November 26, 2016
It’s all yours today…
November 28, 2013
January 9, 2015
October 4, 2019
Advent is here – this is a good listen
The other day, perhaps on Jean’s article, we were discussing the difference between the theologian of glory vs the theologian of the cross. Perhaps this will help clear it up a bit and see where you identify.
Someone here said “I was driving and listening to J Vernon McGee today… he observed that any offering of praise that we bring to worship God is never acceptable to Him, if we have rancor or arrogance in our hearts.” This is the theology of glory – that we think we can tell what we need to do to get God to receive us or receive or worship and praise.
This requires that we first clean ourselves before coming to God and that we become the main actor in the worship and praise of God.
The theology of the cross would look more like this;
“We do not go to church as winners to give God our best in praise and worship but we go to church as sinners to receive God’s best in the Word and Sacraments.” In this case, we just show up and God is the main actor in worship.
1 Cor. 11:28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, but if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged.
Exodus 30:17 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying,18“You shall also make a laver of bronze, with its base of bronze, for washing; and you shall put it between the tent of meeting and the altar, and you shall put water in it. 19“Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet from it; 20when they enter the tent of meeting, they shall wash with water, so that they will not die; or when they approach the altar to minister, by offering up in smoke a fire sacrifice to the LORD. 21“So they shall wash their hands and their feet, so that they will not die; and it shall be a perpetual statute for them, for Aaron and his descendants throughout their generations.”
you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 2 Pt 2:5
Jerod – that is a communion verse telling you to examine yourself that you believe you are taking the true body and true blood of Jesus at the Lord’s Table so you don’t drink judgment on yourself — which I think is directed at the cracker and juice folks.
So I don’t know that it is a way to present yourself for worship passage.
The Exodus passage is a law passage to approach God. Do we approach Jesus today under his law or his grace?
But I would guess that if the J Vernon McGee passage is correct then perhaps no one has ever had their worship accepted by God. Has anyone here eliminated arrogance or rancor from their life?
The 2 Peter passage makes my point. In the passage quoted, who is doing the work? God is doing the work – we show up for the worship that Jesus provides in the word and sacraments and because the word and the sacraments are efficacious – meaning they do what they promise to do, through that worship God transforms us to his pleasing, his work pleases himself. That’s pretty cool 🙂
2 Peter explains we “offer up”. God is doing the work, always. Does that mean we simply show up like lemmings? Or does a life of faith require something of us? Two scriptures come to mind
Romans 12 1-2 I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
And Ephesians 2:8 “saved by grace through faith” meaning both faith and faithfulness. “The righteous man will live by faith”, both faith and faithfulness. We offer up, we present, by faithfulness, the oft ignored side of Holy Spirit inspired faith.
In the original languages and context ( pistis, emunah) of these references there is the urging that we are to be faithful incessantly, as we are to pray incessantly. Where does worship stop and the mundane begin? Every moment in life has the potential to give glory to God, or to ourselves.
Doesn’t God say we will be called to account for every idle word?
Ecc. 5:1-2Guard your steps as you go to the house of God and draw near to listen rather than to offer the sacrifice of fools; for they do not know they are doing evil. Do not be hasty in word or impulsive in thought to bring up a matter in the presence of God. For God is in heaven and you are on the earth; therefore let your words be few.
In other words, we don’t just show up and expect the Divine Soda Machine to give us our spiritual refreshment. Familiarity breeds contempt.
If God expected great care to be taken before coming into his presence in the Old Testament, how much more care, with how much more thankfulness, should be taken as He has graced us by giving us himself in our hearts?
That is not to say there have not been plenty times when I have shown up just to show my face and been blessed by God despite my worst efforts. That is pretty cool, for sure. He is a gracious God, isn’t He?
I’ve been tabled for moderation, so, there’s another response 🙂
“Or does a life of faith require something of us? ”
Doesn’t that sound a bit contradictory? God gives us faith and then makes us turn in our faith for works? (or something of performance.) – you take away the entire gospel as soon as you say God requires something of me.
I think you totally miss out on the doctrine of vocation.. God does all things to me and for me in worship. If their are works to be done to show my “life of faith”, it is to my neighbor not for God. God does not need my good works, but my neighbor does.
“In other words, we don’t just show up and expect the Divine Soda Machine to give us our spiritual refreshment. ” Not quite but close – I just show up to receive the absolution, to hear his gracious word and not at the Divine Soda Machine – but at the Divine Table does God feed me his body and pours down my throat his shed blood – all just for showing up.”
But that is because we look at whats happening at church from separate vantage points.
I think this is very well said from Klemet Preus, in his book The Fire and the Staff,
“If the Divine Service is viewed primarily as our praising God, then you can do that just as well from home. In fact, once we have looked at the topic of vocation, you will see that we can serve God better in the world than in the church building. But if the service is understood as God giving us the forgiveness of sins, then you’ve got to be there. It is very possible that the low attendance at Sunday services seen in so many churches today is a reflection of how we define the service. If I am acting, then I can do it another time. If God is acting, I better be there.”
Of course not. Works are not self generated, faithfulness is not, but regenerated, from the fount of living water, so that none may boast.
We depend upon the righteousness of Christ first. All the same, we “put on Christ”, don’t we? In all these these references the onus is on the believer to let God work through us. That’s the best I think we can do, to let him. But that is moment to moment, with the culmination being the Lord’s table. There is no forgiveness in showing up, communion, etc. That was taken care of at the cross. “Once for all”. Otherwise, apart from the scars Christ continually bears, how do we “examine [our]selves and then…” or, offer up a living sacrifice? The only reality of the cleansing sacrifice is found in Him.
Eucharist or no (that’s a whole different cracker), depending upon attendance or a sacrament for forgiveness, ablation rather than a once and for all substitutionary atonement, is a work.
God is constant. Forgiveness is eternal. When does God start/stop acting on our behalf for his namesake? When I sense the service start? It sounds to me as if you are advocating for the RCC. Which I doubt, but it comes of as such.
Exodus and Leviticus passages, Leviticus 9, for ex., typify the blood atonement and water cleansing of Christ’s death on the cross, and how we are to approach it in prayer and meditating upon the Word.
Wouldn’t proper glory theology exalt Christs finished work on that cross?
MLD and Jerod,
Thank you for engaging this topic. Good stuff for pondering.
Back to Advent beginning tomorrow – as I said before, Advent is a combination of waiting and remembering. The 3 aspects are Jesus coming to the world, Jesus coming to us as individuals and Jesus as he will come.
The Jesus coming to us is in2 forms – past through our baptism and a continuing present in the weekly supper.
Tomorrow’s reading is from Matt 21 Jesus’s Triumphal entry into Jerusalem – which leaves a big unanswered question. Why were the police not called for Grand Theft Donkey? 😉
Think of this – Jesus dies on the cross for your sins 9,000 miles away and 2,000 yrs ago. How has Jesus chosen to deliver this gift of salvation and forgiveness to you?
But let’s go back to the beginning (no, not Genesis 1) but the comment from J Vernon McGee – What do you think of that comment? If the comment is true has anyone ever come before God in acceptable worship?
“Wouldn’t proper glory theology exalt Christs finished work on that cross?” No, there is no ‘proper’ theology of Glory.”
Salvation was delivered through the Law.
13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”—
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Is. 52:13 Behold, My servant will prosper,
He will be high and lifted up and greatly exalted… 53:4 surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
5But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-beingfell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
About McGee, I think if one has rancor or arrogance in their heart, then they are not coming before God having been washed in the blood, or remembering they are washed in the blood. It wouldn’t be acceptable to God based on the self generation of the work, “I’ve come to God out of obligation first, family second, and because Jesus, third.” Where if we put on Christ we accept that he has gone before us already, and if my motive is based on that, I won’t have arrogance or rancor because I have come before Him in spirit and truth. I think that was what McGee was getting at. What was the section he was teaching on?
Wow, you are going to have to help me here. So Jesus wins our salvation on the cross and then he delivers it to us through the law?
So the Good News of Jesus Christ is the law?
About coming before God with arrogance – unless you have wiped sin out of your life you are still arrogant and rebellious before God -how could you not be?
Perhaps it is just me, but I think the divide between American Evangelicalism and the Reformation is so large that it may not be repairable.
Jared, not because of you – just my long journey in this discussion.
“Wow, you are going to have to help me here. So Jesus wins our salvation on the cross and then he delivers it to us through the law?
So the Good News of Jesus Christ is the law?”
:-/Sorry, not the best delivery on my part. the delivery mechanism of our salvation was God’s grace in sending his Son to fulfill and nullify the law on our behalf. Jesus delivers us salvation because he was righteous, through the law, to be on the cross. Only Good could be righteous through His Law, no?
Romans 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
“About coming before God with arrogance – unless you have wiped sin out of your life you are still arrogant and rebellious before God -how could you not be?”
Yep, that’s why God’s mercy is so unfathomable, right? What struck me in your post was a stunning flippancy to show up and expect to be blessed by him for the simple act of showing up, when all that does is show Gods love toward us, nothing else. The inscrutable thing is is that I can come before Him having washed, but even having washed there are still spots. Even as best as we can, we cannot wipe our sin clean,
He removes it as far as eternity goes, literally forgets (God forgets? ) and he only sees Christ’s shed blood by his grace, through the faith he’s measured to us, the faithfulness I exercise under the power of the Holy Spirit, not my own power. It is indescribably beautiful. What a humble, patient God.
The isms and the -tions never go far enough. In each God has a remnant. Just as Baruch with Jeremiah, we should be grateful to escape with our lives.
Can I just say how much I appreciate your willingness to hash this out? Thank you MLD.
Wow just realized predictive text said “stunning flippancy”
Should be SEEMING flippancy. I would not try to guess your heart.
“Jesus delivers us salvation because he was righteous, through the law, to be on the cross. Only Good could be righteous through His Law, no?”
My question (up several) was ‘how’ does God deliver his grace to you and me as individuals as we are removed from the cross by 9,000 miles and 2,000 yrs? I have herd people say take your problem to the cross – that is impossible today.
I say that Jesus uses actual physical means to deliver grace and salvation – what say you?
“What struck me in your post was a SEEMING flippancy to show up and expect to be blessed by him for the simple act of showing up,”
Yes, isn’t that great? Since I believe that God is,not the main actor in all of this – but the ONLY actor in this, yes showing up by itself is a great action on our part. We show up and God does.
But look at the flip side that we see today in much of Pop American Christianity – that you don’t even need to show. That God will meet you where you are – on the lake, in nature etc – or those who are fed up with Church, so sitting in my living room is good enough.
Yep, I will take the guy who just drags himself into church tomorrow (just shows up) and there in the presence of the holy God, receives.
I gave this more thought overnight. The big divides we see like this really has little to do with doctrine. It is driven by how we approach God and Church.
I bring this up to point out the difference and not to state who is right and who is wrong – because we have already decided right or wrong by our practice. This morning we will all stand outside our church facility and make an assessment of our relationship approaching and with Jesus. In assessment we will ask a question.
The Evangelical (I was one for 25 yrs) will ask “Have I completely dedicated every part of myself to Jesus? I have I given myself over to Jesus before I walk in and offer my gifts and my praise?”
A Lutheran will pause outside the church and ask “Has Jesus given everything to me? Has he dedicated his whole life to me? Has he invited me into his heart?”
I don’t know how the evangelical will answer his questions but I know that my answer isa glorious and profound yes.
Your comment 2 is so right on dude!
We yield and receive in all things from God.
As the Amp Bible says:
Cling to, rely upon, trust in (Velcro) Him.
My faith is in Jesus and not in me or my abilities which can never measure up.
Your in prime form on this thread MLD, just saying.
Sometimes your a paragon of solid info and other times, well… 🙂
The same word confirms or condemns the Christian, the couch potato, the pew filler. If repentance from sin does not accompany their attendance or non attendance, the location is moot. The communion is moot. In fact, location becomes a hindrance to faith:
Look at John 4
21Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22“You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23“But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. 24“God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
Then, later on, “Your word is truth…”
Repentance is worship, and it is by God’s grace we have been saved, it is God given faith, Holy Spirit inspired faithfulness of the person that keeps us in the Grace of God by continuing to live a faithful life of repentance. Were we to stop repenting of sin wherever we spot it in our lives, we would no longer be faithful. Faith = faith and faithfulness simultaneously. Without one there is not the other. Grace is spiritual, because Jesus said worship is spiritual. Grace is truthful, because Jesus said worship is truthful. Grace is not at all anything imbibed or sensed with the senses. If it were, he would have said so. But he never did. It’s just not in there.
The physical act of going to church doesn’t bring anyone into the presence of God any more than not going to church does.
Are there scriptural references for your belief?
I just realized this year is one of those where many evangelical churches, following their liturgical calendar cancel The Lord’s Day and declare the day Family Day. On this day, in honor of Family Day Jesus Christ is given the day off (I assume with pay – and lord knows he needs a day off.)
Can anyone guess which day that will be? 🙂
I believe the gap is too big to overcome as well.
Jerrod sounds like a confused Roman Catholic…
Grace is not at all anything imbibed or sensed with the senses. If it were, he would have said so. But he never did. It’s just not in there.
Hmmm…. are you trying to trick me? It can’t be this easy.
“Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
Well let’s look at it because I have heard 100s of evangelical preachers say what they think it is saying – but they ignore the actual words.
1.) Jesus gives them something – the cup
2.) Jesus tells them to drink from it.
3.) Jesus explains what they are drinking – he does not say it is wine – so let us read the actual words – “this is my blood” – as I have said, I have heard many deny the actual words of Jesus and insert their own words.
4.) Jesus explains the purpose of drinking his blood (not wine) – (1) it introduces the new covenant and (2) here is your own personal challenge to the actual words of Jesus — for the forgiveness of sins.
“The physical act of going to church doesn’t bring anyone into the presence of God any more than not going to church does.”
My #10 disputes this comment and explains why you think your comment is good.
My #22 question is still awaiting an answer – it is central to this conversation. I will repeat;
“My question (up several) was ‘how’ does God deliver his grace to you and me as individuals as we are removed from the cross by 9,000 miles and 2,000 yrs? I have herd people say take your problem to the cross – that is impossible today.
I say that Jesus uses actual physical means to deliver grace and salvation – what say you?”
I am guessing the evangelical answer is a denial of physical means and is Pixie Dust – but I am looking for confirmation.
“Repentance is worship, ”
Was it a corporate part of your worship service today?
The confession and the absolution were not only a part of our divine service this morning but it was the very first thing we did.
“Grace is not at all anything imbibed or sensed with the senses. If it were, he would have said so. But he never did. It’s just not in there.” I agree with you, but I’m not sure what you have in mind so my agreement might be for a reason different from your argument. Grace is God’s favor towards us for the sake of Christ’s vicarious satisfaction.
“The physical act of going to church doesn’t bring anyone into the presence of God any more than not going to church does.” Christ is present in different ways. He is present in the Word. He is present in the Christian. He is omnipresent. He is present in the Sacrament. He is also present: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
But, post-Pentacost, isn’t the NT replete with examples of the custom of the church meeting together? In fact, doesn’t the NT say not to neglect meeting together; to pray for one another; to obey church leaders; to appoint overseers; etc.?
Doesn’t marriage portray the relationship of Christ and His Church?
Jean and MLD
“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” Eating is believing.
Consistency and Context
If we’re discussing Matthew and Mark, then why not Luke who makes explicit the fact that this is in remembrance? Or John, who doesn’t mention the particulars of the meal at all ? Or the fact that drinking blood is forbidden in both Old and new testaments? The Spirit gives life.
John’s Gospel tells us the Word became flesh. that Jesus is the manna, that we would eat of him NOT as the fathers did in Exodus and died; Jesus said that the flesh profits nothing, it is the Spirit which gives life
Eating the word is believing the word of God as seen with Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and John in Revelation. The word became flesh. The words he speaks are life, John 6. We eat the word by believing it. He explains the metaphor. The last supper is built upon this understanding of the symbology and metaphors, since no jew would consume human blood. But I bet some of them checked the cup to be sure.
Jesus ate after his resurrection as one of the proofs that he was resurrected. We eat of the Word (believe) as proof we are resurrected.
Agreed, what the flesh could not do, God graciously did vicariously in Christ Jesus. Once. Not to be transubstantiated in a sacrament. I dunno if that’s where you were going with it, but now I’m riding that hobby house, so…
The way I understand it, God is present in our lives because of his Holy Spirit residing in us. An unbeliever is present before God in the guiding of the Spirit as the unbeliever hears the gospel. As John the Baptist stated,
“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
“There I am among them”
I could be wrong but isn’t this dealing with loosing and binding judgements in the context of relational issues amongst each other? Jesus is certainly present then, in that kingdom amongst and within those believers. I don’t think that extends to another unbeliever amongst them for the reason stated above.
Absolutely, marriage is first a model of the triunity of God, and his gift to us second to be enjoyed. Those who choose not to be of the kingdom of God also display this model also, but does that mean their marriage brings them into the presence of God?
So basically, in the Old T, they ate the word which was symbolic of believing it. In the New T, the word becomes flesh, he is the manna. We believe the word which is spiritually eating of it.
haven’t time to read the thread, but #2 noted…
it might have been more succinct and to the point to just observe that we all are sinners with deceitful hearts and perhaps it should have been more clearly stated, i.e., it is the known, but unconfessed sin that we hold too important to our precious selves to confess to God as sin that makes our sacrifice of praise unacceptable to bring to the Holy Father
“Praise God from whom all blessings flow… ” that person sitting in front of me gets more blessing than i do God – do You know they cheat their customers every single day and yet you let them prosper? … “praise Him all creatures here below” … and you’ve blessed them with such smart, polite children – everybody notices them, but not my children, You’re not fair … “praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost. aaaahmennn”
insert one’s own list of grievances … or other sins of a different, but known nature 🙂
did read #35 and IMO Jerod has brought blessing to the thread
in none of the OT sacrifices did they physically consume the blood — before the Exodus from Egypt, the lamb’s blood was found applied to the door post and the symbology of that for us today is stunning
God keep all
So since we are not to eat Jesus’ flesh and we are not to drink his blood – who misspoke, Jesus or the writers?
When Jesus said take and eat this is my body – what he really meant to say was “this is not my body?” Odd
When Jesus said take and drink this is my blood – what he really meant to say was “this is not my blood?” Odd
Doesn’t it seem odd as you explained it that eating flesh does no good and that the OT people died doing it that Jesus would make this comparison and now tell his people to do so – even if he was just joking with them? – doesn’t it seem odd that if the laws forbade drinking of blood that Jesus would tell his people to do so – even if he was just joking?
So let’s talk about remembrance – I don’t think it means what you think it means. Remembrance in the Bible does not mean ‘remember’ in the traditional sense. “I was forgetting Jesus but now at the table I will remember him.” In the case of the Supper remembrance means to bring that person, object into you presence. It is actually something that is done by God himself – it’s not like we as a church do this in a standalone mode and bring Jesus into our presence – God does it for us.
Look how God uses the term. When God says I will remember my people – does he mean he will not forget them? No, it means that they will be ever present with him. Look at the contrast – when God says to his enemies “I will remember them no more” (or however the actual wording goes) – it does not mean he will forget them – it means that they will no longer be in his presence.
So yes, we do eat and drink for the forgiveness of our sins – AND we do it in his presence.
One more thing – the one person who could have cleared this up, who could have corrected the Institution of the Supper, as I have heard many evangelical pastors do was the Apostle Paul. Remember, what Paul had he received straight from Jesus – and there is a good chance that 1 Corinthians was written before the Gospels.
Now Paul could have said – as I have heard Chuck Smith and Greg Laurie and many others interrupt the institution to clarify or actually change the words to say “this represents or symbolizes my body / blood” – but Paul did not – he states clearly that Jesus said it was body and blood – no Pauline footnote – I looked.
After making this clear statement what is his warning? “27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.” – – concerning what?? not the bread & wine – but the body & blood of Jesus.”
And then Paul drives it home – “29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.” He is saying that if you deny that it is the body and blood (this would be that lack of discernment) you are in deep doo doo.
Paul’s warning – not mine.
“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” (1 Cor 10:16-17)
The word “participation” (Greek: Koinonia) also can be translated “communion” and from this we get the term “Holy Communion”. It is a communion between believers and Christ and among believers.
First of all, it is a communion “in the blood” and “in the body.” Can we take Paul’s words at face value? Why hedge?
Second “we who are many are one body….” Therefore, only people who share a common confession about what is happening at the altar could possibly be in communion with one another. Let’s be honest with one another.
For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Are you starting a new conversation or just practicing quoting random verses?
The doctrine of mysticism you espouse is not communion, it is separation. First to those who practice it, second to those who will not.
Your exegesis is lacking, and I was hoping to avoid any further debate. Remembrance, anamnesis, speaks of memory, recall. The subject of that statement was us, we need to remember him because we do not always abide with him. That is why the supper and the gathering together was instituted, for us.
From Thayer’s ἀνάμνησις, ἀναμνησεως, ἡ(ἀναμιμνῄσκω), a remembering, recollection:εἰς τήν ἐμήν ἀνάμνησιν to call me (affectionately) to remembrance, Luke 22:19
You seem to think God sins, that his own rules do not apply to him
“For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.” Lev. 17:14
God hasn’t changed anything. The church has. In the pursuit of power the laity has been oppressed by the Roman Catholic machine. The same which has and does persecute believers and destroy children. Like Jews in the exodus, some in mainstream denoms are grumbling to return to Egypt.
I have pointed out six ways from Sunday why grace is not delivered in crackers and juice, but all you have to say is, Did God really say…?
Eucharist as separation was the meaning of that random verse
“I have pointed out six ways from Sunday why grace is not delivered in crackers and juice, ”
Even if you believe that the elements go no further than crackers and juice, Jesus still has promises associated with the eating and drinking. – even on the negative side of personal condemnation.
All you have done is confirm the Pop American Christian doctrine of “everything happens by Pixie Dust”…. which I suspected from your very first comment. But you are in good company because I think there are more in America that hold your position than hold mine.
Pixie Dust is a Bethel thing.
More and more churches are swinging towards the idea that perhaps it takes more faith to believe in the mysticism of the Eucharist, such as Courson.
“In the pursuit of power the laity has been oppressed by the Roman Catholic machine.”
First, the early church had a view on the Eucharist that was much closer to MLD’s than yours.
Second, your soteriology is a lot closer to Rome than anything from the Protestant Reformation…
You’ve mentioned mysticism a couple times. I understand the term “mysticism” to be associated with either having a transcendent experience or actually participating in the divine nature.
That is not what Lutherans believe about the Eucharist. We never confuse or mix the human and the divine. We are not gnostic or dualistic. We have a high regard for the physical, creation and being creatures. We acknowledge our fallen nature and eagerly await the redemption of our bodies and being set free from sin.
How so? Perhaps you can quote me and quote The Council of Trent? Because from what I’ve read concerning the Eucharist, I disagree.
Pixie Dust is a Bethel thing.
Well through all of this you have said what does not deliver grace and salvation but you have not once said what does.
Right now you are in the Bethel camp — “it just comes to me from the air.” – that is not what the Bible says.
Hey, I have gone easy on you – I haven’t even brought up the Baptism Saves verses etc.yet 😉
Do you believe in transubstantiation?
Jesus wants us to “come to him” not only in faith, but also in sacramental union: for union with
Christ in all the sacraments and particularly in the Blessed Eucharist not only signifies and
symbolizes our complete mystical integration in him, but also produces that which it signifies.
“He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. As the living Father has
sent me and as I live because of the Father, so he who eats me, he also shall live because of me”
(Jn 6:57–58). (281)
Fr. Thomas Merton
Merton and I disagree. As do Foucald, Mother Theresa and a host of others. The transubstantiated Eucharist is mysticism, as Merton explains the participant becomes one with Christ wholly, completely.
As Chuck said, as long as you are in his will, you don’t need to worry.
Yes I have answered that. Saved by grace, through faith/faithfulness., not of ourselves, but depending upon the gracious finished work of Christ first. Not of works (eucharist) that anyone may boast.
Good heavens don’t go there, please. 🙂
I have to run out, but I can answer definitively that Lutherans, myself included, do not believe in transubstantiation. We believe in the real presence, but that it is “in, with, and under” the bread and wine. Thus, the communicant receives, body and bread, blood and wine. The “under” denotes that the body and blood are hidden within the bread and wine, so that the bread and wine remain bread and wine.
The “under” is consistent with the way in which God comes to his people after the fall: Hidden behind masks of creation.
And this is what we have been discussing the whole time – you my friend have no idea have to properly distinguish the law from the gospel. You look at God’s law and think he is delivering grace through his law (which is laughable) – you even said such in one of your first posts.
Here is the will of God – from the mouth of Jesus himself.
“You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
Here again is the will of God -the 10 commandments.
So how and I supposed to feel safe in ‘the will of God’? Not by his law – but by his mercy.
What I meant by that is clear from Romans 8 1Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh,
: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the
requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us,
who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
He did it for you so your eternity doesn’t depend upon your ability to fulfill the law, but your dependance on his ability. He’s done it! You said it, his mercy. How merciful he is to see you clothed in Christ based solely on your belief in him. Feel safe in that fact. Isn’t that the simple profound truth of John 3?
Maybe you can answer? Please tell me how this says God did not use the law to deliver his Grace. The law is part and parcel of the Gospel.
I learn something new every day!
I see that you have negative things to say about me on other blogs…why not here?
Jerod – you have silenced me. I have no response to your claim that God’s grace is delivered through his Law.
God, the Holy Spirit, uses the Law to convict the world of sin.
The Law cannot deliver grace, unless one can keep the Law perfectly.
I see no post on that site saying the things you say about it here. I also see from past posts you defended the concept of contemplative prayer? Why say you have refuted it?
My post on emergentwatch.com
Found this out the hard way. Also realized some CC pastors lack discernment in friendships.
He blogged that he “revels” in the current plight of CC – basically because it proves him right, from his perspective. Such a pastoral thing to say…
When Leonard Sweet and Rick Warren are your brothers it ain’t saying much.”
One of those things I’ve said before.
I thought it was taken for granted, especially when I told you I think you might be preaching to your prerogatives.
Sorry for the confusion, though I doubt there was any. Any update on my alleged RCC beliefs, lining up quote for quote with catechism?
No explanation as to how that is not grace through the fulfilment of the Mosaic law?
RC soteriology demands that you play your part in your salvation…which you have both affirmed and refuted.
Your confusion is not my problem.
The idea that salvation is delivered through the law is unique in the history of heresy.
As to the blog article, I don’t know the definition of “emergent”, but gladly affirm prayer and unity in Christ.
There is a legitimate concern regarding contemplative prayer and mysticism: It is the practice of trying to empty ones mind so that the Spirit of God can fill it. I don’t know if Brother Lawrence engaged in that practice, but that was not what Duane commended.
Contemplating Scripture, praying a lot, are salutary.
Aside from Brother Lawrence, a discerning theologian can take good teaching from someone, while discarding any perceived error. Some evangelicals throw out the baby with the Roman bathwater. There is, ironically, a total lack of discernment.
I don’t know much about contemplative prayer and know nothing of Brother Lawrence, but … it cannot be any worse than the teaching that one is saved and forgiven through the Law.
Brother Lawrence and his followers are much closer to the front of the heaven line than Jerod and those wild and crazy CC pastors who teach him.
As I said earlier today, sadly there are more in America who believe what Jerod states than believe what say.
You guys have been so helpful in making me second guess my “bad theology” that I felt compelled to poke around the internet. This from gotquestions.org :
God has always been full of grace (Psalm 116:5; Joel 2:13), and people have always been saved by faith in God (Genesis 15:6). God did not change between the Old and New Testaments (Numbers 23:19; Psalm 55:19). The same God who gave the Law also gave Jesus (John 3:16). His grace was demonstrated through the Law by providing the sacrificial system to cover sin. Jesus was born “under the law” (Galatians 4:4) and became the final sacrifice to bring the Law to fulfillment and establish the New Covenant (Luke 22:20). Now, everyone who comes to God through Christ is declared righteous (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 3:18; Hebrews 9:15)…
The answer at #65 is incorrect and demonstrates a total lack of the ability of the author to distinguish Law and Gospel. Here is where the statement goes south:
“His grace was demonstrated through the Law by providing the sacrificial system to cover sin.”
No, that’s not how or where God demonstrates his grace. Take Moses, for example, God called Moses out of His pure grace and mercy to deliver Israel:
“Then the Lord said, “I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt and have heard their cry because of their taskmasters. I know their sufferings, 8 and I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey”
It is true that God is the same God in both the OT and NT. Moreover, it is true that Jesus was born a Jew (under the Law). But, it is incorrect to say that grace is demonstrated through the Law. Here is how Paul distinguishes the two:
“For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”
Here is how Paul describes the role of the Law prior to Christ:
“So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.”
Grace was always a matter of God’s election and His people’s response by faith. There are numerous incidents in the OT where the Lord spurned sacrifices when the people’s hearts were in rebellion. The sacrifices were actually not for God’s benefit, but provided physical signs to the people to strengthen their faith.
This is what happens when you get your theological training from the internet.
I tried this yesterday but it did not work – let me try once more. The Law;
“You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” and ..
The 10 Commandments
Now explain how you are saved by the Law (this is where your theology interfaces with the RCC.)
Of course I am sure you have heard this rumor floating around and perhaps you have been tempted to believe it, but just have not come around yet – “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
One other thing, you may note on you theological website of choice, that they word the problem of ‘Law vs Gospel’ – this is a wrong viewpoint to begin with. The proper view on this is the proper distinction between Law and Gospel –
Looking over the Got Questions website – they are the typical decision theology group – from the Romans Road to the sinners prayer – you are in the middle of the action.
Even though they say that the sinner’s prayer does not save, they do say that it is the time that you tell God that you have digested the download of information provided from the pulpit, you have changed your mind and are now ready to accept him. These acts are all law and would drive a person such as Jerod to the conclusion that you are saved by law.
The guy does have a well thought out website expressing his view very well – in other words he is not some nut case with a keypad.
MLD and Jean
Still can’t explain Romans 8 and how it apparently does not say the Grace of God in Christ was accomplished through the fulfillment of Mosaic Law? That’s all I’m asking. Otherwise this conversation has turned into your museum of strawmen, just an ode to Alinsky.
If I am so biblically illiterate, it is incumbent upon every believer to disciple the ignorant. Have an answer. Stealing from Michael, my alleged confusion IS your problem. What you are thinking is my nomianism, I am beginning to think is your antinomianism. Which sucks. I dig y’all.
“If I am so biblically illiterate, it is incumbent upon every believer to disciple the ignorant.”
Not for one who is willfully ignorant. Look, I have shot my wad with you – I cannot expound any further on the truth that our salvation is delivered through God’s grace.
None of it is through my interaction of the law.(except my failure to keep it.
No offence meant by Alinsky, I just can’t understand why you still have this misconception of me. Sad
“does not say the Grace of God in Christ was accomplished through the fulfillment of Mosaic Law? ”
Is there such a thing as the grace of God is accomplished???
Doesn’t God just give his grace?
Do you have a God who has no Grace unless some work is performed?
Perhaps the terminology you are looking for is “indulgences”
You might be interested in the concept of synergy in Eastern Orthodoxy.
Yes, it sounds a little Roman Catholic.
I believe it is the Gospel Truth.
I’d provide some links but I am pressed for time today.
God bless you. You are on the right track. Press on!
It’s been quite a conversation. Forgive me if I flubbed my post. Not what I meant to say.
Although I did try to modify it with .”..in Christ…”. I hope you get what I mean.
Thank you Xenia. I’ll check it out on the online cemetery, I mean seminary. I know you guys love that joke 😉
MLD, maybe I shouldn’t apologise? I don’t think it was a flub after all. Some verses came to mind. If anything is as static and sovereign as God’s grace, it would be his will. I don’t know if the two are separable. But he says his will is accomplished through man.
Philippians 2 “but now much more in my absence–continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,
[Kinda makes me think of faith/faithfulness through the indwelling of the Spirit]
for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.”
“For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will be fulfilled. ” Revelation 17:17
I am God, and there is none like me,
declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
“Still can’t explain Romans 8 and how it apparently does not say the Grace of God in Christ was accomplished through the fulfillment of Mosaic Law? That’s all I’m asking. Otherwise this conversation has turned into your museum of strawmen, just an ode to Alinsky.”
Here is the relevant text:
“For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us”
1) What could the law, weakened by the flesh not do? Justify us before God.
2) What is the righteous requirement of the law that might be fulfilled in us? Jesus atoned for us. He paid our wages of sin by His death.
3) What is the righteous requirement of the law? The wages of sin is death. This is not specifically Mosaic law. It goes back to the original sin: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.”
If you want to speak of Christ fulfilling the law, it would be in the context of His atonement for our sins. But, “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.”
Jerod, do you see God as basically just and wrathful and needed to be appeased before He will love you? Or, do you see God as basically just and merciful who gave of Himself to reconcile the world to Himself?
Jerod – you just throw out Bible verses as if they speak to the topic.
Test time from your Isaiah passage
“‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
Law or Gospel?
Thank you Xenia. I’ll check it out on the online cemetery, I mean seminary. I know you guys love that joke <<<
Not me! I belong to a Church were the clergy attend seminary! I never even liked that joke when I was a Calvary Chapel attendee.
zero scriptural references so far, but more questions than answers. I guess that’s good in some ways 🙂
Jean, thank you, I will reply. Gotta run for now.
LOL – I don’t have scripture references to show that God’s grace of salvation and forgiveness come comes through the gospel and not the law? Wait, let me give you another LOL.
I have the entire theme of the Bible.
This may be a tl;dr. Sorry. Mostly scripture though. Ellipses just saving space. Thank you for helping me think through this.
The crux of the issue, God’s grace delivered via the law rather than the Eucharist, a verse comes to mind:
Matt.5:17“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished [Christ accomplished the Grace of God, because at any point He was justified to consign all humanity to Hell, yet Christ persevered, per Hebrews] 20“For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
To me and you, this is obviously impossible, but it is not hyperbole. It is the truth.
Now Paul’s commentary on the law picking up on Law:
“Rom. 7:12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
… through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.
For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin… 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.
1Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did…
*You asked : 71) What could the law, weakened by the flesh not do? Justify us before God.*
The law was never meant to justify the flesh. The law itself never saved, it was belief in God, as you alluded to.
Gal. 3:24 Thus the law had become our guardian until Christ, so that we could be declared righteous by faith.
The law simply points us to Christ, who did fulfill the righteous requirement of the law, both in his life and his death. Because of that, we are still under the law, the law of Christ, Sh’ma and Loving our neighbors as ourselves. Had there been no Mosaic law, making sin utterly sinful, Christ would have had no requirement to fulfill, nothing to take on himself as the Passover Lamb. The righteous law was a path to reconciliation; though unattainable, it pointed to the one who would, in time, attain through the flesh, what we could not. In fact Torah means “the way”. It was this moniker the first church adopted as a call back to the Torah, and the fulfillment of it in Christ. His Law is the hinge upon which the Torah hangs.
You pulled up:
Rom 5:13 “for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.”
It goes on…
“14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come…17For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ…20The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
*Grace abounded through Christ’s obedience to the Law. A law which he clarified as Spiritual, rather than the letter. Along comes the Nicolaitians et al, putting people back under the letter, condemning and excusing based upon their literal (letter) interpretation of Christ’s spiritual institution of the last supper; their interpetation of which breaks the law which Christ fulfilled, is reiterated under the new covenant, condemning those who believe in His once-for-all sacrifice in lieu of those who think they can just “show up” having not examined their lives in light of the law of Christ, which is commanded by the Holy Spirit. The inspired faith which should bring freedom excuses sin, and doing so puts into heavier bondage one who could have been free, because the truth has been eucharistically twisted. Thus faith in Christ isn’t necessary, but faith in the real presence and participation in Eucharist (I admit I don’t know how this works for the Lutheran). That spells Hell anyplace I reference in the bible.
Your last question.:
God’s attributes of love and justice are not mutually excusive. But His wrath is result of His justice. His Justice is a result of His truth. Truth is necessary for grace. Grace is a gift. The gift is God’s love. God’s love is shown in Jesus. I fail to see how this is legalism or a belief in the Big Meanie in the Thunderheads.
Jerod, you miss the obvious – Jesus at the supper, regardless of what you think is happening with the bread and wine (staying as bread and wine or containing the real presence of the Lord’s body & blood – or even as the RCC saying the bread and the wine give way and become actual body & blood) – you still must deal with the words of Jesus saying ‘eat and drink for the forgiveness of your sins.’
What do you do with the several passages that say that baptism saves – or that through baptism you receive the Holy Spirit – God is doing a work there whether you trust his words or not.
Check this out – find me a verse that is about the Lord’s Supper, or Baptism or Preaching (again, another physical means of Grace) – where that verse denies God’s grace of salvation and forgiveness are being transmitted. I have never had anyone be able to produce one.
MLD, I know it’s a long reply, but I think I answered your question if you make it through. 🙂
Jerod – you have not answered one thing.
My original question was how is salvation delivered to a person today 2,000 yrs after the crucifixtion and 9,000 miles away from the event.
I offer up that Jesus and the apostles have given direct testimony to how it is done – and it is always through phisical means. Heck, even the crucifixtion itself was done through phisical means – Jesus became flesh and blood and he was hung on a real physical wooded cross – lifted up by real physical Roman soldiers and I can go on. Preaching is by a physical person speaking with physical vocal cords and voice box – reading from a physical book of paper and ink. It is not a jump at all when he instructs in a physical baptism (baptism saves) with real water (except those who believe only in a dehydrated baptism and the supper of real bread and real wine (not grape juice.)
For you to come out and deny all scripture and with absolutely no evidence at all to say “condemning and excusing based upon their literal (letter) interpretation of Christ’s spiritual institution of the last supper; ”
Can you show one piece of evidence Jesus was speaking ‘spiritually’ – ?
But it does back up my old theory about Pop American Christianity – especially your brand – that the sacraments of Jesus mean nothing.
The supper is really just a tribute to Jesus – much like the old Dean Martin celebrity roasts and the communion hymn is “for he’s a jolly good fellow.’
The same with baptism – being efficacious only to show others you are a Christian – which is witnessed by far fewer than my “Jesus is my co pilot” bumper sticker that is seen by 100s daily.
You are still living in a Pixie Dust Christianity. 😉
He saved the 8 from the flood with a real boat.
He saved the 1st born sons in Egypt with real blood on the door posts
He saved the Israelites from the poisonous snakes with a real bronze serpent mounted on a pole.
He gave saved the Israelites from dehydration by telling Moses to strike a rock with his staff before their eyes.
He healed Naaman of leprosy with real water.
[Add other examples]
Christ adds his words to physical elements for our salvation. If is the word that saves, but he adds it to physical elements of creation. If we agree that God doesn’t change between the OT and NT, then wouldn’t we expect Him to continue saving us using physical elements?
The real blood was on door posts, not really consumed. The flesh of the lamb had the blood cooked out.
And to the “real” – Of course. That’s why the real Jesus, in the words of “Dodgeball”, bled his own blood.Once. He does not break the levitical law he fulfilled. That is why he appeals to the Spirit of the Law. The flesh profits nothing. The Spirit gives life. The Spirit is more substantial than the physical.
So long everybody. I’m off to Never Never Land. 😉
Thanks for the great interaction. God bless you guys.
Hey Jerod – don’t leave. You bring up interesting points.
But let me ask, it Jesus keeping the Leviticus law was so important in the forbidding of the consumption of the blood – isn’t it a bit rank of Jesus to use that very example at the Lord’s Table?
“Hey guys, I know you have 1,500 yrs of hearing the priests preach each week not to consume the blood – but heck just for the fun of it let’s play I am telling you to eat my flesh and drink blood – – just to see what it would be like.’
I don’t think so. Why would Jesus give a ‘spiritual’ example that would make them puke?
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.