Actually preaching the actual Gospel

A couple of great posts floated my way for the ether this morning on the necessity to preach the comforting words of the Gospel...actually preaching the actual Gospel.

Memorial Moment: The Wine of Gladness

I AM the Way

The Gospel for the whole of the Christian Life

sanctification

2 Thessalonians 1:3 "We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers, as is right, because your faith is growing abundantly, and the love of every one of you for one another is increasing."

On sanctification. I found the following in the Book of Concord. I put the BoC contents in quotes.

In the larger catechism, when speaking on the Apostles Creed, the third article of the creed "I believe in the Holy Spirit; the holy Christian Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen."

It's the Holy Spirit that sanctifies us "I believe in God the Father, who has created me; I believe in God the Son, who has redeemed me; I believe in the Holy Spirit, who sanctifies me."

How else can we expect a "change" to happen apart of the Holy Spirit?

"But the Spirit of God alone is called Holy Spirit, that is, He who has sanctified and still sanctifies us. For as the Father is called Creator, the Son Redeemer, so the Holy Spirit, from His work, must be called Sanctifier, or One that makes holy"

"so also the Holy Spirit effects our sanctification by the following parts, namely, by the communion of saints or the Christian Church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting; that is, He first leads us into His holy congregation, and places us in the bosom of the Church, whereby He preaches to us and brings us to Christ."

"Therefore sanctifying is nothing else than bringing us to Christ to receive this good, to which we could not attain of ourselves."

"Thus, until the last day, the Holy Spirit abides with the holy congregation or Christendom, by means of which He fetches us to Christ and which He employs to teach and preach to us the Word, whereby He works and promotes sanctification, causing it [this community] daily to grow and become strong in the faith and its fruits which He produces."

"Meanwhile, however, while sanctification has begun and is growing daily, we expect that our flesh will be destroyed and buried with all its uncleanness, and will come forth gloriously, and arise to entire and perfect holiness in a new eternal life."

preaching

Should every sermon preach Christ and him crucified for sinners? Some thoughts here. Bryan's Chapells that is referenced speaks to "Biblical preaching versus Christ-centered preaching"

In a book I'm reading, the author sets out to get a definition of the Gospel and asks what is the content of the Gospel. Could we conclude that Acts gives us a model of a sermon? What about Paul? He was sent to preach the Gospel. He was preaching to the church, Christians in Corinth.

If God's will is that all men be saved and that it's through his word, namely the Gospel and that "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God". We who are being saved, the cross, the power of God.

"What is the content of the gospel message? In the sermons recorded in the book of Acts, the emphasis is on leading people to realize their guilt and the punishment they deserved for their sins, and then leading them to find peace in Christ's death and resurrection. Peter in his Pentecost sermon did not point out his hearers' alienation from God as evidenced by the personal problems in their lives, but drove them to that realization by telling them that Jesus would return to judge them -- Jesus "whom [they] crucified" but who was now "Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36).

St. Paul preached this same message to the people in Pisidian Antioch. He said, "We tell you the good news: What God promised our fathers, he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus" (Acts 13:32,33).

We should note also Paul's statements to the Corinthians in the first two chapters of his first letter. He states that Christ sent him to "preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of it's power (1 Corinthians 1:17)" "

--Law and Gospel: Foundation of Lutheran Ministry, Robert J. Koester pp. 5-7

preaching

More conversations with a friend, this time on preaching.

+++

In addition to Tullian’s stuff, check this one out
http://www.newreformationpress.com/blog/nrp-freebies/the-gospel-for-those-broken-by-the-church/

Give it a read and listen ( it’s at the bottom ) and the sequel linked “Christianity in Five Verses”.

+++

Some preachers use the Bible as a tool to help you get better at x y or z. Some use it as a tool to beat you up and change your behavior. While others have an agenda like talk about today’s social and political problems, and use Jesus and the Bible to support their own ideas.

Some simply preach the text as-is and leave it up to the Holy Spirit to do the work. Lutherans ( usually ) have a Law and Gospel understanding of the Scriptures along with a Christo-centric versus a Theo-centric ( Reformed ) view which influences their preaching. Some are a mix of these two.

Of all the crap sermons being preached, if you are able to sit under expository and/or Law+Gospel sermons, you are blessed. But like I said previous, I think the movement towards “better” preaching has to continue to Gospel-centered preaching or it’s incomplete.

I will say this last sermon was better than the previous. Yes, the Gospel may have been *in there*, but it was more of an *out there* thing to my ears…it’s for someone else, but not for me. I still don’t feel like I “heard the Gospel” or if it was there, I didn’t hear it *for me*, like “This is what God has done for you; he has let his Son be made flesh for you, has let him be put to death for your sake.”

If Law+Gospel is not his thing, then he wouldn’t do it, so is it fair of me ( more importantly you ) to expect? That was a slightly rhetorical question. I think you have to ask yourself the question what does the Bible teach, what is its purpose?

Most Reformed preachers probably fit this model http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/what-i-mean-by-preaching

Nothing about Law or Gospel or Christ really. Just faithfully teach what is going on in the text, period. Might be more of Law, or sin or grace, or Gospel at times. So I think he did good at an expository type preaching and that is opening up the text and explaining it. In other words, it fits with his style, his training, etc. But it's more of a "Thus saith the Lord..." type preaching.

The Bible doesn’t tell preachers how to preach. But what is it about? Who is the Bible about? What is this “historical redemptive plan” that is mentioned several times in his sermon?

Isaiah 55:11 “so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.” 

It will accomplish what He chooses to have done, it is the Word filled with His almighty power, and the omnipotent God Himself is active in and through it. The Gospel is a power of God unto salvation, Rom. 1, 16. 17. V. 12.

From here http://www.wels.net/what-we-believe/questions-answers/law-and-gospel click on the second plus + link.

“What did he [John] say was the purpose of everything he wrote in his book? "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31).

So, in other words, when we say we preach law and gospel, we mean this: we preach sin and grace. To put it another way we preach human sinfulness that has earned hell and divine grace in Christ that has given us heaven. That is at the heart of what Lutherans mean when say we preach law and gospel.”

In a sense, your preacher did show how “they” sinned and how God’s grace helped “them” and to some extent us. And how when we mess up, this sovereign God is still going to finish his plan. I think that is what I mean when I say it’s still “out there”. It’s not the preacher preaching God’s word ( Law ) to me exposing my sin, then giving me the salve of Christ’s ( the Living Word ) blood and righteousness *for me*.

More Lutheran Law Gospel
http://lutherantheology.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/a-brief-introduction-to-law-gospel/ 

a definition: "The Gospel, however, is that doctrine which teaches what a man should believe in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins from God, since man has failed to keep the law of God and has transgressed it, his corrupted nature, thoughts, words, and deeds war against the law, and he is therefore subject to the wrath of God, to death, to temporal miseries, and to the punishment of hell-fire. The content of the Gospel is this, that the Son of God, Christ our Lord, himself assumed and bore the curse of the law and expiated and paid for all our sins, that through him alone we reenter the good graces of God, obtain forgiveness of sins through faith, are freed from death and all the punishments of sin, and are saved eternally. "

misrepresentation

A comment from a FB 'discussion' I had with someone recently. I was sent this article to read http://hopeprc.org/pamphlets/reformation.htm . A quote from the article was given and I primarily dealt with that quote in my reply.

After reading this article, I am more convinced that folks just don't understand what Lutherans ( Confessional at least ) believe, teach, and confess. What follows is my response.

+++

I think I'm with you now on that quote. The language has changed somewhat, so correct me if I'm wrong, but sounds like he's saying Lutherans 1) don't believe in the doctrine of reprobation ( double-predestination ),2) that Lutherans believe in unconditional election ( like Calvinists ) and 3) universal election ( vocation ).

With regards to 1), I would repeat something I've read from a Lutheran Hour broadcast "sin is that which puts souls in hell. The Triune God is the Deity Who delivers believers from hell...So, that's really a totally different way of looking at things. Sin, which breaks God's laws, sends people to hell. God doesn't want anybody to go there, but that's why He sent His Son to seek and to save the lost. " http://www.lutheranhour.org/sermon.asp?articleid=14660

Again, I know some Reformed guys that would say they don't believe in double-predestination either, but they don't have a follow-up except to say God sovereignly chose some and not others.

I found a link that does a good job of speaking to these differences. If you load the page and scroll down for the paragraph heading "They differ regarding Predestination" then start reading that paragraph and following. Actually, the whole page is a good read. http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2011/04/differences-between-reformed-and.html

As far as the the issue of election, Lutherans do not confess a universal election. Hanko and/or Schaff is wrong. The Solid Declaration from the Book of Concord, section 11 on Election might prove helpful here. I'll quote a snippet:

"5] The eternal election of God, however, vel praedestinatio (or predestination), that is, God's ordination to salvation, does not extend at once over the godly and the wicked,but only over the children of God, who were elected and ordained to eternal life before the foundation of the world was laid, as Paul says, Eph. 1:4. 5: He hath chosen us in Him,having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ." http://bookofconcord.org/sd-election.php

I really don't see where they get the idea that Lutherans are semi-pelagianists either. 

From http://clark.wscal.edu/pelagianism.phplook for "Vicarious Atonement" and the next three paragraphs. And from that same page, Pelagianism was condemned universally by the Protestants. Some notable examples.

• Augsburg Confession (1530) Art. 9, 18 (Lutheran)
• 2nd Helvetic (1561/66) 8-9. (Swiss-German Reformed)
• Gallican Confession (1559) Art. 10 (French Reformed)
• Belgic Confession (1561) Art. 15 (Lowlands, French/Dutch/German Reformed)
• The Anglican Articles (1571),9. (English)
• Canons of Dort (1618-9), 3/4.2 (Dutch/German/French Reformed)

Here you can find Article 18of the Augsburg Confession http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article18.1

Sovereignty

I found this footnote interesting from http://www.issuesetcarchive.org/issues_site/resource/archives/scaer2.htm

"1) The concept of God in Calvinism differs from that of Lutheranism. Typical of traditionally oriented Calvinistic dogmatics is the discussion of God's sovereignty in a prominent place. In his anticipated four-volume popular dogmatics James Montgomery Boice entitles the first volume The Sovereign God, Foundations of the Christian Faith (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1978). The discussion of God's sovereignty takes up as many pages (149-59) as does his triune essence (137-47). Robert D. Preus in his discussion of doctrine of God in the 16th- and 17th-century Lutheran dogmaticians lists fourteen attributes for God and makes no mention of sovereignty. The Theology of Post Reformation Lutheranism (St. Louis: Concordia, 1972), 2. 5-6. There is no discussion of sovereignty in Francis Pieper's Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia, 1953), probably most widely used doctrinal theology among conservative English-speaking Lutherans."

Differences

Thanks to some recent posts at Lamb on the Altar I've been thinking more about the differences between Calvinism and Lutheranism. Before I left the PCA/Reformed theology to Confessional Lutheranism, I had thought the two were very similar. And I think there are many in the PCA that still believe this. But the two couldn't been any more different. I might post a few more thoughts on this particular topic.

I'll try not to sound too "Lutherans are better than you" posts, but rather, point out their differences. Some of what I post might be a copy/paste from conversations with other folks on Facebook or via email on this topic.

+++

A slightly different take on Calvinism and Lutheranism.

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/gods-sovereignty-in-lutheranism-an-interview-with-josh-strodtbeck-1

It’s interesting he says to look at the Westminster Confession Larger Catechism, question 7 to give you an idea of the point of reference for Reformed. He says

"Luther shied away from abstractions, and we Lutherans inherited that. Not just sovereignty, but the attributes of God in general are simply not of extreme importance. If you look at Luther’s catechisms, he actually defines God in terms of Creation, the Cross, and the Church. Compare that to Q7 in the Westminster LC. So for Lutherans, theology is done in terms of God’s relation to us. That means theology never gets away from Law and Gospel, from justification, from the incarnation of Jesus Christ."

I'll quote WCF-LC question so you don't have to dig it up.

Question 7: What is God?

Answer: God is a Spirit, in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, everywhere present, almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.

Phew! That wears you out just reading it.

It’s probably unfair for me, or anyone, to expect a Reformed pastor to begin to preach a different style or have a different focus than what they have always preached because the WCF helps form a starting point and a world view they operate from/within. However, Pastor Tullian from Coral Ridge seems to be gathering some appreciation for his Law/Gospel ( Lutheran? ) type of preaching. A new website he’s been collaborating on -> http://liberatenet.org/

What I suspect might be happening, is that there has been a vacuum created by crummy preaching/worship ( think non-denominational megachurch ) and Reformed theology was on the scene  ( maybe in the last five years? The Young, Restless and Reformed movement ) ready to give folks more of what they craved.

But I think it only got it partly right. It brought people back to a belief in the centrality and importance of the Scriptures. But where it’s failed it not enough focus on the message of the Scriptures, the central figure, who is Christ.

And I believe the movement of the YRR folks is just that, a movement. It will pass away and will shift some things in the church, but will eventually leave us wanting, longing to hear the Gospel proclaimed. The message that Christ came to seek and save that which was lost. Christ comes for you and for me.

Reading your Bible

This is a local ELCA pastor in Fayetteville. I quote what he says, then reply after. http://lutheranconfessions.blogspot.com/2012/03/on-not-reading-bible.html


“In truth, far fewer people read the bible than claim to, and it is incredibly common for active Christians to not spend time reading the bible on their own at all. I have a feeling that in point of fact, on a functional level, much of Christianity already relies on something other than external authority ( the Bible ), because people just don't read the bible that much. The bible has authority among us more in theory than practice. Do you agree?”

Good, bad or indifferent, I tend to read as part of something else or because of something else, like he says here…

“I honestly believe that my own understanding of (and standing under) the authority of Scripture arises out of my practice not of reading the scriptures directly, but indirectly as it were through great works of theology. “

I find I read more or dig more in the Scriptures when I'm wrestling through something or I’m reading someone ( blog or book ) who is quoting passages or is explaining doctrine, I will dig in my Bible to get the fullness of what is being discussed. Or with Lent ( which I’ve been slack lately ) it is something external that drives me to the Scriptures.

It seems in Reformed and some Fundamental circles, “knowing” your Bible or doctrine is expected. I wonder if I was less exposed to folks at church or didn’t read so much about religion on blogs, would I still “be in the Word” or do I rely on external forces to “help” me?

Cirlces

I re-read http://gnesiolutheran.com/all-teachings-of-scripture-are-binding/ It speaks a little bit to the idea of “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity”. From the link “It pronounces certain teachings to be such that no man can be a Christian without the believing acceptance of them, but on the other hand it pronounces others to be such that someone can err out of weakness in them and still be a Christian, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15.” And this one “All teachings of Holy Scripture, although not equally necessary for obtaining salvation, nevertheless have a completely equal binding force on all people, since they are divine revelation to mankind.”

Would a Catholic agree that all teachings of Holy Scripture bind us? Do they bind us alone, on their own, by themselves, or along with the church? Does the church get its authority from Scripture? Or from men?

We had a small group study at the church last night. A lady in our group made some comments that caught my attention a little bit. Nothing bad, but with the reading I've been doing lately and some conversations with friends, I had this thought.

If we view disciples ( Christians ) and discipleship as concentric circles. At the center would be people more knowledgeable about the Bible and church history, they read and study their Bible, they desire to learn, grow, etc.. For the purpose of this discussion, I would put pastors and other teachers of the church in the center. The next ring would have faithful church goers, they study and read their Bibles, etc, but mostly content in their “tradition” and are able to hold their own in a conversation about the Bible. The next ring would view the church as important, but possibly not sure why. Maybe as a way to better themselves and their children? They might read their Bible, but don’t engage in conversations of the spiritual nature so much, might be in a small group for the social aspect and not so much the spiritual growth aspect. As you get further from the center, church attendance is less, bible study, reading, prayer, etc decreases. How many rings does this circle have? How far from the center can you get?

That’s all I got, just putting thoughts down, flushing them out of my foggy head.