Friday, June 29, 2012

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. "

Monday, June 25, 2012

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

"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.

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.