Jesus Drives Out an Evil Spirit

The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, “What is this? A new teaching - and with authority! He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him.” (Mark 1:27)

Mark records what happened when Jesus taught in the synagogue in Capernaum. There is a lot packed into this brief account. Jesus stuns the people by teaching with divine authority. He heals a demon-possessed man. We might not immediately understand how these events relate to us today, but they serve the same function for us as they did for the people gathered with Jesus in person.

The events of Mark 1:21-28 happened right after Jesus was rejected at Nazareth, His hometown. That’s when He told the people gathered in that synagogue He was the fulfillment of the prophets, specifically a prophecy of Isaiah, and the people tried to kill Him for claiming to be divine. Mark didn’t record what Jesus taught in this instance, just what happened. It is, however, a pretty good bet it was the same message He proclaimed in Nazareth: The kingdom of God is at hand! Repent, and believe the Gospel.

Jesus was different. He taught with authority. That’s what drove everybody so crazy.

Jesus didn’t teach like the other rabbis of His time. He didn’t cite other teachers to support the things He said. He did not say “thus saith the LORD” like a prophet speaking on God’s behalf. He spoke like He was God Himself speaking directly to the people.

Because He is God in human flesh.

Jesus taught as the authority Himself. It is the difference between a physics teacher teaching a class about Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, and Einstein teaching it himself. Those two classes would sound different.

Jesus says that all the prophecies about the Messiah refer to Him. He is the God who created the universe and set up the plan of salvation for mankind. Jesus is saying He is the one who told Adam and Eve the first Gospel. He directed and inspired the prophets. Now He was there in the world. In the flesh.

But Jesus doesn’t just say He has divine authority, He demonstrates it. He casts out a demon from a possessed man.

The exorcism Jesus performs shows both Jesus’ compassion and His authority to say the things that He said. He does this a lot, like when He heals the paralytic, feeds the multitudes, and clams the storm.

The temporal salvation Jesus granted this man who was demon-possessed is a shadow of Jesus’ larger work for all mankind. Jesus came to free all mankind from sin, death, and the devil by sacrificing Himself to pay for all sins on the cross. And, like all of Jesus’ miracles, this exorcism testifies to the truth of Jesus’ message and the authenticity of His claims to be God.

Jesus ordered the demon which possessed the man in the synagogue to be quiet because Satan is not a proper witness. Satan is the father of lies. He is a murderer from the beginning. Jesus’ reputation would be suspect if He allowed Satan to vouch for who Jesus was through His demon minions. Moreover, if Jesus would have allowed the testimony of the demon to stand and to claim the title of Messiah openly at that time, the people would have tried to make Him king.

The time for that revelation was not right. The people, including the disciples, were looking for a political savior to lead a rebellion and establish an independent earthly kingdom.

We don’t need new signs and wonders to believe in Jesus. We don’t need personal revelations. We have the word of God which shows us our sin and calls us to repentance. We have Jesus’ words and the record of the miracles He performed. Scripture is a trustworthy record. We hear Jesus’ proclamation that the kingdom of God has come in Him, and that He has come to pay for all our sins and give us eternal life recorded for us by the evangelists. We can rejoice that in Jesus, God’s promises are fulfilled, our sins are forgiven, and creation is restored.

We hear Him along with those people who heard Him in Nazareth and Capernaum.

Let’s repent of our sinful desire to reject Him, and believe the good news Jesus brings us. ###

The Heavenly Scholar

Icon - Christ Teaching the Doctors

Now about the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught. And the Jews marveled, saying, “How does this Man know letters, having never studied?” Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him. Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keeps the law? Why do you seek to kill Me?” The people answered and said, “You have a demon. Who is seeking to kill You?” Jesus answered and said to them, “I did one work, and you all marvel. Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath? Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:14-24).

Jesus had no credentials. He did not have the 1^st Century Jewish equivalent to our Master of Divinity degree. This was a serious affront to the scribes, the Pharisees, and the teachers of the Law. The Jews who gather around Jesus as He teaches in the temple courts are surprised and offended that a man with no proper education would presume to teach in public, and palm himself off as one who is versed in Scriptural learning.[1] There may not have been a system of accredited seminaries in first century Judea like we have today in the United States, but there certainly was a system. There were rabbinical schools for the training of rabbis, run by well-known and well-pedigreed rabbis. Paul witnesses to this when he gives his defense to the crowd after he is arrested in Jerusalem; He tells them, “I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.”[2] Gamaliel was one such rabbi, of whom Paul was a disciple. Jesus, however, had not been a part of that system and for Him to teach as he did was scandalous.

It wasn't, however, only that Jesus was teaching without being properly certified. When the Jews taught, they carefully cited previous teachers and scholars of the Law. They all tried to cite their teachings in order to show that they were smart, that they were correct, and that they had credibility (not unlike certain blog authors...). Jesus taught as one who had authority. In other words, Jesus taught the people, not by showing what those rabbis who came before Him said about the Law; He taught as the one who wrote and implemented the Law. This attitude was not lost on the people. The Bible tells us that the people marveled and openly wondered what kind of statement Jesus was trying to make.[3]

The Jews, however, really understood that Jesus was claiming to be God. That’s why they plot to kill him. Jesus could, of course, teach in this way because He is the Messiah, the divine Son of God and second person of the Trinity, coequal together, and coeternal with the Father and the Spirit, one God in three persons, three persons in one God. He is the author of life,[4] the one through whom creation came into being, the one who was the very image of God the Father.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.[5]

Jesus demonstrated His divine authority by what He did, in addition to what He said, and the manner in which He taught.[6] He restored sight to the blind, opened the ears of the deaf, loosed the tongues of the dumb, raised the dead, and ultimately, rose from the dead Himself. The Jews saw all these things but refused to see them for the signs they were. These things were the credentials that Holy Scripture said would accompany the Messiah. The Jews, however, demanded that Jesus "tell them plainly" if He was the Christ and demanded a sign to prove it. Jesus bluntly explains, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me.”[7] Having ears, they did not hear; having eyes they did not see.

So, what does this mean? We know that it is our sin which put Jesus on the cross. We are in the same situation as the Jews to whom Peter preached in Solomon’s Portico.[8] We do not escape responsibility for the death of Jesus simply because we did not drive the nails into His hands with our own. Because of our sin, we are just as guilty as those who wanted to put Jesus to death at that time. We, as Peter says, “...denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.”[9]

The devil, the world, and our own sinful nature mislead us into false belief, despair, and other sin. When we repent of our sin, God who is faithful and just, forgives our sin and cleanses us from all unrighteousness. We can rest in the assurance of Jesus' authority as God to forgive our sin by the blood of His cross; because of the divine authority of Jesus, ultimately demonstrated by His resurrection, we can have faith that, even though we may suffer many things on this earth, including physical death, Jesus will one day call us out of our graves, and we will come out.[10] We who hear and recognize the voice of Jesus, as a sheep recognizes it’s shepherd, make up His body, The Church. In this Christian Church, Jesus, by the means of Word and Sacrament, daily and richly forgives all our sins, and the sins of all believers.[11] Until such time as we fall asleep in Him, Jesus continues to give His Church His Word in preaching, in Holy Baptism, and in the Lord’s Supper; He does this to create, sustain, strengthen and preserve us in this, the one true faith, unto life everlasting. On the Last Day, He will raise all the dead, and give eternal life to all believers in Christ.[12] Making use of these gracious gifts of Word and Sacrament which He has given to us, and receiving in them forgiveness and life, we can go in peace, come what may.

---

[1] Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel. Columbus, OH: The Wartburg Press, 1942.

[2] Acts 22:3

[3] Matthew 21:23-27; Mark 1:22, 27

[4] Acts 3:15

[5] Colossians 1:15-18

[6] Matthew 9:5-7

[7] John 10:22-30

[8] Acts 3:11-26

[9] Acts 3:14-15

[10] John 5:28-29;

[11] Luther, Martin. Luther’s Small Catechism with Explanation. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1986.

[12] ibid.

Paying Taxes to Caesar

Then they sent to Him some of the Pharisees and the Herodians, to catch Him in His words. When they had come, they said to Him, “Teacher, we know that You are true, and care about no one; for You do not regard the person of men, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Shall we pay, or shall we not pay?” But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, “Why do you test Me? Bring Me a denarius that I may see it.” So they brought it. And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” And Jesus answered and said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at Him (Mark 12:13-17).

The Pharisees and Herodians are hoping to catch Jesus in a misstatement. They were afraid of the reaction of the crowds if they should come out against Jesus overtly and imprison or murder Him[1]. They figured that the only way for them to get rid of Jesus without causing a riot would be for Him to incriminate Himself. Their question is designed to put Jesus between a rock, and a hard place. If He answers that they shouldn't pay taxes to Rome, He is a subversive, a threat to Rome, and subject to it’s punishment. If He advocates paying taxes, then the Pharisees can say that He is a traitor to His people and the people would then call for His head. They open with a bit of flattery. We know you are true, they say; we know you care about no one, that is, Jesus is no respecter of persons. He’s not diplomatic and will speak what He thinks regardless of who is listening. These statements are made to soften Jesus up. If they thought, as they said, that Jesus taught the way of God in truth, why did the Pharisees and Herodians not simply accept what Jesus was teaching, rather than questioning Him?

These men, who knew what God’s Word said to look for, saw what Jesus did, and they knew what it meant. They saw Him heal the sick, restore the sight of the blind, make the lame to walk, and they understood that these were signs that pointed to the coming Messiah[2]. But they weren’t looking for the right kind of Messiah. They were looking for a political savior rather than a spiritual one. They were looking for a messiah who would save them from their bondage to Rome, not from their bondage to sin. Rather than embrace His coming, rather than repent and believe, the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians were more concerned with holding on to their political power and religious authority[3].

Jesus would not assent to the faulty premise of their question. He uses the chance to show the true relationship between temporal and spiritual things. Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. Jesus tells us that, while our first allegiance is to God and His kingdom, we are bound to obey all legitimate civil authority[4]. He has instituted government for good order and our protection. Where the two come into conflict, we must obey God rather than men, as the Apostles showed us when they were imprisoned for preaching the Gospel after being ordered by the authorities to stop.[5] But, concerning earthly matters we are to obey the government which has authority over us.[6] Jesus tells us bluntly to keep our priorities straight. May we be careful to always render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s.

---

[1] Matthew 21:45-46

[2] Luke 7:22; Luke 4:16-21

[3] John 11:48-53; 18:13-14

[4] Romans 13:1-8

[5] Acts 5:22-32

[6] Kretzmann, P. E. (1921). Popular Commentary of the Bible (Vol. I). St. Louis, MO, USA: Concordia Publishing House.

Blue Nose Theology

Luther vor Cajetan

I had an intensely interesting conversation-turned-debate with a delightful Roman Catholic friend at a local brewery recently regarding religion, particularly the differences between Roman Catholic and Lutheran teachings. I suspect that my friend had not met, or at least had an extended theological conversation with, a Confessional Lutheran, because she appeared to hold me as a curiosity. We had a great time discussing the deep thoughts of drunken philosophers and theologians (though I held the advantage as I was working, and therefore, sober). By the end, though, it sort of turned into a Rome vs. Wittenberg debate, with each of us vigorously defending our positions. It was almost like a modern day Luther meets Cardinal Cajetan[1] (Except, Cajetan was a Roman Catholic laywoman, Luther was a cop, and it took place at a hipster brewery. Also, I didn’t answer her questions on my knees so, not like Luther and Cajetan at all, I guess).

I wanted to pursue the conversation because, having many friends who still allow themselves to be subject to the antichrist pope[2], I have suspected for quite some time that there is a disconnect between what many laymen believe about Christianity and what their church actually teaches. This disconnect is not peculiar to the Roman church. It exists in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, and in most other flavors of Christianity as well. It is most stark to me, however, when observed in Roman Catholicism.

The reason is because they have one guy who is the head of their church. Not only that, this guy claims for himself the title Vicar of Christ. He says that he is Christ's only representative on earth. Moreover, when he makes doctrinal pronouncements regarding faith and morals, his pronouncements are viewed by the church as infallible so, what he says goes. That, one would think, should be the end of it. It seems to me that Roman Catholic laypeople should not be as confused about the doctrines taught by their church as, perhaps, the laypeople of other denominations. I certainly wouldn’t expect there to be any instances of Roman Catholic laypeople flat-out denying their own church’s doctrines (I mean, if you knew what your church taught and disagreed with it, why would you remain a member?). Of course, the Roman church has had to contend with the same challenges as every other church body in America. This includes the church growth movement and the rise of post-modern thought. These two innovations will certainly always obscure biblical truth whichever denomination they infect.

I don’t chronicle our interaction to demean my friend in any way, or to flaunt my skills as a debater or theologian. I am in the lowest grade in both of those categories, and I think we genuinely had a fun time with our discussion. I write this to examine the danger post-modern thinking poses to God’s people. I will try to demonstrate the curious circumstance it causes for those who think in a post-modern way but still maintain an allegiance to a church body that professes absolute truths.

We didn’t begin with post-modernism, though. We started with…

The main difference between Catholics and Lutherans.

Right out of the box she asked my opinion regarding the main difference between the Roman Catholic Church, and the Lutheran Church. My “Cajetan” preemptively offered that the difference could be boiled down to… Consubstantiation[3].

My friend said that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, and her church believes that the bread and wine at communion are actually the real body and blood of Jesus. I explained to her that, Lutherans do not in fact believe in consubstantiation. I pointed out to her that this is an area where Roman Catholic and Lutheran theologians are closer to agreement with each other than Lutherans are with evangelicals, who believe the Supper is merely symbolic.

Rome teaches that Jesus’ body and blood is present in the supper, so do the Lutherans. We do, of course, disagree regarding the particulars of what actually takes place when the elements are consecrated. My explanation of the doctrine of the Real Presence, however, was completely misunderstood. When I said that in, with, and under the bread and the wine are Christ's real body and blood as he has promised to give us, for we Christians to eat and to drink, I was met with an incredulous stare. "Yes, like I said" came the reply, "you believe in consubstantiation!" Then she showed me a Google definition of the word Consubstantiation on her phone that mentioned Lutherans.

Such are the perils facing the Lutheran theologian. We have to navigate down the narrow road of God's word and avoid falling off into the ditch of popery and philosophy on one side or the ditch of Calvinism and rationalism on the other. The result is a nuance in our teaching that is difficult to grasp when one has imbibed beyond one’s limit. It's a good thing that I keep a copy of the Augsburg confession with me in the car. I fetched it and explained what Confessional Lutherans believe, Google notwithstanding.

We then moved to the matter in question. For a Confessional Lutheran the main difference separating Rome and Wittenberg is obviously the doctrine of Justification. Justification is the teaching upon which the church stands or falls. The explanation of Luther’s Small Catechism asks the question: How is it possible for a just and holy God to declare sinners righteous? God declares sinners righteous for Christ’s sake:

For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him…even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus…It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification (2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 3:22-24; 4:25).

The Whore of Babylon - Woodcut by Cranach from
the Lutherbibel, 1534

Going along with this would be Rome’s insistence upon papal authority over the Church by divine right. Luther asserted, rightly, that the Bishop of Rome was a pastor of God’s people in Rome and of all those who voluntarily attach themselves to him and nothing more (McCain, et al. 2005). He also asserted that the pope was the Antichrist[4]. The pope claims, however, his authority over the whole Christian Church by divine right and the Roman Church explicitly teaches that all those who are outside of Rome are outside of the one true faith. At this point our discussion took an interesting turn when my friend began making the point…

Your religion is true for you, mine is true for me.

This is where things got interesting. At one point I said that, in order to be saved, one must repent and believe in Jesus. My companion replied, "That's fine for us, but what about all the other people who have different religions?" I asked her to explain what she meant. She said, "What about Muslims?" Who are we, she continued, to say that they are wrong, necessarily? Their religion is true for them and our religion is true for us.

This type of postmodern thinking it's quite pervasive in American Christianity in particular and American society in general. I explained that, as Jesus teaches, no one comes to the Father except through him; anyone who does not have penitent faith in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins is lost. This would include Muslims, or Jewish people, or anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus. Just because you have many religions, doesn't mean you have many right choices. Other religions may have a shadow of the truth in them, and some more than others, but in the end there is right and wrong, good and evil, yes and no. Jesus explains this to us and gives us no other choice:

[Jesus said] Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it… I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me… Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Matthew 7:13-14; John 14:6; Acts 4:8-12).

My friend was shocked that I would assert such an insensitive, unenlightened idea. Imagine her surprise when I explained to her the dogma of her own church – that the only true Church of Christ is the Roman Church:

The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it…This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him (Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994).

And also, that salvation comes through this one Catholic Church alone:

The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: “For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God” (Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994).

I can understand why she was surprised. The supreme pontiff of the Roman church has made statements which have led many people to believe that the pope is OK with salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Francis made several, now infamous, statements that seemed to say atheists may be able to make their way into heaven by obeying their conscience[5]. Messy statements like those made by Pope Francis promote the idea of a kinder, gentler, Roman Catholic Church when reported by secular media who have little understanding of these things. They give the impression that the Roman Catholic Church has a “you go your way, I’ll go mine, we’ll all get there in the end” attitude. Liberal Catholic laypeople and post-modern American secularists believe the Roman Catholic Church is embracing the ideas of post-modernism in its doctrine because of this type of reporting: There is no “truth;” everyone has a shot at redemption with their own personal Jesus.

Except for Lutherans. We just can’t catch a break, and this I explained. Rome has been, and continues to be, clear on that point. Canon nine of the Council of Trent, which has never been rescinded by the Roman church[6], explicitly states that anyone who teaches the doctrine that man is justified by the grace of God alone, through faith in Christ alone without works[7] is anathema.

If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema (The Council of Trent 1547).

Anathema: That means cursed. So, while their laypeople are given the false impression that their church has changed its teaching so that atheists and other noble pagans have a shot at working their way into heaven, the fact remains that all is as it was in the 16^th Century. Rome still anathematizes the Gospel.

Needless to say, we never did come to a mutual understanding. There may not be absolute truth, but I was wrong, nevertheless. I was, however, able to get some sympathetic brewers to smuggle me out of the brewery inside a disused beer barrel and safely back to my patrol car[8].

The bottom line 

But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra—what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:10-17).

Christ Among the Lampstands -
Woodcut by Cranach from
the Lutherbibel, 1534.

I believe the reason that Lutherans are strange to other Christians (not to mention pagans), and misunderstood, comes down to this: We confess the truth of God's Word, even where we don't necessarily understand it, or like it. The only rule and guiding principle according to which all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments alone[9]. This flies in the face of both the secular world, and Rome. Moreover, we interpret Holy Scripture using the Historical-Grammatical method[10], which respects and recognizes Holy Scripture for what it is – the divinely inspired, inerrant Word of God. The secular world has embraced post-modernism and asserts the truth that there is no such thing as absolute truth; The Roman Catholic Church claims that the church and its tradition is the divine authority, superior to that of even Holy Scripture, since the church existed before, and “created,” the Bible. To put it in a nutshell – church traditions preceded the Bible. Take into account the decades-long infiltration of post-modernism into the colleges and seminaries of the Roman Catholic Church and the result is a church body with doctrine that asserts it is the only true church and the only access God while its laity proclaims that all paths lead to the top of the mountain – I’m ok, you’re ok.

The Scriptures tested everything. This is the viewpoint of the authors of the New Testament, and the early church fathers. However, at the council of Trent, it was proclaimed that tradition was equal in importance and authority with the Bible. When the apostles preached the Gospel, the people who heard them tested what they said against the Scriptures they knew to be from God (the Old Testament)[11]. This happened before the New Testament was collected or the organized church existed. The Bereans tested the Gospel message and the apostles praised them for it.

Using the Historical-Grammatical method of biblical interpretation, an interpreter seeks the literal or intended sense of the text. He derives the meaning of the text from the text and allows Scripture to interpret Scripture. In order to discern God’s intended meaning, the Scriptures must be read as historical, literary documents. The meaning of Scripture is to be found in the text itself, not from some special revelation or extra-biblical source. The interpreter must also recognize that the Holy Scripture is the written word of God. It is not a primarily human witness to revelation, and thus not subject to human failings. In the historical-grammatical approach, the interpreter must always remember that Scripture, like our Lord, has two natures – the human and the divine – and has them equally and fully.

The Higher criticism method[12], on the contrary, favored by enlightened post-modern liberals, examines scriptural writings like witnesses in a court of law. Scripture must be “interrogated” and evaluated rationally. Following this method, Scripture is treated as any other human writings, subject to human failings. Higher criticism gives the individual interpreter, not Holy Scripture, ultimate authority and is incompatible with the “Sola Scriptura” principle of Lutheranism. Rome has begun to interpret Scripture according to this method in recent years. Main Line Protestantism and much of American Evangelicalism have been lost to Higher Criticism long ago.

What is disconcerting is that post-modernism is seeping more and more into those denominations which hold Scripture to be the divinely inspired, inerrant, efficacious Word of God. The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod has dealt with this in the 1960’s and 1970’s in what culminated in the seminary walk-out and Seminex[13]; we are still affected by it today.

We few who hold Holy Scripture in such esteem appear to be getting to be fewer.

Time to have a beer.

  

Works Cited

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church." Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html#top (accessed December 4, 2016).

Day, Michael. "Pope Francis assures atheists: You don't have to believe in God to go to heaven." Independent. September 11, 2013. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-assures-atheists-you-don-t-have-to-believe-in-god-to-go-to-heaven-8810062.html (accessed December 4, 2016).

Fields, Ligonberry. "7 Times Pope Francis Was Misquoted." BuzzVine. January 16, 2015. http://www.christianpost.com/buzzvine/7-times-pope-francis-was-misquoted-132679/ (accessed December 4, 2016).

Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Cathechism of the Catholic Church. New Hope, KY: Urbi et Orbi Communications, 1994.

Lueker, Erwin L., ed. Lutheran Cyclopedia: A Concise In-Home Reference for the Christian Family. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1984.

McCain, Paul Timothy, Robert Cleveland Baker, Gene Edward Veith, and Edward Andrew Engelbrecht, . Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions. Translated by William Hermann Theodore Dau and Gerhard Friedrich Bente. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2005.

Reformation 500. "Luther meets with Cajetan at Augsburg." Reformation 500. http://reformation500.csl.edu/timeline/luther-meets-with-cajetan-at-augsburg/ (accessed December 4, 2016).

"The Council of Trent." EWTN: Document Libraries. 1547. http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm (accessed December 3, 2016).

Wikipedia. "Martin Luther." Wikipedia. December 4, 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther#cite_note-59 (accessed December 5, 2016).

---

[1] In the summer of 1518, legal proceedings in church courts began against Luther for his criticism of indulgences…As a result, an order was issued for Luther to stand trial in Rome. However, Rome lifted that requirement, paving the way for his interrogation on German soil. The counselor appointed for that case was the Dominican cardinal and papal legate Tomas de Vio, named Cajetan…Cajetan was a theologian and ecclesiastic of high standing…Frederick the Wise… had arranged for the accused’s safe conduct to Augsburg and a fair hearing from Cajetan…Cajetan was directed by Rome neither to debate Luther, nor make a final judgment on his theology, but rather to insist that he recant by saying the simple word revoco—“I recant.” Upon arrival, Luther followed the advice of his colleagues and prostrated himself before Cajetan, then rose to his knees to answer the cardinal’s interrogation. Luther, however, refused to recant his positions and instead pressed Cajetan for clarity on where he was in error. Over the course of the three meetings on consecutive days from October 12-14, the theologically erudite cardinal was unable to resist debate with Luther (Reformation 500 n.d.).

[2] SA II, iv, 14.

[3] Consubstantiation is the view, falsely charged to Lutheranism, that bread and body form one substance (a “third substance”) in Communion (similarly wine and blood) or that body and blood are present like bread and wine, in a natural manner (Lueker 1984).

[4] SA II iv 14: Finally, the papacy is nothing else than the devil himself, because above and against God the pope pushes his falsehoods about Masses, purgatory, the monastic life, one’s own works, and false worship. (This, in fact, is the papacy.) He also condemns, murders, and tortures all Christians who do not exalt and honor his abominations above all things. Therefore, just as we cannot worship the devil himself as Lord and God, so we cannot endure his apostle – the pope or Antichrist – in his rule as head or lord. For what his papal government really consists of (as I have very clearly shown in many books) is to lie and kill and destroy body and soul eternally (McCain, et al. 2005).

[5] The Pope wrote, “God's mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience” (Day 2013). He also said, “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone!” These statements are vague and confusing regarding the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on Justification and RC apologists and theologians were forced to run some heavy duty damage control to clarify that Pope Francis was not, in fact, subverting centuries of church dogma (Fields 2015).

[6] The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it. This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council. Paul VI affirmed it and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: “There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation”. The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith n.d.).

[7] Ephesians 2:1-10

[8] The hearings degenerated into a shouting match. Cajetan's original instructions had been to arrest Luther if he failed to recant, but the legate desisted from doing so. Luther’s supporters got wind of this, and helped Luther escape the night on October 20^th Luther slipped out of the city at night, unbeknownst to Cajetan (Wikipedia 2016).

[9] Galatians 1:8; FC, Ep. 1.

[10] The historical-grammatical method is a Christian hermeneutical method that strives to discover the Biblical author's original intended meaning in the text.

[11] Acts 17:11-12

[12] Historical criticism, also known as the historical-critical method or higher criticism, is a branch of literary criticism that investigates the origins of ancient texts in order to understand "the world behind the text".

[13] Seminex is the widely used abbreviation for Concordia Seminary in Exile (later Christ Seminary-Seminex), an institution for the training of Lutheran ministers that existed from 1974 to 1987. It was formed after a walk-out by dissident faculty and students of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis (LCMS).