with the Judaizers (a heretical sect, I might add)?

"9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA ["from the chair"], that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.  So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

Always truthful, never-failing faith and now infallible (a person who cannot fail, as opposed to inerrant, meaning without error in fact).  And yet the evidence is to the contrary.  Peter himself was clearly not perfect, not always truthful, and not always faithful to God.  He was a man, just like the rest of us.


From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (note: I removed the footnotes for readability, if you want to see those, they are at the link):

"882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

Again, the Pope as the "Vicar of Christ" or "the one who stands in the place of Christ".

"891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself."

In other words, the Ex Cathedra declarations of the Pope are to be viewed and believed as if it was Scripture itself.

"892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it."

And here, that the non-Ex Cathedra declarations are to be adhered to with "religious assent", while distinct from the "assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it."  In other words, not quite infallible, but it almost might as well be.


Finally, from Vatican II (1965):

"2. In this Church of Christ the Roman pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the feeding of His sheep and lambs, enjoys supreme, full, immediate, and universal authority over the care of souls by divine institution. Therefore, as pastor of all the faithful, he is sent to provide for the common good of the universal Church and for the good of the individual churches. Hence, he holds a primacy of ordinary power over all the churches."

Once again, the Office of the Pope (the Roman Pontiff) in the place of God the Father and God the Son.  Nowhere in Scripture is this power given to any human.


A few brief notes in closing.

In Confession and Absolution, a Lutheran minister would say, "In the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ, I forgive all your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."  This power comes from Matthew 16:19, where the Office of the Keys (all ministers of God) are given the power to bind and loose sins.  This is not the same as proclaiming oneself the "Vicar of Christ", because this power was given to ministers by Christ--anything beyond that was not a power given to the pastors and ministers.

There is no need for the office of infallibility because our doctrine is clear and does not change: our doctrine comes from Scripture, and no utterances of man should ever be held on the same level as Scripture.

An interesting thought from when we did a study on this in Church: the Roman Catholic Church has but one Sacrament, the Pope.  Because all power and authority are given to the Pope according to Roman Catholic teaching, all sacraments would lead back to him rather than God.

At some point, in a separate post, I will write about the three reasons why the Pope is not the head of both the Left-Hand and Right-Hand Kingdoms as he claims.  If anything, he would "rule" in (but not be the head of) the Right-Hand Kingdom alone and his (meaning the office as a whole) intrusion into the Left-Hand Kingdom has caused many problems throughout history.

Bible Study Notes: What's the Difference?

Now that Revelations is wrapped up, my church is doing a study on comparative symbolics, or what the differences in doctrine are between 10 different denominations on 17 different topics.  While I will probably not be at most of those classes (as I am supposed to be teaching another class at the same time), I did get to attend the introduction, and I'll get the notes from each class to hopefully highlight here.

The 10 denominations being looked at in this study are (in parenthesis you'll see the confessions of each church body we are using for these discussions--as you go down the list, it becomes harder to find actual written statements of doctrine for each denomination):

• Lutheran (Book of Concord)
• Roman Catholic (Catholic Catechism, Trent, Vatican II)
• Eastern Orthodox (Larger Catechism)
• Anglican/Episcopalian (39 Articles)
• Presbyterian/Reformed/Calvinist (Westminster Confession)
• Methodist/Weslyan (Methodist Articles of Religion)
• Baptist (Baptist Faith and Message)
• Evangelical/Non-Denominational (Calvary Chapel)
• Pentecostal/Assemblies of God (International Pentecostal Holiness Church Beliefs)
• Liberal (A Guide to the Study of the Christian Religion)

The 17 doctrines to be discussed are:

• Scripture/Authority
• God/The Trinity
• Creation
• Man's Will
• The Incarnation
• Salvation
• Original Sin
• Law and Gospel
• Justification
• Sanctification
• Church
• Baptism
• Confession and Absolution
• The Lord's Supper
• Worship
• The Ministry
• Vocation/Citizenship
• The End Times

Pastor included a great chart of the denominational family tree for reference (might be a little hard to read this way, I'll see if I can get it in a more readable format at some point).

For many, the immediate question when anyone does this is something along the lines of, "Why do you have to be so divisive?"  Well, we're not.  Quite the opposite.  In doing this, and getting other Christians to realize there are stark differences (many of which are NOT Biblical teachings), we would hope for unity of faith and love, to have the church be of one mind.  How likely that is to occur is yet to be seen, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.  Additionally, it is the duty of all Christians to combat error and false doctrine.  Because we in the LCMS practice closed communion for that very reason--because unity in teaching must come before unity in fellowship--a great resource on where in Scripture we are commanded to do just this can be found here.

Finally, here are some notes I had from the class.

• What distinguishes Lutheranism is not history, geography, etc., but doctrine
• Many end up in a church "accidentally" (i.e. my parents were "X", so I am as well)--at some point we need to make our belief purposeful
• How do we know what a church believes?  Is it what a church teaches, or what subscribers actually believe?
• Every false doctrine, in one way or another, takes away from the clarity and peace of the Gospel
• Jesus commands us to unity in doctrine, to have His church be of one mind
• Unity is two-fold: in the proclamation of the Gospel, and in the benefit of the Gospel (many, if not most, denominations agree on the previous, it is the latter where false teaching creep in)
• The root of false doctrine was in the Garden of Eden: "Did God really say...?"

New Year Update

I know it is a little belated, seeing as we are already a week into the new year, but better late than never.

Intro and Warning

Briefly, for those new here, my name is Sarah.  I'm 23, I'll be 24 in May of this year (2013).  I'm married to a pretty awesome guy, and we are expecting our first child on our first anniversary--28 April 2013.  I am a political consultant and campaign strategist in the beautiful foothills of Colorado, a state to which I am native.  I'm very geeky and nerdy (old school Sci-Fi, Tolkein, Stargate, X-Files, etc.), I love to read and write and learn new things, I'm a rocker chick when it comes to music (although I'm a classically trained pianist and have a great affinity for classical music as well), I love to swing and ballroom dance when I can, and theology is my passion.

When it comes to theology, I am a cradle Lutheran. I was baptized when I was two weeks old, and confirmed in the Lutheran church. I am extremely conservative and confessional when it comes to my theology.  Succinctly put, I am 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.

For those new to this blog, here is a warning (and reminder to those who aren't new): this blog is rated "L" for Lutheran.

I'm an equal opportunity theological offender, and have no problem taking on any topic or any denomination (including my own).  Mostly, I'm in the business of heresy-hunting and attempting to bring folks around to orthodoxy, although I admit that my methods probably don't exactly make those I wouldn't consider to be orthodox want to listen.

Perhaps better put, I'm a terrible Christian--I readily and openly admit that I stink at evangelism, which is kind of what we are commanded to do: go and make disciples of all nations.  That's because, in my analytical mind, I can't imagine wanting anyone to join something as broken, heretical and unorthodox as much of American Christendom has become--so I will leave that work to those better equipped and without my process of thinking.  What I can do, what I feel I must do, is "evangelize" to those already claiming the name Christian, but who don't seem to understand what it means.  More than that, I want to equip those who are orthodox to be able to give an answer for the hope that lies within them to the world--to Christians and non-Christians alike.

I know I have a tendency to be snarky and perhaps too blunt, but please understand this comes from a place of earnest and the willingness to stake my life on my faith--I'm not doing it just to be obnoxious, I promise.

New Year, New Posts

With those formalities out of the way, I wanted to lay out a bit of a plan for this blog over the next year.

• Every Monday, I try to put out a "heresy of the week" post.  Some weeks, I do more than one heresy because of how related they are--and some weeks, I don't always get to it on Mondays.  This seems to be my most consistent topic for posting, which is good--and I plan to keep that up.
• While I have a huge backlog of posts to make on the subjects, I also do "Bible study notes" and "sermon notes" posts when I can (part of my goal this year is to get caught up and be more regular about those posts).
• One of my other goals this year, besides being more consistent in posting here, is to finally get back into consistent study of Koine Greek.  In fact, I've decided that for Lent, in addition to giving something up (haven't decided that that will be yet), I will be attempting to establish two new habits, one of which will be to spend 15-60 minutes a day on Greek.  As I'm doing that, it is my hope to be posting on that topic as a means of helping me to be accountable (maybe a "Greek Word of the Week" post?).
• Currently in the queue, I have posts in progress on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (or, why Lutherans believe that the Office of the Pope is an antichrist), the role of the Pope in the Two Kingdoms, and the proper role of women in the church.  Hopefully I'll have those all finished and up in the next week or two, but no promises.  As always, I'll have more posts on various topics as I get the idea for them and/or as time permits.  This aren't going to be quite as consistent as other posts.

Of course... all of this may fall to the wayside after my baby is born, at least for the first few months.  But having a plan will hopefully help me keep on track before 28 April (or thereabouts) and once I get over the sleep deprivation and lack of free time that I know comes with the first few months of baby--it may be wildly optimistic of me to think I'll actually have time for this at all after the baby is born, but I'll keep that optimism for now.

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.

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

"Sharing" Jesus and Our Faith (or... Flabby Theological Language)

After seeing an excellent quote from Pr. Donavon Reily on Facebook (like I see at least a few times a week), I share it.  And such a fascinating discussion ensued, I thought it would be worth documenting here as well.  I offer it to you without my commentary, but would be interested in your thoughts or comments on "sharing" vs. "fellowship" or "communion".

The initial quote (from Pr. Reily) says:

‎"Christians are not called and sent to share Jesus or worse, share their faith... We are to preach Christ, and Him crucified, for the forgiveness of sins. The world doesn't need us to share Jesus with them, they need to hear of God's free choosing of them through Jesus' dying and rising "for you." They don't need a toe, or a spleen, or a wisp of hair. They need Jesus: all of Him, or nothing at all."

To which he added:

"As a brother-pastor noted, because we have transliterated the word "koinonia" into "share," we now have "sharing" instead of "fellowship," or, "communion." In other words, we've allowing flabby language into our high-speed, highly-tuned theology."

And, of course, that is from where I got the title for this post. Then a friend of Pr. Reily, Larry Griffin, added:

"English Standard Version (©2001) 'and I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the sake of Christ.'"

Here is where it gets fun. from Pr. Riley:

"Larry Griffin, you can cite a poor (Reformed) translation, but that doesn't resolve the matter. It's properly translated as ‘close association, fellowship.’ That is, for example, ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς κοινωνίαν ἔχητε μεθ’ ἡμῶν ‘in order that you may have fellowship with us’ 1 Jn 1:3; δἰ οὗ ἐκλήθητε εἰς κοινωνίαν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ‘through whom you were called to have fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ’ 1 Cor 1:9."

Pr. David Juhl:

"The so-called "Koinonia Project" is not about "sharing" each other's faith. It is about restoring communion with one another. The German word is "Gemeinschaft", often translated "fellowship", but that doesn't catch what the Greek is saying. κοινωνία is oneness in the faith, a oneness that is not shared but believed. Therefore, we work together toward κοινωνία, oneness, intimacy of doctrine, not sharing."

Larry Griffin:

"I'm just not ready to say that the word "share" can never be used in a proper way. I am not a big fan of the word, but I have used it as an opposite of "keeping to myself" the truths that set us free."

Pr. Reily:

"You can use "share" as you so choose, but the Greek and the German don't support you. You're adding your own spin to the word. And that's what I (we) are getting at. It's not about what you want it to mean, but what the sources define it as ... as my brother also notes, "The word for "to share" as in to give another a portion of something is συγκοινωνέω." "

Pr. Juhl:

"Back to German for a bit. κοινωνία is not tranlated "Anteil". Anteil is "share" or "portion". The German word is "Gemeinschaft". Gemeinschaft is "community" or better "communion". Anteil denotes a part of something. Gemeinschaft is the fullness of something. Frankly, Brother Griffin, I would rather have the fullness, the Gemeinschaft, rather than the Anteil, the portion. I will grant you that "share" is a good word than can be used in a good way. I submit that "share" is not the best word to be used for κοινωνία. Let us not Anteil the κοινωνία, but Gemeinschaft!"

Pr. Brandt Hoffman:

"κοινωνία isn't some silly "mission project" or some popular buzz word. It is an actual reflection of the faith God has given us in His Word and Sacraments. There is a unity which is created by God's Holy Spirit. Consider Acts 4:32 and the use of koivwvia...
Τοῦ δὲ πλήθους τῶν πιστευσάντων ἦν καρδία καὶ ψυχὴ μία, καὶ οὐδὲ εἷς τι τῶν ὑπαρχόντων αὐτῷ ἔλεγεν ἴδιον εἶναι ἀλλʼ ἦν αὐτοῖς ἅπαντα κοινά. 

That isn't a mission project, or some sort of bogus "sharing" language. That is the full and complete giving of EVERYTHING of Christ Himself. His very proclamation IS "fellowship" / "Life Together". The life we have together IS CHRIST."

Pr. Reily

"Jacob Ehrhard writes: Koinonia is a noun, "a share of" something common.

If you run the verb form koinoneo, you get these uses in the NT (the thing which is shared is in parentheses):
Gal 6:6 (all good things, money, offerings)
Rom 12:13 (the needs of the saints)
Rom 15:27 (to have a share in the spirit with the Gentiles who have come to faith)
1 Tim 5:22 (sin)
2 John 11 (wicked works)
Heb 2:14 (flesh and blood of Jesus!)
1 Pet 4:13 (Christ's sufferings!)
And the best is Phil 4:15 (to have a share in the giving and receiving of St. Paul).

In most of these cases, the respective form of koinoneo has the understanding of "to have a share in" in a passive sense, rather than an active sharing of something that you have.

Also, in nearly every case, the sharing takes place with those who are already believers, that is, the "koino" stuff takes place between Christians and not from believers to unbelievers. In the cases where something is shared with an unbeliever, it's sin and wickedness."

Pr. Hoffman:

"Bringing down the requirements for Olympics runners so that guys like me can run in the Olympics only ruins the Olympics. The same is true for allowing flabby language into our high-speed, highly-tuned theology."

Reformation Day

Today, for many individuals, is a strange custom known as "Halloween".  I never really saw the point in it, so I generally choose to avoid participating in it (costumes are fun, though, so I enjoy the dances, parties and such that spring up at this time of year with masks and disguises).

However, for Lutherans, today is Reformation Day.  495 years ago on 31 October, 1517, Dr. Martin Luther nailed his "Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences" on the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church.  At that time, the door was much like a bulletin board, with all forms of notices posted there--this notice being one for debate on the topic of Indulgences.

Luther's Rose (or Luther's Seal), enshrining the core of our beliefs in Sola Fida, Sola Gratia and Sola Scriptora: Faith Alone by Grace Alone as taught to us in Scripture Alone. 

Before I get into more about the Theses, I came across two interesting links in looking for further information on this topic.  One from what appears to be a Catholic source, actually speaks very kindly of the Theses, which is encouraging to me and I would like to hear from my Catholic friends to see if this is common sentiment or just someone posting on the internet.  Another is an article from The Economist on 17 December 2011, addressing how Luther "went viral" in his day.  If you haven't seen the more recent Luther movie, you're missing out.  Below you can watch the 95 Theses scene--but seriously, watch the whole movie as soon as possible.  It is excellent.




Why did Luther write these 95 Theses in the first place?  Briefly, Luther strongly (and rightly) opposed the practice of purchasing the forgiveness of sins and giving false hope to sinners and believers about their salvation and forgiveness being just a few coins away.

Indulgences are pieces of paper you can could once buy (edit: per a Catholic friend, you cannot still purchase indulgences, however you may still earn or gain them and it appears to me the practice has been somewhat reformed, addressing issues of contrition and repentance now at least) from the Roman Catholic Church for absolution of your sins, or removing dead relatives from Purgatory.  Johann Tetzel, the hand of Pope Leo X in the selling of indulgences, had a nice little ditty: "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs!"  These pieces of paper are, of course, utterly meaningless for forgiveness of sins (particularly since Purgatory does not even exist) and were simply a means of raising money for building projects and to finance the exceedingly extravagant lifestyle of the Pope at that time.  In order to sell more indulgences, the priest Tetzel began to claim that all sins (past, present and future, with no further need for confession and absolution) were forgiven with his indulgences--for just a little more money.

Additionally, it was said that veneration of relics would allow the sinner to receive pardon for their sins by "skipping" Purgatory.  Wittenberg, because of Prince Frederick III of Saxony, held a large collection of relics at that time, reportedly over 5,000--and, like most relics, they were frauds.

Luther was rightly outraged that the Church would charge money for a gift freely offered and already paid for by Christ.  In order to expose this fraud, Luther, being a scholar, requested a public debate at the University of Wittenberg, with the 95 Theses being the outline of topics for discussion.  They also were the challenge to anyone who would come and defend the appalling practice of selling Indulgences.

After posting the 95 Theses, Luther also sent copies to the Archbishop Albert of Mainz (who authorized the selling of Indulgences in his area) and to the Bishop of Brandenburg, Luther's superior.  Within two weeks, the Theses had spread across the country with the aid of the printing press.  Within two months, copies could be found all over Europe.  In January 1518, friends of Luther's translated the Theses from Latin to German, and further distributed them so that even the common man could understand.

Not much happened until Albert of Mainz decided to score some political points with the Pope.  As mentioned below, had Albert not made the "big deal" of these theses and that monk he had, Luther would likely have been largely unknown today.  The response to Luther, besides greatly angering Johann Tetzel, came on 15 June, 1520 from Pope Leo X in the Exsurge Domine.

Within two years, Wittenberg had turned away from many (what they considered to be heretical) Catholic practices and Luther became much more popular than he ever desired.  From testimony of witnesses to his own writings, he never meant to start a "revolution", merely sought to reform what he considered false teachings within the Church he so dearly loved.  From there, Luther was excommunicated within a few years, within a decade, the Lutheran Princes issued the Augsburg Confession, and the rest, as they say, is history.

To the credit of the Roman Catholic Church, some of the most egregious practices that Luther opposed have been addressed at least to some extent, but it took centuries for that to occur.  By then, they had already severed ties with Luther, and Lutherans, and certainly did not address all concerns that were later laid out in the Augsburg Confession and other portions of the Book of Concord.

To close, I thought I would share a few quotes from those far more eloquent and smart than I.

Some great general commentary on Luther's role in the Reformation from Dr. Gene Edward Veith:

"Luther's goal was to reform the church, but the church repudiated him and what he was trying to do. It is often said that Luther split from the Roman Catholic Church. That is not true. He was thrown out of the Roman Catholic Church. There is a huge difference. Luther was no schismatic. He did not start some new religion on his own authority. He did not dream up some new theology. He was trying to bring the church back to its true nature and its true message, as defined by the Word of God, which the church itself professed to believe. 

The Roman Church, in turn, refused to take the concerns seriously, much less give them a genuine hearing. The pope refused to address even the most flagrant abuses that were obvious to everyone. Instead of listening to those who questioned its direction, the Roman Church tried to destroy them. Thus the Roman Catholic Church created Protestantism." 

Interesting perspective on what might have been had not a church bureaucrat seized what he thought was an opportunity to gain favor with Rome from Pr. Donavon Riley:

"What happened when Luther posted the 95 Theses on the church door? Nothing. An irrelevant monk posted his theses for academic debate on the church doors in an irrelevant city, in an irrelevant part of Saxony, known for its fish, beer, and prostitutes. Several months later the theses were read by Albrecht, "Bishop" of Mainz, who used them as an [political] opportunity for himself to garner more favors from Rome. If not for him ... Obscurity for our frail friar."

"The World's Most Interesting Reformer..."