"Let Marriage Be Held in Honor . . . "

Excellent sermon on the Homosexual and "same sex marriage" issue:



You can also read his sermon here.

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/let-marriage-be-held-in-honor-thinking-biblically-about-so-called-same-sex-marriage

One of the things Dr. Piper says at the beginning is asking his people in the church to pray, that is not in the typed manuscript is:

"You Pray that I would speak them in the truth of Scripture and in the tone of Scripture"  (my emphasis)  That is so good and godly and hopefully both unbelievers will be persuaded by his godly example and believers (including me) will learn from his example, in constantly praying that our tone will be God-honoring in the way we teach the truth.


Denny Burk reports on how the local Newspaper distorted Pastor Piper's sermon.

http://www.dennyburk.com/a-newspaper-misrepresents-john-piper/

Addendum:  I decided to bring my comments from the com-box up to the article also. (with some additional comments)

Piper's whole sermon was excellent, every point needs to be emphasized and discussed and fleshed out with people in discussing the issue.

Point 2 needs to be emphasized:

"2. There is no such thing as so-called same-sex marriage, and it would be wise not to call it that.

The point here is not only that so-called same-sex marriage shouldn’t exist, but that it doesn’t and it can’t. Those who believe that God has spoken to us truthfully in the Bible should not concede that the committed, life-long partnership and sexual relations of two men or two women is marriage. It isn’t. God has created and defined marriage. And what he has joined together in that creation and that definition, cannot be separated, and still called marriage in God’s eyes."  (My emphasis)

We need to stand on this and say it often when in dissuasions with people. So called "same sex marriage" does not even exist at all, even if they call it that and pass laws that approve of it in the future.

Piper's point number 3 is also very important.

Romans 8:20-21 points to Genesis 3 and God's judgment on Adam and Eve's sin and God's subjecting all of creation into futility and corruption. 

My comment:
Same sex desires are un-natural and deviant desires that are part of the corruption and futility/meaninglessness that came about as a result of sin.


Piper:

3. Same sex desires and same sex orientation are part of our broken and disordered sexuality owing to God’s subjection of the created order to futility because of man’s sin.

In Genesis 3 we read about the catastrophic moment when the first man and woman rebelled against God. The effects on them and on the world are described in chapters 3 and 4, and then illustrated in the sin-soaked and death-ridden history of the Old Testament — indeed the history of the world.

The apostle Paul sums it up like this in Romans 8:20–21:

The creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God."

All of history and society and all cultures considered homosexuality as a shameful and deviant and perverted thing. Even when approved, it was underground from the general society.

Point number 4 is the only place I think Dr. Piper should probably elaborate more.

Even the homo-sexual desire and lust is sin and unnatural, even though the temptation or initial attraction may not be sin in-self, although it seems even that is a "corruption"/perversion of God's creation design.

Point number 4 needed a statement on the fact that that even the desire is wrong, but that there is a difference between a temptation and lustful fantasy, as Matthew 5:28 teaches us.

Piper:

"4. Therefore, same-sex intercourse, not same-sex desire is the focus of Paul’s condemnation when he threatens exclusion from the kingdom of God.

The clearest statement is found in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

The words, “men who practice homosexuality” is a translation of two Greek words which refer to the passive and active partners in homosexual intercourse. See Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001], 306–331). The focus is not on same-sex desire, but on same sex practice. And notice that homosexual practice is not singled out but included with other ways of sinning: idolatry, adultery, stealing, greed, drunkenness, reviling, etc.

The point is not that one act of homosexual or heterosexual experimentation condemns you, but that returning to this life permanently and without repentance will condemn you. “Men who practice — who give themselves over to this life, and do not repent — will not enter the kingdom of God.” They will perish."

In my opinion, "men who practice homosexuality" should be translated, "men who practice homosexuality, both active and passive" . . . It should be more clear that there are two different Greek words.

I think Dr. Piper also needs to further elaborate so that there is no mis-understanding of point 4, in light of James 2:10. I know that Piper is NOT meaning to deny the meaning of James 2:10; it is just that people could take one of his statements above out of context and abuse his point, as the local newspaper did in Minneapolis.

"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all." James 2:10

One sin does condemn us, and lust does also, as Matthew 5:28 shows for heterosexuality; however the point that needs to be made is the difference between a temptation and mental lust.

But even the desire of homosexuality seems to be by nature an un-natural and corruption and futility-ness of our broken world.

But we also need to say:
We who don't struggle with same-sex desires are not better than those that do; we are sinners also.

We who have gluttony and anger and greed and pride problems readily acknowledge that we have our sins/issues that we struggle with and we are not better than people who struggle with same sex attraction or temptations; but homosexuality is in itself destructive to society and children, and it is harmful to the homosexual persons themselves, even though they don't see it and don't understand why their sin bothers us - it bothers people in the same way that injustice bothers us and the way drunk drivers bothered mothers enough to found "MADD" - "Mothers Against Drunk Driving".  The way that cruelty to blacks in the south in the 1950s should bother us. The same way that cruelty to an elderly bus monitor should bother us - those 12-13 year old boys need an old fashioned whipping with a leather belt on their naked behinds - about 10 good lashes each.  That was called a "spanking" when I grew up!  Their cruelty and rebellion reminds me of the list of sins in Romans 1:28-32; I Timothy 1:8-11 and 2 Timothy 3 - lovers of self, disobedient to parents, haters of good - hatred and killing their own parents.

Point 5 needs to be emphasized also.

Approving of homosexuality in so called "same-sex marriage"  (like Rachel Held Evans; John Shelby Spong, Barry Lynn; Brian McLaren; Jack Rogers; Tony Compolo; Miley Cyrus; and Carrie Underwood), or being silent about it (like Andy Stanley, Pastor of Northpoint Community Church did) is a contradiction to love and a contradiction to the gospel.

Piper:

"5. Therefore, it would contradict love and contradict the gospel of Jesus to approve homosexual practice, whether by silence, or by endorsing so-called same-sex marriage, or by affirming the Christian ordination of practicing homosexuals.

We must not be intimidated here. The world is going to say the opposite of what is true here. They are going to say that warning people who practice homosexuality about final judgment is hateful. It is not hateful. Hate does not want people to be saved. Hate does not want people to join the family. Hate wants to destroy. And sin does destroy. If homosexual practice (and greed and idolatry and reviling and drunkenness) leads to exclusion from the kingdom of God — as the word of God says it does — then love warns. Love pleads. Love comes alongside and does all it can to help a person live — forever."

Standing against homosexuality is not hate. It is actually a loving thing to do to be against it. Amen

Points 7 and 8 are important also, as how the issue relates to Christians and pastors being involved in society and politics.  Don't miss anything in Piper's sermon, but I just wanted to make some more comments on some of his points.  More later on those points, Lord willing. 

New Resource Page on Roman Catholicism

R. Scott Clark has posted Resources on Roman Catholicism. He announced it over on the Puritanboard. He said he put this list together "In light of some recent developments." I appreciate that one of my fellow URCNA brothers is taking the time to consider Roman Catholic proselytizing.

Included on his list are a number of articles he has written, along with a few by Robert Godfrey and Michael Horton. He also includes some of the historic Reformation responses from Luther and Calvin. There are a few books that probably should not be on his list- Lorraine Boettner's Roman Catholicism for instance. I also would probably not include anything written by John Armstrong.

I did add my own comment on the Puritanboard thread:

Here's a source that has been most valuable: 

David King, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume I: A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura . This book is part of a three volume set. All three books are excellent (vol. 2; vol. 3) , but volume one is the best current treatment of sola scriptura in regard to refuting Rome's recent defenders. If I recall David King has participated on this forum. He is a virtual treasure chest of citations (with contexts!) of the church fathers.

I'm a bit biased here since I contribute to his website blog, but the live debates that Dr. James White has had with Roman Catholic apologists have also been very helpful. It's very interesting to hear an argument in an active exchange, and hear how Rome's defenders respond. They can't hide behind pages of written words in a live exchange. Dr. White has proven time and again that Roman Catholic apologetics fail when scrutinized. He was debating these guys long before the rest of us realized what was going on with their active proselytizing.

There are a number of sources that I think certainly warrant to be on any list (particularly a Reformed list) of books addressing Roman Catholicism that I wish I would've seen on Clark's list. Perhaps during the week, I'll put together my "list." What I find interesting is that those sources I think are most important did not make it on to R. Scott Clark's list. Ah well. Maybe it's a west coast thing.

Luther: We cannot claim to fathom completely the meaning of a single verse of Scripture

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "Sacred Scripture":

It is worth noting that while Luther claimed for himself the right to interpret scripture according to his own view, and claimed that he was intelligent enough to judge anyone and everything by scripture alone yet he openly affirms that "We cannot claim to fathom completely the meaning of a single verse of Scripture; we succeed in apprehending only the A B C of it, and even that imperfectly." - Luther, Table-talk, trans. Gustave Brunet, Paris, Garnier, 1844, pg. 288.

Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Luther contradicted himself saying he could interpret the Bible, but elsewhere claimed he could not.

Documentation
Luther, Exposing the Myth cites "Luther, Table-talk, trans. Gustave Brunet, Paris, Garnier, 1844, pg. 288." First, the Table Talk isn't something Luther actually wrote. It's something he's purported to have said. Second, based on previous documentation, it's improbable that Gustave Brunet's book was actually used by Luther, Exposing the Myth (they typically have compiled their assortment of Luther quotes from various secondary English sources). Third, in regard to Gustave Brunet's French translation of the Table Talk: Les Propos de Table,  Preserved Smith has provided a brief overview of this translation. According to LW 54, Brunet's French translation follows John Aurifaber's translation (LW 54, introduction). Page 288 can be found here.

Context
In Brunet's French translation, the quote in question states,

Le docteur Juste Jonas, étant une fois à table avec le docteur Martin Luther, dit qu'il y avait dans l'Ecriture sainte une sagesse si profonde que personne ne pouvait l'étudier à fond, ni la comprendre entièrement; et le docteur Luther dit alors : « Nous sommes en effet des écoliers, car nous ne saurions prétendre à approfondir complètement un seul verset de l'Ecriture, et nous ne réussissons qu'à en saisir l'A, B, C, et même imparfaitement.

The German text can be found here:

English translations are available in older versions of the Table Talk. For instance:

Dr. Jonas Justus remarked at Luther's table: There is in the Holy Scripture a wisdom so profound, that no man may thoroughly study it or comprehend it. "Ay," said Luther, "we must ever remain scholars here; we cannot sound the depth of one single verse in Scripture; we get hold but of the ABC, and that imperfectly. Who can so exalt himself as to comprehend this one line of St. Peter: 'Rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings.' Here St. Peter would have us rejoice in our deepest misery and trouble, like as a child kisses the rod."

In this English version, the line that begins, "Who can so exalt himself as to comprehend this one line of St. Peter..." is based on a translation of a few sentences from the next paragraph in the German version (and it can also be found in Brunet's French translation).

Conclusion
In context, the remark simply points out the profound depth of the Scriptures. It's not that the Scriptures can't be understood according to Luther, it's that they have a rich unfathomable depth due to the fact they are the very words of God. Note the example given to Peter's words.

This quote doesn't appear to be in LW 54, but something very similar is presented:

No. 5562: To Believe and to Comprehend Are Not the Same Spring, 1543

When Dr. Jonas said that the mind of man cannot comprehend articles of faith and that it is enough that we begin only to assent, the doctor [Martin Luther] said, “Yes, dear Dr. Jonas, if one could believe them the way they’re written, our hearts would leap for joy. That’s certain. Accordingly we won’t arrive at the place where we comprehend them. In Torgau a wretched little woman once came to me and said, ‘Ah, dear Doctor, I have the idea that I’m lost and can’t be saved because I can’t believe.’ Then I replied, ‘Do you believe, dear lady, that what you pray in the Creed is true?’ She answered with clasped hands, ‘Oh yes, I believe it; it’s most certainly true!’ I replied, ‘Then go in God’s name, dear lady. You believe more and better than I do.’

“It’s the devil who puts such ideas into people’s heads and says, ‘Ah, you must believe better. You must believe more. Your faith is not very strong and is insufficient.’ In this way he drives them to despair. We are so constructed by nature that we desire to have a conscious faith. We’d like to grasp it with our hands and shove it into our bosom, but this doesn’t happen in this life. We can’t comprehend it, but we ought to apprehend it. We should hold to the Word and let ourselves drag along in this way.” [LW 54:453].

CTC's "Essential Role" of the Roman Church

From Called to Communion:

"Part in parcel with Calvin’s view that the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts to the veracity of the canon, Calvin rejects the essential role of the Church in identifying the canon."

The key word here (as I see it) is "essential role." I would posit for this CTC contributor, "essential role" means the Roman Church infallibly identifying the contents of the canon. If this is the meaning intended, it would follow that without this "essential role" (according to CTC), the canon would not be infallibly identified. If something must needs be the "essential role", then without it, Scripture may in fact be the very words of God, but they would lack any power or authority to actually benefit anyone until the Roman church plays her "essential role." Until the "essential role" is played, how would one know that the texts they were relying on really were God's Word?

Sure, I guess some people got it right previous to the "essential role" being played, but they did so in such a way that they really, according to the paradigm offered, had no absolute certainty that the words they considered to be to the authoritative words of God really were the authoritative words of God.

The CTC blogger then cites a section from Calvin:

"But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. . . . For they mock the Holy Spirit when they ask: Who can convince us that these writings came from God? . . . . Who can persuade us to receive one book in reverence but to exclude another, unless the church prescribe a sure rule for all these matters?"

As far as it goes, this CTC blogger has done nothing more then point out Calvin rejected the notion of the "essential role" Rome's apologists claim she has.  Curiously though, the CTC blogger goes on to state:

"As an initial matter, Calvin misstates the Catholic position by stating that, according to the Catholic Church, Scripture has its authoritative weight accorded to it by the Church. Rather, the Catholic position is that Scripture has divine authority because it is God-breathed, the Holy Spirit having inspired the texts’ authors. That is, Scripture has divine authority because of its divine author, not because of the role of God’s Church in producing it."

Has Calvin misstated the Roman position? The CTC blogger first states Calvin rejected the "essential role" of the Church in identifying the canon, he then cites Calvin saying "Who can persuade us to receive one book in reverence but to exclude another, unless the church prescribe a sure rule for all these matters" and then the CTC blogger concludes Calvin misstates the Roman position?

Without Rome playing her "essential role" whether these words or those words are "God-breathed" really is irrelevant. In the Roman paradigm, "divine authority" must be identified as such by the infallible Roman church before it's "authoritative weight" can be officially effective or meaningful for the church.

Perhaps Calvin was on to something when he said,

"Thus these sacrilegious men wishing to impose an unbridled tyranny under the cover of the church, do not care with what absurdities they ensnare themselves and others, provided they can force this one idea upon the simple-minded: that the church has authority in all things."

Addendum

Lest anyone think Calvin did not consider a "role" for the Church with the canon:

It is utterly vain, then, to pretend that the power of judging Scripture so lies with the church that its certainty depends upon churchly assent. Thus, while the church receives and gives its seal of approval to the Scriptures, it does not thereby render authentic what is otherwise doubtful or controversial. But because the church recognizes Scripture to be the truth of its own God, as a pious duty it unhesitatingly venerates Scripture. As to their question — How can we be assured that this has sprung from God unless we have recourse to the decree of the church? —it is as if someone asked: Whence will we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Indeed, Scripture exhibits fully as clear evidence of its own truth as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things do of their taste.

Boxing Roman Catholics

And in this corner.... The Champion.

And in this corner... Mark Shea.

Great stuff. Beats TV.

Updating the Language of the Church Fathers

You know, language changes over the years, so I was thinking it would be best to revise some of the more popular quotes by the Church Fathers so that people can understand what they really mean. Here is my first suggestion:

Augustine: "I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."

Revise to:

"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church as interpreted by Catholic Answers and Called to Communion did not influence me to do so."

or: "I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me"

Revise to:

"I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of someone's conversion story to the Catholic Church already moved me."

I'm open to suggestions on this one.

John Eck vs. Called to Communion

I saw this in  a recent Triablogue post.

The Called to Communion guys are fond of saying things like “remember one of the cardinal rules in ecumenical inquiry: Don’t get your Catholic theology from Protestant hearsay–and vice versa. Go to the source, if you want to learn the truth”. This is certainly wise advice, especially if one is tempted to listen to Roman Catholic hearsay about John Calvin from a Roman epologist like Tom Brown. Brown cites Calvin, of course, just to appear to be above board:


“But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. . . . For they mock the Holy Spirit when they ask: Who can convince us that these writings came from God? . . . . Who can persuade us to receive one book in reverence but to exclude another, unless the church prescribe a sure rule for all these matters?”20


The footnote (20) is to “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book I, ch. 7, sec. 1.” That’s fine as far as it goes. Then Brown says matter-of-factly, “As an initial matter, Calvin misstates the Catholic position by stating that, according to the Catholic Church, Scripture has its authoritative weight accorded to it by the Church. Rather, the Catholic position is that Scripture has divine authority because it is God-breathed, the Holy Spirit having inspired the texts’ authors. That is, Scripture has divine authority because of its divine author, not because of the role of God’s Church in producing it…”


But the Battles version of Institutes footnotes this statement, [among other references] to “John Eck, Enchiridion (1553), ch i., fo. 4a-6b”.


Now, it’s true that Eck was not an “official” source of Roman teaching at the time, but one might assume that, given his position as a papal emissary, he’d be a pretty good source. Someone might also suggest that Calvin has misrepresented what Eck was saying, but that’s not likely. First, Calvin was fairly scrupulous about getting his opponents arguments correct. And second, Battles himself translated the Eck document from which he cites.


I’m not going to spend the $35.00 at this point to see what Eck says. But I’d be willing to surmise that Battles wouldn’t have spent the time translating this work if there weren’t something in it that he wanted to show.

__________________________
Well, I spent the $35.00 to see what Eck says. In fact, at the time, I think I spent more than $35.00 to see what Eck says. I scanned the following text in quickly, so there may be some typos. This is from the translation of Eck by Battles, pages 11-17. One quick comment. It was not Calvin citing Eck in I, 7:1. Rather, it was a footnote Battles confirming Calvin's comment by citing Eck and others.

Enjoy.
 JS
_________________________

Objections of the Heretics.
1. The authority of Scripture is greater than that of the Church. For the Church ought to be ruled according to Scripture. For the Word of God yields to no one.

2. It is not lawful for either the Church or any man to go against Scripture.

3. One does not say that what the Pope with the Cardinals and the bishops determines has been determined by the Church, because the Church is the congregation of all believers and the connection in true faith by which the just man lives.

4. The Church of God is in the Spirit alone, because she is believed, and thus hidden.

5. Luther says that he is of the Church, and believes the  Church is with him, where he is preacher. So also Zwingli, Carlstadt, Pelican, Soblerus, Hubmaier Pacimontanus* etc.

Disposal of Objections.
1. Christ did not write any book, nor did He bid the disciples or apostles to write one, yet He gave many precepts concerning the Church; hence when about to send apostles out to plant the Church, He did not say, "Go write," but "Go into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature" [Mt. 24:14]. Therefore the law was written on tablets of stone, but the Gospel on hearts. "Since you are a letter of Christ, sent out by us, and written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not in tablets of stone, but in the physical tablets of the heart" [2 Cor 3:3]. Jeremiah agrees: "Behold, the day is coming, says the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel,and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant I made with your fathers, etc., but this will be one which I shall make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord; I shall give my law in their inward parts, and in their heart I shall write it, and I will be their God and they will be my people" [Jer 31:31-33]. Jerome: Why is it necessary to take into one's hands what the Church does not receive?

2. The Church is older than Scripture, for when the Apostles began to preach, there was no written Gospel, no letter of Paul, and yet there was the Church dedicated by Christ's blood. Thus the apostles without the Scripture of the New Testament chose Matthias [Acts 1:22ff], ordained seven deacons [Acts 6:3]; Peter caused Ananias and Sapphira to die [Acts 5:lff]. Even though the apostles were very diligent in sowing the Word of God, yet very few things are found written by them. It follows logically that they taught many more things than they wrote; the things taught have equal authority with the things written.

3. Scripture is not authentic without the Church's authority: for the canonical writers are members of the Church. Hence against a heretic wishing to contend against the Church's constitution and custom one objects with the very weapons whereby he wishes to contend against the Church. He is going to quote the canonical Scriptures of the four Gospels, and the Pauline Epistles. Let the objection immediately be raised against him: how does he know that these Scriptures are canonical except from the Church, for why does he believe the Gospel of Mark, who did not see Christ, to be canonical, and not the Gospel of Nicodemus, who saw and heard Christ, as John testifies [Jn 3:lff]? So why has the Gospel of Luke the disciple been received, and the Gospel of Bartholomew the apostle been rejected, unless we humbly confess the authority of the Church with the Blessed Augustine, something Luther sometimes taught, that the Church could judge concerning the Scriptures.

Therefore it thus is clear that the Church is older than Scripture, and Scripture would not be authentic without the Church's authority. Hence, Augustine, Against the Epistle Called Fundamental, 5.6 [PL 42.176]: "I would not have believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Church5had moved me to do so." More below on Scripture at Chapter 4.

i. Scripture teaches: "Remember to hallow the Sabbath day; six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath day of the Lord your God," etc. Yet the Church has changed the Sabbath into Sunday on its own authority, on which you have no Scripture.

ii. Christ said to His disciples on the mountain: "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it" [Matt 5:17]. And yet the Church of the apostles in council boldly made pronouncement on the cessation of legal matters.

iii. In the final chapter of Matthew, Christ said to the disciples: "Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" [Matt 28:19f]. Here Christ gave the form of baptizing ex plicitly in the name of the Trinity, and yet the primitive Church changed this form of baptizing to in the name of Christ Jesus." "Repent," says Peter, "and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in forgiveness of your sins" [Acts 2:38].2 And in Acts 8 [:12] it is said that the Samaritans were baptized by Philip in the name of Jesus. And in Acts 19 [:5]: "When these things were heard they were baptized by Philip in the name of Jesus," that is, by Paul.

iv. Scripture is defined in the council: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" [Acts 15:281 etc., "that you should abstain from sacrifices offered to idols, and blood and things 4
strangled" [v. 29]. This matter, so clearly defined and expressed,the Church by her authority changed, because she uses both blood and strangled meat. Note the power of the Church over scripture .5 See below, Chapter 13, On Human Constitutions.

v. Now if you wish to live more according to the scriptures than according to the authority of the Church, now all the Jews coming to baptism would be held to the law of Moses, for thus they would find in the Scriptures that apostles and other converts have lived. James and the elders spoke to Paul returning from the Gentiles: "See, brother, how many there are among the Jews who have believed, and all are emulators of the law. Moreover, they have heard of you, that you teach all the Jews that are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, nor to walk according to their custom. What is it therefore? The multitude must needs come together, for they will hear that you have come. Do therefore this which we say to you. We have four men that have a vow on them; having taken them, purify yourself with them, and be at charge for them, that they may shave their heads, and all shall know that there is no truth in the things about which they had been informed concerning you, but you walk and yourself keep the law. Moreover, concerning those of the Gentiles who believed, we have written, adjudging that they should keep themselves from idols, from what is sacrificed, from blood and what is strangled, and from fornication" [Acts 21:20-25]. Here, Paul, with many thousands, kept at one behest of the law of St. James.

Would you, 0 Luther, converted from the Jews today, rather live according to those scriptures, or according to the authority of the Church?

We confess the Church to be the congregation of all the faithful who are of the body of Christ, and when primates and leaders of any province decide anything, the whole province is said to have decided it. Thus the prelates of the Church are called "the Church," because they represent her and their subjects. Otherwise the Church could never be gathered. "But if he does not hear you . . . tell the Church; but if he does not hear the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and publican" [Matt 18:16f]. According to Luther's view, if anyone wanted to tell the Church, he would have to traverse the whole earth. Chrysostom [Hom. in Mt, 60.2: PG 58.586] explains: "It clearly refers to the prelates that is, presidents, because he will soon give the power of binding and loosing to the apostles as prelates." "If you perceived a case before you difficult and ambiguous to judge, between blood and blood, between cause and cause, between leper and non-leper, and you saw the judgment to be a matter of controversy within your gates: rise up and go up to the place which the Lord your God has chosen and come to the priests of the tribe of Levi, to the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire of him, who will judge the truth of the judgment for you, and you shall do what they say, who are in charge of the place the Lord has chosen, and they will teach you according to his law, and you will follow their decision, and turn aside neither to the right nor to the left. But he who in his pride refuses to obey the authority of the priest, who is at that time ministering to the Lord your God, that man will die by the decree of the judge, and you shall remove the evil from Israel, and all the people hearing it will fear, so that none shall henceforth be swollen with pride" [Dr 17:8-13]. See the power of the priest under the law. How much more power do you think the priest under the Gospel has, and ponder the penalty of the disobedient.

"And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension against them, the brethren decided that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to the apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem about this question" [Acts 15:2]. See how the Deuteronomy c. 17 passage was fulfilled. And what was the Church? Not the whole congregation, but they went up to the apostles and presbyters who represented the Church.

4. If the Church is hidden, how did Christ enjoin the telling it to the Church, and if he did not hear the Church, etc. But if it were hidden, what could be said to it, or how would it hear? Likewise the Church is the body of Christ, and the Christians are its members [Rom 12:5; 1 Cor 10:17; 12:12; Eph 1:23; 5:30; Col 1:24]. Let Luther say whether they were hidden and only mathematically the Church, when Paul said: "Now you are the body of Christ, and members each in his part" [1 Cor 12:27].

It is the way of heretics to have caverns and caves and lurking places: the Church puts the lamp upon a lampstand[Lk 8:16]. The Church is shown to you in councils, in the Apostolic See, in bishops and leaders of individual Churches. For if the Church were only mathematical, the brother of Paul (Timothy) would not have praise through all the. Churches [2 Cor 1:1]. David would not have said: "With you is my praise in the great church" [Ps 21:26], "and in the seat of the elders let them praise him" [Ps 106:32]. For this see Augustine on the First Epistle of John, the first tractate at the end.

5. What Luther says, all the heretics have said. Accordingly Augustine inveighs against the Donatists, who wanted to confine the universal Church to the cornerstone of a few heretics. See more in Johann Cochlaeus, On the Authority of the Church , and John Fisher. Among the older writers see Juan Torquemada,3who wrote extensively on behalf of the Church.

Did God really say? (Genesis 3:1)

Egalitarianism and advocating homosexuality - is there a connection?


 

This is an excellent panel discussion of the Biblical view of the roles of men and women, at the recent "T4G" conference, defending the complementary position, that men and women are equal in the sight of God ontologically, but have different roles in the home and in the church; that they complement one another.   John Piper mentions one of the proponents of "egalitarianism" (that women can be elders and pastors; and men are not the leaders or head of their own wife and family) in the late 1970s -  Virginia Mollenkott.  She called the complementary position "obscene", according to Piper, in chapel services at Bethel Seminary when Piper was teaching there in the late 1970s.

See the wikipedia article on her.

It is interesting to note that Mollenkott was married for a while, and had a son, then later was divorced from her husband in 1973.  This seems to indicate she was heterosexual for at least some of that time.  I realize that many homosexuals claim that "they were denying who they really are" by trying to be heterosexual in a marriage.   She later went on to announce or "come out" that she was a lesbian and since that time in her writings has advocated homosexuality, lesbianism, bi-sexuality, and "transgenders"; that these are all defensible Biblically.   The episcopal bishop, Gene Robinson, who is now openly homosexual and divorced his wife and is living with his "gay lover", etc. also seems to have had a similar kind of "evolution", even though he indicated his fears about his sexuality to his wife years before.  He had two children with his wife.

Not all egalitarians advocate that homosexuality is not a sin, but there does seem to be an increase in people who "evolve in those issues".  And there seems to be an increase of people who used to be married in the traditional heterosexual, Biblical way; then got a divorce, and then go on to be homosexual or lesbian.  At least we hear about this more in recent years.  Is there a connection or correlation between the egalitarian position and advocating homosexuality as not sin?  I am just asking the question.    I am sure there are many others who hold the egalitarian position that will be offended by even asking the question.

Rachel Held Evans, caused quite a stir on the internet by her article, "How to win the culture war but loose a generation";  where she basically said that the traditional Evangelical position against "same sex marriage" was wrong and she and the younger generation is tired of the "culture wars", and "tired of fighting" and wanted "to wash the feet" of homosexuals.  She is not a lesbian; but rather is married to Dan, but advocates that there are "LGBT Christians" (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexuals, and Transgender) who can be genuinely Christian and not have to repent of those actions and desires.  By the way, how does a "Bi-sexual person" fulfill his or her desires/orientation?  They would have to advocate for a marriage of 3 people in "loving, committed relationships" - a relationship involving one of the opposite sex and one of the same sex.

It is necessary to again mention basic Scripture that tells us that homosexuality is sin and unnatural and wrong - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Genesis chapter 19.  And we should add to that list Matthew 19:3-6, the words of Jesus the eternal Son of God, while on earth.  The other verses are His word also, as they are "God-breathed". (2 Timothy 3:16)  And it needs to be said again clearly, that the gospel of Jesus Christ is powerful to forgive and save homosexuals and cleanse them and give them new and holy desires and a changed life and hope in the battles against sinful desires!

 It is interesting to study Rachel's other articles at her blog and we find out that she is a very strong advocate of the egalitarian position, that women should be able to be pastors/teachers/elders of a local church.  This, it honestly seems to me, is probably her main issue at her blog and has been for a while.   She has many articles on issues that are about women in the Bible and empowering women to be leaders in the local church.  Some of the things she writes are good and right, but the constant drum beat of wanting women to be elders and pastors over-shadows some of her good points.   In one of the Amazon reviews of her book, "Evolving in Monkey Town", the reviewer points out that Rachel Held Evans admits that she does not like the scripture verse, 1 Timothy 2:12.

See her book and the reviews:
Evolving in Monkey Town 

Brian McLaren of the Emerging/ Emergent church fame endorsed the book, so that should tell you how orthodox it is in doctrinal content.  Rachel Held Evans seems to espouse pretty much the same ideas that the Emerging/Emergent church does.   Brian McLaren started off in his writings as questioning the traditional response of the church to homosexuality in his book, A Generous Orthodoxy, but then later also "evolved" into advocating homosexuality and "same sex marriage" in later writings.   Tony Compolo seems to have followed a similar pattern over the years.

See 15 Reasons I left church.  by Rachel Held Evans

"1. I left the church because I’m better at planning Bible studies than baby showers...but they only wanted me to plan baby showers. "

See also her article "15 Reasons Why I Returned to the church", linked to a the end of her article on why she left the church.

From what I can gather, in reading some of her articles, Rachel also has problems with the necessity of evangelism and missions for people to be saved.  This seems to be one of the first issues historically that cause people to drift toward theological liberalism.  She also questions the doctrine of eternal hell.  She has a big problem with young earth creationism, and questions other doctrinal issues and historical narrative of the Bible.

Now Rachel seems very nice and intelligent and is married to Dan Evans, and I hope anyone reading this would understand I have nothing personal against her.  Rachel is very articulate, smart, witty, an excellent writer, and she admits that she is competitive and she asks lots of questions.  She is challenging.  I want to be clear that there is nothing wrong with a woman who asks questions and challenges men to think.  She questions the difficult passages in the OT where God commanded the Israelites to make war against the Canaanites and Amalekites.  I understand those honest questions and struggles.  (Understanding Genesis 15:13-16 really helped me on that one.  "until the iniquity of the Amorite is complete." )  She has made some excellent criticisms of certain sins and wrongs done in the church.  (hypocrisy, judgmentalism, legalism, neglecting issues of poverty and injustice, of Mark Driscoll as a "bully", etc., even though she seems to apply those sins wrongly to standing against sin and actually doing church discipline.)

Rachel Held Evans' famous recent article seemed, in my opinion, very disrespectful toward the middle aged Christians and elders generation - anyone over 35 or 40 - because she seemed to be saying that we "older" folks need to "get with the program" and surrender our minds and opinions to the 16-29 year olds. (I turned 51 a few weeks ago.)  It is not enough that that age demographic already controls the music and movie industries, the cell phone industry, clothing styles, TV shows, iPods, etc.  It seems many young people are frustrated that they cannot have their own way and force their parents to think the way they think.  They seem to have an underlying distain for those that have been married and raised children and have built businesses, and have some experience in life.

Triablogue had several responses to Rachel's article, I will point to just two of them -  here, (the photograph of Arlington cemetery is enough to give oneself a sobering perspective, and visiting it for a day is overwhelming with scenes of that photograph multiplied 100 times over, maybe); and here.

Yes,we have seen that there is a lot of wisdom in the young folks involved in the "Occupy Wallstreet" movement, right?   Does Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Sean Penn, and Charlie Sheen have a lot of wisdom for life?  Does Miley Cyrus, and Carrie Underwood have much real wisdom, given that they have recently spoken out in favor of homosexual marriage??

Rachel Held Evans based a lot of her argument on the opinions of what she found among the younger generation of ages 16-29.  I mean, really, Rachel, let's start with a section of that group, the  16-22 year olds - high schoolers and college/University students.  They do not have enough experience in life yet, are mostly not married, have not done the hard work of raising children, and most don't have steady full time jobs yet for some significant years, and yet, you seem to think that they have more wisdom than all the 10,000 (+/-) years of recorded human history, the Bible, and most of her elders, who disagree with her.

Rachel said she was "tired of the culture wars".  Well, it seems to me that it is the homosexuals and the left wing political agenda that started the culture war by demanding that we have to approve of their sin and allow them to get married.  Homosexuals should have never been allowed to adopt children.  By nature, it is wrong, no matter how "nice" they are.  They are the ones who are attacking society and decency by their demanding that we think they are normal and that homosexuality is a good and positive thing.  They want to shut us down and tell us that we cannot say things like "love the sinner, but hate the sin" or to call for repentance from the homosexual lifestyle.  I am sure that some people who struggle with same sex attraction were treated wrong and overly harsh by some churches, but Rachel should not label all conservative churches as "too judgmental" or "responding to homosexuality wrong."

There is a great difference between two issues that people conflate when discussing homosexuality.  In witnessing situations, the person who advocates homosexuality will say things like, "you Christians need to have more mercy and compassion and not be so judgmental".  That is a different issue that the larger "culture war" that some homosexuals are taking to the court of public opinion by seeking to change culture and shut down churches from speaking and preaching that homosexuality is sin and must be repented of.  Most Christians can and do have lots of mercy on someone who is humble and knows it's wrong, yet confesses their inner struggle, and is not a "gay activist".   One on one ministry to the humble demands a different response than to those activists who demand that we all approve of their lifestyle.  I disagree with Rachel that churches have responded wrongly to homosexuality.  Biblical churches minister to homosexuals with compassion, mercy, and biblical counseling that does not compromise, with those who are honest and humble and confess that is is sin and are willing to repent of their same sex desires and walk the road of holiness and abstain from all homosexual behavior.  But churches are also obligated to contend for the faith and defend the biblical understanding of marriage as between a man a woman, as Jesus did in Matthew 19:3-6 - "have you not read from the beginning how God created them male and female and said, "the two shall become one" ?

“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, ⁵ and said, ‘ For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? ⁶ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

This shows that Jesus did say something about homosexuality, by His quoting from Genesis and teaching that the true nature of marriage is rooted in creation and God as creator of male and female.  Marriage is God's idea, and man has no right to change that.  "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is still true and we are not afraid to say that.  

If anything, Evangelicals have had more and more mercy and compassion on homosexuals in recent years, not less.  Many have spoken of the need to minister to those who are humble and know that their own homosexuality is sin and yet confess that their struggle of same sex attractions and desires.  Below are some good examples of compassionate and at the same time no compromise teaching on the issue of homosexuality.  Sam Williams' lecture was very compassionate toward those who struggle with same sex attraction, and yet did not compromise on what the Bible teaches.

Sam Williams - a very compassionate lecture on the issue of people who struggle with same sex attractions, but Professor Williams does not compromise what the Bible teaches.

Matt Chandler

Robert Gagnon

James White - refuted Matthew Vines argumentation.

Fred Butler - excellent compilation of articles.

Rachel seems to think that she would be a good Bible teacher - but since she doesn't want to "fight the good fight of faith" and "content for the faith" and rebuke false doctrine, then, Rachel, I am sorry, but you are not qualified to be a Bible teacher, as that is one of the main duties of elders/pastors/teachers/overseers - (Titus 1:9; 1 Timothy chapters 1 and 3, Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-5; Titus chapter 1, 2 Timothy 4:1-7; 2 Timothy 2:24-26)  You could have been a teacher of women, but your jettison of basic Biblical truths makes you unqualified. Maybe that is one of the reasons why God does not allow women to be pastors/elders/teachers of the church, (1 Timothy 2:12) because you don't want to fight.   Remember when the actress Sally Field, at an award ceremony, said, "If women were in charge there would be no G ... D. . .  wars!"   I always enjoyed many of Sally Field's movies - but I was very disappointed in her political rant there.  There would be no defense or police or chivalry or standing up against bullies and dictators or rapists and injustice either, if she had her way.  I don't think she really thought through her statement.

Rachel, your desire to "not fight" -  That actually indicates that you are a true woman - not wanting to be out front and fight. Think about that.  Men are called to fight.  Men are called to fight against evil -both physical and spiritual and moral -  and men are to defend the truth in the office of pastor-teacher/elder/overseer. You left the church for a while, and your number 1 reason for leaving the church was because you said you were better at organizing a Bible study than organizing a baby shower, but the church only wanted you to organize a baby shower.  But if you don't want to defend Bible doctrine, then you are not qualified to be a Bible teacher in a local church, even among women.

Rachel said she wanted to "wash the feet" of the homosexuals.  That's a good thing, in itself, provided there is repentance and conversion first; but I think she needs to study that passage deeper.  Jesus in John 13:9-13 is indicating that our feet need washing because after we take a bath, and then go out into the world, walking around, our feet get dirty.  There is sin in the world, and it affects us; but the passage assumes that one has truly been "cleansed"/converted first (John 13:10; cf. John 15:3; Acts 15:9; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11) and Jesus is indicating that we are to help each other grow in holiness, by washing each other's feet. It is not just bare service, but it is a sanctifying service of cleansing from sin and growing in holiness.   There is no washing/cleansing without confession of sin and repentance.  The disciples had taken a bath - verse 10 - "he who has taken a bath needs only to have his feet washed"  - repented and trusted in Christ - "cleansing their hearts by faith" - Acts 15:9.  The foot washing indicates the ongoing cleansing that we need after we are justified in order to grow in sanctification and holiness.  This seems to point to confession of sin (1 John 1:5-10) and repentance (Proverbs 28:13; Psalm 51; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10)

Jesus answered him, “ If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” 

<sup>A person must let Jesus Christ cleanse them by His grace and work for us; one must surrender to Jesus - repent of their sins and trust in Christ alone to save them.  And a person must allow Christ to continue wash them and sanctify them.  To refuse to repent of homosexuality is to refuse to let Jesus or the church "wash their feet".  Matthew Vines and other "Gay Christians" are saying "never shall you wash my feet" by their refusal to repent of their sin.  In fact, they are refusing the sanctifying/justifying bath of conversion.  (1 Corinthians 1:30) 

John 13:9-15
9</sup> Simon Peter *said to Him, “Lord,then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.” ¹⁰ Jesus *said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” ¹¹ For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, “Not all of you are clean.”

¹² So when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table again, He said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you? ¹³ You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. ¹⁴ If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. ¹⁵ For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. 

So, I think it is clear that Rachel misunderstands Jesus' teaching and example here in John 13.  Later, after Judas leaves, Jesus tells the other 11 disciples who are truly converted, "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken." (John 15:3; see the clear connection with John 13:10-11)  The branches that "hang out" around Jesus but bear no fruit are like Judas, who was externally around Jesus and the other 11, who will become the church, but had no true internal conversion or change.  (John 15:2, 6  - those that bear no fruit were never born again and will be burned up in hell.)

But back to the sub-title idea of the post, "Does Egalitarianism tend to advocate homosexuality? Not necessarily, and I would like to study this issue more as whether there is a possible connection and correlation; but there does seem to be many who  evolve from the Egalitarian position and later also advocate homosexuality as not a sin.  Or is that just the general way theological liberalism is by nature?  When one starts out with the devil's way of thinking, "Did God really say that?" (Genesis 3:1), then I think we can at least agree that we need to be very careful about what and how we question things in the Scriptures; and we should be careful about how we question our elders, our parents, and those that lead in the church.

Augustine, Theological Novums, and CTC

I found this comment over on Called to Communion (dated January 16, 2012).  I was pleased that the comment grasped one of the basic points of a few of my older blog articles, and that the CTC person didn't even make a serious attempt to answer it.

The comment summarized my argument as follows:

Bottom Line: You can’t just say Augustine wasn’t Reformed and call it a day (especially citing McGrath). While that might be true, what if Augustine had it wrong in the first place?; while the Reformation might appear as a “theological novum,” what if sola fide actually points to the right direction in Biblical exegesis regardless of the testimony of the Church Fathers? How do you argue against those who don’t care about showing their ancestry in Augustine or proving some sort of historical basis for imputed righteousness?

Tim Troutman of CTC responds:

In reply to your bottom line — if someone agrees that St. Augustine was not Reformed (and that no early Christian was), and still wants to be Reformed, I wouldn’t really argue with them; at least not as far as the point in this post goes. It could be the case that everyone misread the gospel up until Calvin and that Calvin misread most of those who misread the Scriptures, thinking they agreed with him, but at the same time, he correctly read the Scriptures. That’s possible on face value. But it’s also pretty silly. I’m not real excited about trying to argue with anyone who thinks that.

Yeah, silly. Sure. I would point out for clarification, I do care about ancestry and history.

Lutherans vs. the Reformed on the Invisible / Visible Church

I was recently directed to a link on Cyberbrethren that consisted of a writing by the late Dr. Kurt Marquart. In that link, Dr. Marquart made an incidental comment on the invisible / visible church terminology:

If the sense is clear, one should not quarrel about words. The “visible/invisible” terminology in respect of the church is a case in point. Our Confessions do not use that language, but speak of the church in the “proper sense” and in the “wide sense.” Moreover, Calvinists mean something quite different and unbiblical when they speak of “visible” and “invisible” churches. Yet standard Lutheran theology since Gerhard has spoken of the church being “visible” and “invisible,” and meant the right, orthodox content by this terminology. Similarly one must assume—other things being equal—that when orthodox Lutheran theologians speak of “objective” and “subjective” justification, they mean to express biblical, confessional truth, and not Calvinist or other deviations.

Certainly Marquart's passing comment here is tangential to his overall presentation on a different topic. I did though pause and wonder exactly what was meant when it was said, "Calvinists mean something quite different and unbiblical when they speak of 'visible' and 'invisible' churches." I was then provided with another link that was supposed to explain what Marquart meant: The Church - Invisible and Visible. This link provides a paragraph from Marquart along with commentary from a Lutheran pastor. I'm going to work through the material in this later link. I do so not with the intent to prove Lutherans and Calvinists are saying the same thing, but simply to point out that it appears some Lutherans know as little about Reformed theology in the same way some Reformed people know very little about Lutheran theology. I'll put the original blog post in red. I'm going to compare what this blog entry says to a standard work in Reformed systematic theology: Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology. Primarily I'll be using the revised one volume version, but I'll also make reference to the older volume II from the previous editions. I do so because Marquart cited this work by Berkhof, and should have been familiar with its contents.

The Church - Invisible and Visible
I've always been a little uncomfortable describing the Church as invisible because this is so easily misunderstood. There are not two churches, one invisible, made up of all believers in heaven and on earth, and the other one visible as the earthly institutional structure made up of believers and unbelievers (or elect and reprobate) alike. No, there is but one Church. That is what we confess in the Creed.

So, for this Lutheran pastor, Calvinists believe There are two churches: the invisible church comprises all true believers both earthly and heavenly. The visible church comprises those members on earth who can either be elect or reprobate. These are portrayed as two distinct entities. Here's what Berkhof states in his section, "That Between a Visible and an Invisible Church":

"The opponents of the reformers often accused them of teaching that there are two separate Churches...[Luther] and Calvin stress the fact that, when they speak of a visible and an invisble Church, they do not refer to two different Churches, but to two aspects of the one church of Jesus Christ" (p. 565).

So on a fundamental level, Berkhof places both Calvin and Luther against an unnamed opponent both teaching something akin to a visible / invisible distinction. That opponent of course was the Roman church.  Berkhof explains:

The Bible ascribes certain glorious attributes to the Church and represents her as a medium of saving and eternal blessings. Rome applied this to the Church as an external institution, more particularly to the ecclesia representativa or the hierarchy as the distributor of the blessings of salvation, and thus ignored and virtually denied the immediate and direct communion with God with His children, by placing a human mediatorial  priesthood between them. This is the error which the Reformers sought to eradicate by stressing the fact that the Church of which the Bible says such glorious things is not the Church as an external institution, but the Church as the spiritual body of Jesus Christ, which is essentially invisible at present, though it has a relative and imperfect embodiment in the visible Church and is destined to have a perfect visible embodiment at the end of the ages (p. 566).

Berkhof then is careful to say that the term "invisible church" applies to the militant Church ("The Church in the present dispensation is a militant Church, that is, she is called unto, and is actually engaged in, a holy warfare" [p.565]). This must be distinguished from the Church triumphant (the Church in Heaven). He states:

It should be borne in mind that the terms "visible" and "invisible" do not denote two Churches, but simply two aspects of the same Church; and that distinction is one that applies to the militant Church, so that it is impossible to regard the term "invisible church" as a designation of the Church Triumphant. The Church is called invisible, because she is essentially spiritual and cannot be discerned by the physical eye, and because it is impossible to determine infallibly who do and who do not belong to her. [Berkhof, Systematic Theology Vol. II,  p. 165).

So contrary to this Lutheran pastor, from a standard Reformed work, the distinction of visible and invisible is not speaking of two churches. Now perhaps a Lutheran could then claim the distinction of militant and triumphant church speak of two different churches. Berkhof though refers to the one church having "two stages of existence" (p. 565).

If this one Church is, as the Lutheran Confessions say, "holy believers and sheep who hear the voice of their Shepherd" (SA III:XII:2, Tappert), then it cannot be visible to the human eye. But then how can one know where the Church is? The classic answer is in the marks, the Word, Baptism, the Supper, etc. In this sense, the Church is visible. The one Church, then, is both invisible and visible. It is a Lutheran paradox.

Berkhof goes on to say of the visible church: "This Church is said to be invisible, because she is essentially spiritual and in her spiritual essence cannot be discerned by the physical eye; and because it is is impossible to determine infallibly who do and who do not belong to her" (p. 565-566).  He then points out:

"The invisible Church naturally assumes a visible form. Just as the human soul is adapted to the body and expresses itself through the body, so the invisible church,consisting not of mere souls but of human beings having souls and bodies, necessarily assumes a visible form in an external organization through which it expresses itself. The Church becomes visible in Christian profession and conduct, in the ministry of the Word and of the sacraments, and in external organization and government" (p. 566).

But it is so important in explaining this paradox to distinguish this Lutheran understanding of the Church which is both visible and invisible from Calvin's understanding of an invisible Church that is related to and given birth by the visible Church, but distinct from it. Calvin's distinction between the two makes two churches. Both are important to Calvin. "Just as we must believe, therefore, that the former church, invisible to us, is visible to the eyes of God alone, so we are commanded to revere and keep communion with the latter, which is called 'church' in respect to men" (Institutes of the Christian Religion 2, John T. McNeill, ed. [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960] p. 1022). The invisible Church includes only the elect. The visible Church includes elect and reprobate alike.

Here the Lutheran minister cites Calvin. Berkhof though states:

"Now it is undoubtedly true that the triumphant Church is invisible to those who are on earth, and that Calvin in his Institutes also conceives of this as included in the invisible Church, but the distinction was undoubtedly primarily intended to apply to the militant Church. As a rule it is so applied in Reformed theology" (p. 565).

In other words, Berkhof is stating that Calvin's view is not entirely representative of the Reformed view. Calvin indeed speaks of the visible / invisible church (Institutes IV, 1: 7-9), but Calvin does not refer to them as two different churches. Calvin says "that Holy Scripture speaks of the church in two ways." He doesn't say "That Holy Scripture speaks of two churches."

Once again, Dr. Kurt Marquart does an excellent job of clearly explaining the invisible/visible paradox in a way that avoids the Calvinistic error of makind [sic] two churches. 

So far, no Calvinistic error has been presented and properly substantiated.

He writes: "It is self-evident that the external marks define, constitute, and identify the church as outward fellowship in the means of grace. This outward fellowship, however, is not another or a different church from the inward fellowship of faith: it is that self-same church, in its visible 'mode.'

Note above,  Berkhof's comment "The Church becomes visible in Christian profession and conduct, in the ministry of the Word and of the sacraments, and in external organization and government" as well as the accompanying discussion of the Church taking a visible form.

That unbelieving hypocrites, who do not belong to the church, are nevertheless indistinguishably mixed up with the believers in their outward gathering round the means of grace, is of course a fact.

And even the Lutheran minister's caricature of the Reformed view that opened his blog post admits this.

We have here a sort of 'complementary principle': We can determine exactly who the church is and where it is, but we can never combine the two into an identification of the believing individuals in any given place.

I would agree. Simply because one may ostensively point to "the Church" it isn't possible to infallibly determine believing individuals. Berkhof states,

"It is entirely possible that some who belong to the invisible Church never become members of the visible organization... and that others are temporarily excluded from it, as erring believers who are for a time shut out from the communion of the visible Church. On the other hand there may be unregenerate children and adults who, while professing Christ, have no true faith in Him, in the Church as an external institution; and these as long as they are in that condition, do not belong to the invisible Church" (p. 566).

When we talk about who the church is, we must define it as the believers, whom we cannot observe or identify as such anywhere. And when we talk about where the church is, we must locate it by its public marks, but we cannot tell who the individual believers are. In other words, the marks always tell us where the believers are to be found, but they can never identify particular persons as believers (except of course by the rule of love, which is often deceived). The marks attach to the church, not to individuals.

I don't see any contradiction between this and what Berkhof has stated.

"The one conclusion that must not be drawn is that there are two churches" (The Church and her Fellowship, Ministry, and Governance [St. Louis: The Luther Academy, 1990] p. 22).

And, a standard Reformed systematic theology agrees.

I was trying to make this distinction between the Calvinistic understanding of visible/invisible Church and the Lutheran paradox between the Church visible/invisible. I think I failed miserably, and many were probably confused. Unfortunately I had not yet read these words from Prof. Marquart. I am profoundly indebted to my beloved teacher.

The blog entry I've critiqued is quite a number of years old (2006). Perhaps I'll drop this link over there, perhaps I won't. My gut tells me some Lutherans over react to Reformed theology and find problems that are not there. I would have no problem saying that the Reformed understand of visible / invisible church is of an entirely different nature than what standard Lutheranism says. However, of the Lutheran entry in question, it appears to me his blog entry failed just as miserably as did his earlier attempts.

The Best Use of Magisterial Power

ht: Steve Hays

Vatican set to control new 'catholic' Internet domain

The Vatican probably won't get around to infallibly interpreting any Bible verses for quite a long time- they have much more important things to do: "VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Vatican is in line to control the new Internet address extension ".catholic" and decide who is allowed to use it."

Sad news though: "The Vatican does not plan to allow individual bloggers or private Catholics to use ".catholic."

Luther and the Johannine Comma

Here's an interesting post from the Lutheran Theology Study Group: Luther and the Johannine Comma.

I mentioned similar information in Luther’s View of the Canon of Scripture:

Similar to Luther, Erasmus questioned the canonicity of particular books. The Catholic Encyclopedia points out,

“…[T]he attitude of Erasmus towards the text of the New Testament is an extremely radical one, even if he did not follow out all its logical consequences. In his opinion the Epistle of St. James shows few signs of the Apostolic spirit; the Epistle to the Ephesians has not the diction of St. Paul, and the Epistle to the Hebrews he assigns with some hesitation to Clement of Rome…”

Alan Wikgren points out, “Erasmus had freely expressed his doubts about the books disputed in the early church and made distinctions in their value. But he was led to subordinate these judgments to ecclesiastical authority.” How did Erasmus “subordinate his judgments”? Wikgren doesn’t say, although it is well known that during the significant years in which the Lutheran reformation began, Pope Leo X was an ally of Erasmus, and Erasmus enjoyed a particular level of economic and scholarly freedom by remaining loyal. Interestingly, after Erasmus died, his works were placed on the Church’s list of prohibited books. I know of at least one example in which Erasmus “subordinated his judgments.” Erasmus went as far as removing verses from the first edition of his Greek New Testament. He omitted 1 John 5:7-8 because he could find it in no manuscript. Roland Bainton notes,

“There was such an outcry that he agreed to restore it in case it could be discovered in any manuscript. One was found…and Erasmus, having sworn, was true to his oath…Unhappily the spurious verse passed from this second edition into the textus receptus and then into the King James translation. In the late nineteenth century, Pope Leo XIII declared it to be genuine, but forty years later a commission of the church reversed his verdict. Today no Catholic would defend its authenticity.”

The manuscript produced for Erasmus was a forgery. Interestingly, Luther followed the first edition of Erasmus, and kept 1 John 5:7 out of the Luther Bible. Bainton says, “But Luther had not sworn, and at this point he adhered to the first edition of Erasmus, though otherwise he was following the second.” [Studies on the Reformation, 8].

David T. King provides a helpful overview of this event:

"Another interesting note in the history of this edition of the Vulgate is the insertion of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8, KJV) by Erasmus. In response to his newly constructed Greek text in 1516, New Testament Greek scholar Metzger points out that, 'One of the editors of Ximenes' Complutensian Polyglot, criticized that his text lacked part of the final chapter of 1 John, namely the Trinitarian statement concerning "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth."' Metzger goes on to say that Erasmus gave his word that he would be willing, in future editions, to insert the Comma Johanneum if a single Greek manuscript could be produced that included the passage in question. At length one was found and Erasmus inserted the spurious passage. Regarding the sudden appearance of this particular Greek manuscript, Metzger writes: ‘At length such a copy was found—or was made to order! As it now appears, the Greek manuscript had probably been written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus stood by his promise and inserted the passage in his third edition (1522), but he indicates in a lengthy footnote his suspicions that the manuscript had been prepared expressly in order to confute him’” [David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol.1 (WA: Christian Resources, 2001), 166].

Mahalia Jackson Sings 'The Lord's Prayer' - Newport 1958

I recently watched the 1958 Newport Jazz Festival on Netflix. I enjoyed this performance from Mahalia Jackson.

Universal Objective Justification in Lutheranism

I've spent quite a lot of time looking up obscure Martin Luther quotes and putting them back in context. Primarily, the Luther quotes I've covered are those being used by Roman Catholics. It's one thing to know a bit of history about Luther and his writings and quite another to know the theology and development of Lutheran theology. I know far more about the former than I do the later. Recently I become involved with the dispute among Lutherans concerning universal objective justification (UOJ).

It happened while engaging a long time Lutheran acquaintance on a discussion board. There I was hearing a theology coming from this Lutheran that all men have been given the gift of faith. I contacted another Lutheran acquaintance who informed me what exactly was going on here: a particular Lutheran theology of justification popularly referred to UOJ.

If I've got it correct, UOJ holds Jesus has died for the sins of the world (all men without distinction or exception), and was raised for (and accomplished) the justification of all men. The conclusion that follows is that all  men were objectively justified when Jesus rose from the dead. What needs to happen then is for each person to experience subjective justification (a person accepts what Christ has done in objective justification).

Another Lutheran blogger has put together a brief UOJ primer that's worth a look, this post as well has some helpful clarifications. According to the author of the later link, a great majority of Lutherans in the United States hold to UOJ. Based on interactions with a number of Lutherans over the years, that a majority of North American Lutherans hold to UOJ would make sense to me. Whether or not UOJ is a deviation from earlier Lutheranism is not a topic I care to engage (the last thing I need is countless hours of research on a topic I'm only mildly interested in). Some of the blog posts mentioned already go into this topic historically.

The other Lutheran position is referred to as Justification By Faith Alone (JBFA). What's one of the differences? My helpful Lutheran acquaintance explains:

"There is one vital aspect in this debate that must be brought to light. The two camps, JBFAer and UOJers differ in the object of faith. Consistent UOJers are unanimous in this, that for them the object of faith is not the Atonement that happened in the past as payment for sins, for them the object of faith is the Justification that has already, so they say, occurred 2000 years ago. In this regard the commentator R. C. H. Lenski is correct in his criticism of them. In his commentary on Romans 1:17, Lenski was well correct that in the UOJ scheme of things, there really is no declaration of righteousness that happens when a person believes because the declaration already happened in the past. Whereas in JBFA, the object of faith is the Atonement in accordance to Romans 3:21-26, specially, v.25. UOJers are quick to claim that we are twisting their words, but deny as much as they want, the effect of their teaching is that it simply makes justification a mythical. Lenski rebuts well the idea that if you believe in such a way, you are being synergistic."

Of course, any modern-day discussion of justification can become quite technical, so I'm sure this sparse blog post has only scratched the surface.  I offer it really for my Reformed readers- those particularly who wonder why so many serious Lutherans on the Internet appear to dislike Reformed theology so much. Because Reformed theology holds to limited atonement, this doctrine is seen as a direct assault on objective universal justification.  It certainly has explained a few things to me.  If any of my Reformed friends have interactions with Lutherans on the atonement or other aspects of Calvinism, I suggest becoming acquainted with UOJ so you don't end up talking past whichever Lutheran you're in conversation with. Slow down, and make sure to define your terms carefully.

Addendum
Martin Yee has suggested this link, Kurt Marquart on Objective Justification helps explain UOJ from the perspective of someone who holds to it. This link makes the following comment:

I agree with Henry Hamann that the terminology “objective/subjective justification” is less than ideal since “subjective justification . . . is every whit as objective as objective justification.” On the other hand, when Calvinists use the same terminology, it expresses their meaning very well: “Passive or subjective justification takes place in the heart or conscience of the sinner.” The Reformed reject universal grace, hence cannot mean general justification by “objective justification;” and “subjective justification” means for them something experiential—precisely what it does not mean for Lutherans. Biblically, justification is God’s act, which faith receives or believes, but does not feel or “experience.”

This writer is quoting Berkhoff who indeed does use the terms objective and subjective justification. It appears to me the author though is putting words into Berkhoff's mouth. Berkhoff appears to be saying nothing more than a sinner becomes aware that a pardon has been granted because of Christ. The conclusion reached is in error. The idea that  "faith receives or believes" is indeed... an experience as well in Lutheranism. In other words, Marquart is making a statement that equally applies to  Lutheranism if Berkhoff is quoted correctly.

Berkhoff is saying that actively or objectively God makes a divine declaration that the demands of the law are met for a sinner, and this logically precedes faith.  For passive of subjective justification, Berkoff states, "The granting of pardon would mean nothing to a prisoner, unless the glad tidings were communicated to him and the doors of the prison were opened. Moreover, it is exactly at this point that the sinners learns to understand better than anywhere else that salvation is of free grace."