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.

Heresy of the Week: Asceticism

This week's heresy is often repeated in other heresies (especially Gnostic-family ones).  It's fairly simple, and deals less directly with doctrine and more with behavior (although practicers of Asceticism believed their behavior helped them earn or hurry along their salvation, which is a Pelagianism heresy as noted below, and utterly heretical).

Asceticism is the belief that abstaining from “worldly pleasure” can help bring about salvation and liberation from mortal coils. This was a common practice of some early church fathers (at least insofar as many sought to distance themselves from the world in any way they could), and is still used in some protestant churches today. This is a Legalism heresy, and by extension, a Pelagianism-family heresy as well.

The biggest issue is when focus on the Law over the Gospel becomes disproportionate.  Any teaching that you can do something to help "earn" your salvation is dangerous, because it creates distrust and despair ("Did I do enough to make sure I am saved?" or something similar should never be a question on the lips or mind of a Christian).  That is what makes Pelagianism and Pelagianistic heresies so dangerous.

(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.

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".)

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.

The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church

A brief post on this topic.  As I have been researching for my book (tentatively titled "Here I (Still) Stand" -- more about it later), I came across an excellent resource by Heinrich Schmid called "The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church".  Using source texts (Lutheran theologians closest to the time of the Reformation and not more than a generation or two removed from Luther), Heinrich assembled an incredibly thorough and well-documented Biblical defense of Lutheran teachings and excellent apologetics resource in the mid 19th century.

For those interest, it is available for free online in several places, including Project Wittenberg and Google Books.  It is rather lengthy (over 700 pages), but well worth having on hand, especially as a Lutheran, should someone ask a question that you don't always know how to answer.  Someone far more studied, learned and coherent than I has already done much of the work in compiling all the necessary resources into one easy-to-use source.

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.

Heresies Family Trees

My heresies project is far from complete (and it is just a small portion of a much larger project anyways, my goal is to have it totally done by 2017--yes, I think it will take me that long, thanks to my inability to focus on one thing for too long without getting bored or distracted, and other things going on in my life... like baby in 6-ish months), so as I expand it further and/or receive edits from various individuals, this will be updated.

For now, here is what I have come up with for a family trees of heresies.  If you notice an error in categorizing, or a heresy you know of that is missing from the list, please comment and I will correct/look into adding!

Also, keep in mind that with some of these, I just made up names for to describe heresies that I see but couldn't find another name already in use for (such as "Osteenism"/"Prosperitism" to cover the false teaching of the Prosperity Gospel).

Note: I plan on starting a "Heresy of the Week" post (thanks to the suggestion of a friend), hopefully every Monday, on 15 October.  Any votes for the first heresy you'd like to learn more about?  If I hear nothing, we'll default to my "favorite" (not because it is good, but because it's the most prevalent in Christendom today from my perspective) to kick this off.  Anyone want to guess which heresy that is?

Antidicomarian

• Antidicomarianism
• Bonosianism
• Helvidianism
• Jovinianism

Antitrinitarian

• Arianism (also Arian)
• Deism
• Dystheism
• Macedonianism (also known as Pneumatomachism, Tropicism) (also Arian)
• Marcionism (also Gnostic)
• Mohammedanism (also Arian)
• Monarchianism (also Arian)
• Adoptionism (also known as Dynamic Monarchianism) (also Arian)
• Paulicianism (also Arian, Gnostic)
• Psilanthropism (also Arian)
• Samosatenism (also Arian)
• Unitarianism (also Pelagian)
• Christadelphianism (also Pelagian)
• Sabellianism (also known as Modalism) (also Arian)
• Noeticism
• Patripassianism (also known as Patripassionism) (also Arian)
• Photinianism (also Arian)
• Polytheism
• Socinianism (also Gnostic)
• Subordinationism (also Arian)
• Tritheism
• Universalism

Arian

• Anomœanism (also known as Aëtianism, Anomeanism, Eunomianism, Heterousianism, Heteroousianism)
• Arianism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Ebionitism (possibly Pelagian)
• Eudoxianism
• Kenosism
• Macedonianism (also known as Pneumatomachism, Tropicism) (also Antitrinitarian)
• Mohammedanism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Monarchianism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Adoptionism (also known as Dynamic Monarchianism) (also Antitrinitarian)
• Paulicianism (also Antitrinitarian, Gnostic)
• Psilanthropism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Samosatenism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Sabellianism (also known as Modalism) (also Antitrinitarian)
• Patripassianism (also known as Patripassionism) (also Antitrinitarian)
• Photinianism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Semi-Arianism
• Subordinationism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Tritheism (also Antitrinitarian)

Ascetic

• Albigensism (also Gnostic)
• Archonticism (also Gnostic)
• Cerdonianism (also Gnostic)
• Donatism (also Gnostic)
• Encratitism (also Gnostic, Monophysite)
• Fraticellism (also Other)
• Free Spiritism (also Other)
• Montanism (also known as Cataphrygianism, Phrygianism) (also Pelagian, Protestant)
• Priscillianism (also Gnostic)

Eschatological

• Christian Zionism
• Futurism
• Historicism
• Idealism
• Millenarianism (also known as Millenarism) ( slightly Protestant)
• Joachimism
• Dulcinianism
• Millennialism (also known as Chiliasm)
• Postmillennialism
• Premillennialism
• Dispensationalism
• Dispensational Premillennialism
• Millerism
• Preterism

Eucharistic

• Impanationism
• Symbolism (also Protestant)
• Transubstantiationism

Gnostic

• Archonticism (also Ascetic)
• Bogomilism
• Albigensism (also known as Albigensianism, Catharism) (also Ascetic)
• Bosnianism
• Patarenism
• Paulicianism (also Antitrinitarian, Arian)
• Tondrakianism
• Borboritism (also known as Barbalitism, Koddianism, Phibionitism, Secundianism, Socratitism)
• Cainitism
• Carpocratianism
• Cerdonianism (also Ascetic)
• Marcionism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Cerinthianism
• Colobasianism
• Docetism (also Monophysite)
• Encratitism (also known as Hydroparastatæism, Saccophorism, Severianism) (also Ascetic, Monophysite)
• Euchitism (also known as Messalianism)
• Gnosticism
• Luciferianism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Ophitism (also known as Ophianism)
• Johannism
• Notzrimism (also known as Nazaraiosism)
• Mandaeism (also known as Mandaeanism)
• Elcesaitism (also known as Elchasaitism, Elkasitism, Elkesaitism) (also Monophysite)
• Manichaeism (also known as Manichaeanism)
• Bagnolianism
• Naassenism
• Peratism
• Sethianism 
• Bardaisanitism (also known as Bardesanitism)
• Valentinianism
• Basilidianism (also known as Basildeanism)
• Thomasenism (also known as Thomasinism)
• Priscillianism (also Ascetic)
• Simonianism (also known as Helenianism)
• Socinianism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Swedenborgianism (also Pelagian, Protestant)

Monophysite

• Apollinarianism (also known as Apollinarism)
• Docetism (also Gnostic)
• Elcesaitism (also Gnostic)
• Encratitism (also known as Hydroparastatæism, Saccophorism, Severianism) (also Ascetic, Gnostic)
• Eutychianism
• Miaphysitism
• Monoenergism
• Monophysitism
• Monothelitism
• Polemianism

Other

• Audianism
• Averroism (also known as Aristotelianism)
• Circumcisionism (possibly Protestant-related)
• Conciliarism
• Donatism (distantly Gnostic)
• Circumcellionism (also known as Agnosticisism) (possibly Pelagian or distantly Gnostic)
• Ebionitism
• Feeneyism
• Fraticellism
• Heliocentrism
• Nestorianism
• Nicolaitanism (also known as Nicholaism, Nicolaism, Nicolationism)
• Novatianism (also known as Sabbatianism)
• Origenism
• Quartodecimanism
• Traducianism (also known as Generationalism)

Pelagian

• Asceticism
• Free Spiritism
• Legalism
• Molinism (also Protestant)
• Montanism (also known as Cataphrygianism, Phrygianism) (also Ascetic, Protestant)
• Osteenism (also known as Prosperitism) (also Protestant)
• Pelagianism
• Semi-Pelagianism
• Swedenborgianism (also Gnostic, Protestant)
• Synergism (also Protestant)
• Unitarianism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Christadelphianism (also Antitrinitarian)

Protestant

• Anabaptism
• Anglo-Israelism (also known as British Israelism)
• Antinomianism
• Covenantalism (also known as Federalism)
• Henricianism
• Hypercalvinism
• Jansenism
• King James Onlyism
• Molinism (also Pelagian)
• Monergism
• Montanism (also known as Cataphrygianism, Phrygianism) (also Ascetic, Pelagian)
• Osteenism (also known as Prosperitism) (also Pelagian)
• Reconstructionism
• Restorationism
• Swedenborgianism (also Gnostic, Pelagian)
• Symbolism (also Eucharistic)
• Synergism (also Pelagian)
• Waldensianism (also known as Vaudoisism and Waldensism)

UPDATE: Why I am not Catholic

I'm going to keep this simply to the topics why, rather than explaining them at this point.  I'll also do "why I am not [fill in one of three protestant sects]" posts soon.

Part of what I am working on now is a study of why the Book of Concord (UAC) is still necessary today, which is why I have been more and more convicted that the teaching of the dogmas below are why I cannot be Catholic.  As my project progresses, my hope is to post short summaries on a number of theological topics with the Catholic, Lutheran and other protestant teachings on each of them so you can see more clearly from where I am coming.  My first topic is Original Sin.

That said, if I was forced to choose between Catholicism and protestantism (Arminianism, Calvinism, Radical Reformed), I wouldn't hesitate for a second to choose to be a Catholic.  Thank God I can be a Lutheran instead, though.

1. The Infallibility of the Pope
2. The Office of the Pope (in general)
3. The deification of Mary*
4. Worship of the Saints**
5. Purgatory and penance
6. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus 
7. Definitions of Justification and Sanctification
8. The number of Sacraments
9. Transubstantiation
10. The Theology of the Cross vs. the Theology of Glory

P.S. I haven't forgotten about the Heresies family tree list, it is just taking longer than I expected to finish up.


* Update 1: For clarification, I am referring to four separate things here: 
1) The hyper-Marian Catholics, a few of whom I have had conversations with, who are a small but vocal sect pushing for Mary to become the fourth part of the Godhead (but not part of the Trinity as I understand it) which is not, from my understanding, common Catholic teaching.  
2) The immaculate conception of Mary, which from a Lutheran perspective would make her God (since God is the only perfect being, and no human since the Fall can be perfect, therefore for any human, such as Mary, to be perfect, she cannot be truly human because of Original Sin). 
3) The use of the term "co-redemptrix" (which makes it sound as if Mary plays a role not in being the Mother of our Savior, but in our own salvation with Jesus, which is false).
4) Prayer to/in the name of Mary--which, from a Lutheran perspective, is the same as worship of Mary in addition to and/or in place of God.  

There are other items which would be of concern from a Lutheran perspective as well, such as the assumption of Mary, but are less of an issue than the four above.

** Update 2: By "worship" I mean prayer to, or (probably more specifically) prayer in the name of, Saints.  As a Lutheran, we believe we need no intercessor but Jesus, and, as the redeemed children of God, we are even bold enough to pray in the name of Our Father, through Jesus Christ, as taught to us in Matthew.  Again, prayer is a form of worship, and to pray in the name or to the name of anyone but God is tantamount to worship of that person rather than God from the Lutheran perspective.


Originally published on 28 August, 2012; updates on 13 October 2012.

Why I am not "protestant"

It might be easier for all three "protestant" sects to share only what I actually agree with them on, rather than disagree.  I think the "agree" lists will be much shorter in all three cases than the "disagree" lists.

I'm referencing below strict adherence to Arminianism, Calvinism and Radical Reformed teachings, rather than the various denominations and their further misunderstandings of theology today.  Most of them are even worse and I would agree with them less than I do with their root sects.

Arminianism

1. The existence of Free Will (although they seriously over-emphasize it to the point of heresy)
2. God
1. The Trinity
2. Who God is
3. The Humanity and Divinity of Christ
3. Infallibility of the Word of God

Calvinism

1. Original Sin (or Total Depravity from TULIP)
2. Unconditional Election ("U" from TULIP, although they misapply and misunderstand it)
3. God
1. The Trinity
2. Who God is
3. The Humanity and Divinity of Christ
4. Infallibility of the Word of God

Radical Reformed

1. God
1. The Trinity
2. Who God is
3. The Humanity and Divinity of Christ
2. Infallibility of the Word of God

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

And... that's all I can think of off the top of my head.  I'll add to these lists as I think of more, because I feel like there has to be more than this, but I honestly can't think of anything else at the moment.

They're so short because I disagree with all three on everything from tradition in the church to Justification and Sanctification, to eschatology, to free will/predestination (none get it right on this count), to the sacraments, to soteriology, to civil affairs and the church's role in that, to law and gospel, to the office of the keys, to confession, to even simple things like the creeds... and on and on.  When so much that is basic to our faith can't be agreed upon... we have problems.

This is why I've often said if I can't be Lutheran, I'd be Roman Catholic.  I agree with them on far more than I disagree with them, certainly in comparison to "protestants" at least.

A Brief Note on the Term "Theologically Illiterate"

As I was falling asleep last night, I realized just how truly arrogant "theologically illiterate" sounded in my last post.  It sounded, even to me, as if you can't be a good Christian if you don't know or believe exactly as I do.  I'm sure you can guess that wasn't my intent.  So let me clarify now that I'm not rushing to finish my post before leaving the house (impatience often leads me to come across more bluntly than I usually intend--ironic considering the subject of this post and the "twitter timespan" I mention below).

Most American Christians today seem to become "theologically literate" in spite of, rather than because of, the Church.  This is a travesty.  Our churches, more often than not, churn out "shallow" Christians (by this, I am thinking of the James analogy of "milk" vs. "meat"--you can't graduate to eating meat if you don't know how or don't want to, both of which are far too common in American Christendom).  It isn't really anything new, I would dare say it's been around as long as Christianity has, but it seems to occur more frequently of late.  Or maybe it just seems that way since we are all so much more connected now than we used to be thanks to the internet.

Part of it I blame on the advent of the mega-church.  It's unreasonable to expect a church that large to be properly shepherded, even with a whole team of Pastors.  There simply isn't a human way to do it. Even with "small groups" and Bible studies, the time and attention you receive directly from a Pastor is minimal at best, according to friends who attend these types of churches as well as my own research into it.  That is a huge part of the problem--the inaccessibility of the Pastor, and his inability to do his job because of the size of the congregation (yes, I used the masculine pronouns on purpose, and always will when referring to Pastors).

I also blame the twitter timespan of this generation.  It seems that no one wants to take the time to learn and understand the seemingly difficult things anymore because they want instant gratification.  It's good enough for far too many people in general, not just in the church, to have someone tell them what they want to hear.  They want to feel good.  They don't want to contemplate the bad.  They like to write off parts of the Bible that they don't like or don't understand and don't want to understand further, so they just ignore them.  They don't want to be bothered with questioning information or studying it or learning the "who, what, when, where, how and why" of anything.  If it can't be done in 30 seconds or less than 144 characters, why should they listen?

Part, too, lies with far too many Pastors who don't challenge their parishioners enough.  They give into the twitter timespan mentality.  They do just the minimum.  They want to make you feel good.  No one likes to preach the Law, but without it, you cannot have the Gospel.  Pastors are only human, too.  Part of that problem here, I think, comes from the lack of proper training or prior education of a Pastor.  I'm a big fan of seminaries and ordination so that I know my Pastor has had significant training in the original languages, context, theology, early church fathers, etc.  That isn't to say you can't learn all that without a seminary, but I can definitely tell when a Pastor has studied and when one simply hasn't.  If our Pastors aren't properly educated, how can we expect them to properly educate their flocks?


Finally, this isn't a phenomenon unique to any one denomination.  In fact, I can't think of a single denomination (include, all too often, Lutheran) where this doesn't occur.  Case in point from a Lutheran perspective: I had three other ladies in my confirmation class.  I was the only one who bothered to even try to memorize what I was supposed to, or answer any of the questions, or ask questions of my own.  Since it wasn't strictly enforced, these gals skated through without really challenging themselves to actual understand what they were being taught.  I only ever saw one at church after confirmation on anything but Easter or Christmas, and rarely at that (although, granted, she was at college the last few years and now I attend a different church in a different city).

It's not enough to know the Bible, or think you know what you believe.  Both are important.  But equally important, as Peter writes in 1 Peter 3:14-17 (ESV), is being prepared to give an answer for your faith, something you cannot do if you only superficially understand it.

But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil.

It is ultimately up to us to ensure we know and understand our faith as much as humanly possible.  Others may help along the way, but the only ones we can ultimately praise or censure in this endeavor are ourselves.  Even with a "bad" Pastor in a mega-church with unfocused fellow congregants, you can still be entirely theologically literate if you make the effort.  It just takes work--something I know very well first hand, even though I've been, overall, very lucky to be surrounded by those who want to help and encourage me learn (my Mother most especially).  Lifelong catechis is very important.  That is, in some part, why I started this blog and why I'm working on the book project I am now--to keep me accountable in continuing to learn.

Bible Study Notes: God is...

I warned my Pastor that if I started coming to Bible Study regularly, I would ask obnoxious, obscure and time-consuming questions.  He learned today that I was not kidding.

While discussing the eternal union of Human and Divine in the Son, I had to ask how we describe that to other people (Christians and non-Christians), since we consider Jesus to retain His human body and nature even now (Divine and Human eternally joined), without anthropomorphizing the rest of the Godhead (the Father and the Spirit).  So, we spent at least half an hour on this (instead of studying Revelations...) and here is what we determined.  Interestingly, Pastor felt like he didn't answer my question, but he definitely did.  It just took me until the drive home to realize it.

The Trinity and who God is basic Christian doctrine that almost everyone, regardless of denomination, agrees upon (sans the heretics).  However, it is also unbelievably complex and not particularly logical in a mathematical sense, for example (Pastor said that after this discussion, we can all graduate Seminary because of the complexity of the topic we just discussed...).  It makes sense to me, but that is largely because of faith.  To be fair, from a human perspective, I can more than understand why a non-Christian would look at this and think we're nuts.

Pastor Wolfmueller's lovely illustration.

Edit: Thanks to Becki for a link the the image my Pastor was referencing here.

First, for clarity, the Persons of God within the Trinity are the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.  Each Person of the Trinity has the full Essence of God.  The Son has two Natures: fully God and fully Man, or both Divine and Human.  So that is what I mean by those terms when I use them below.

The Essence of God:

God is the Father.  The Father (A) is God (D).  (A = D)

God is the Son.  The Son (B) is God (D).  (B=D)

God is the Spirit.  The Spirit (C) is God (D).  (C=D)

However... the Persons of God within the Trinity:

The Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father.  (A ≠ B and B ≠ A) 

The Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Son.  (B ≠ C and C ≠ B)

The Spirit is not the Father, and the Father is not the Spirit.  (C ≠ A and A ≠ C)

The Natures of God:

The Father is fully Divine in Nature.

The Son is both fully Divine and fully Human in Nature (Personal Union).

The Spirit is fully Divine in Nature.

God is fully Divine in Nature, joined through the Son to humanity.

Additionally, all Persons of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal (no one is above the others, and no one existed before the others).  However, we would say that the Father beget the Son (that both name are essential to the Persons of that member of the Trinity) and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father AND Son--while all three remain co-equal and co-eternal, always existing together and without "rank" in the Godhead.

All of which brings us to my question, which essentially is how to describe the Nature of the Son as being separate from the other Persons of the Trinity without being separate from Essence of God, which all three persons of the Trinity share in full.  

When the Son took the form of flesh (fully God and fully Man), did the essence of God change (since the Father, Son and Spirit are all fully God)?  No, because the Divine = the Flesh in the Son, but the Flesh ≠ the Divine in the Son.  This, by the by, was the answer to my question: because the Son is fully Divine, therefore fully God, God is joined into humanity in the Son, but since neither the Father nor Spirit are the same as the Person of the Son, they cannot be joined in humanity as well, even though both, like the Son, are also fully God.

This is also the reason we (meaning Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans and Anglicans) can, should, and do call Mary the Theotokos ("God-Bearer" or Mother of God) rather than those (all not listed above--basically, protestants and heretics--not implying that the two are the same) who would call her Christotokos ("Christ-Bearer" or Mother of Christ)--because Christ is fully Divine, and therefore fully God in Essence and Nature.  Nota Bene: the Council of Ephesus in 431 declared "Christotokos" to be heretical.

For more on how all this works, the Athanasian Creed (written to combat Arianism, which denies the Divinity of Jesus, as well as those accusing Christians of polytheism--the worship, in Christianity's case, of a Trinity of gods, instead of the Trinity in one God) does a beautiful job of explaining "one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity."  It's more lengthy than the Apostles' or Nicene-Constantinople Creeds, which is why the Lutheran Church at least only uses it on Trinity Sunday, but it is the most succinct, yet thorough, explanation of the Persons, Essence and Natures of God in the Trinity.

Finally, one of Pastor Wolfmueller's great observation was with regards to the question of "having a relationship with Jesus."  Technically speaking, everyone has a relationship with Jesus, some are just very bad ones (i.e. non-believers).  Christians don't really have a "relationship" with Jesus, though.  No.  Rather, through baptism, we are joined with Jesus, and we are one with Christ and become partakers of the Divine Nature (knows as the mystical union or mysterious union--2 Peter 1:2-4).  

Just like the "So when were you saved?" question I despise, the "Do you have a relationship with Jesus?" question is on my "hate list" for questions asked by well meaning, but theologically illiterate, Christians.  Both are totally the wrong question, a) because both emphasize your role in salvation (which is only to reject faith, but by emphasizing more than that, these questions are Arminianist, and therefore Synchronistic, and, consequently, heretical), and b) because the real questions are "When were you baptized?" and "Has the Holy Ghost worked faith in you?", respectively, if you must ask one of the two--although the latter here ("Has the Holy Ghost worked faith in you?") is often what is meant by the previous above ("So when were you saved?").