The Amazing Secret of the Souls in Purgatory, or...How We Are Justified by Grace through Faith in Christ

Read how Roman Catholics and the ELCA have "moved from the divisions of
Martin Luther's 95 theses to 32 statements of agreement" in this
National Catholic Register story by Peter Jesserer Smith from 2016.

With all the talk of Lutheran/Roman Catholic unity going on out there, one might get the impression that the Reformation is obsolete. It was an important part of the history of Western Civilization, but the curtain has closed on that scene a long time ago. Today, we can look back at the Reformation as a period during which medieval people argued about medieval issues, and sometimes tried to kill each other as a result (not that we modern, enlightened people could relate to that situation at all). Indeed, this why the Vatican is commemorating the Reformation – because it is dead. It is over. Finished. Kaput. You don’t commemorate something that is still alive, vital, and relevant. You celebrate that. You commemorate something that has passed away, like the anniversary of the death of a loved one.

The reason this is such a big deal now, is because 2017 marks the 500^th anniversary of the beginning of the Reformation. This is because history has chosen to designate the date that Dr. Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, October 31, 1517, as the official beginning of the Reformation.[1] For the last year, and even longer, Christians of all stripes have been getting ready for 2017. Confessional Lutheran groups, like the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, have been preparing for the anniversary by emphasizing the things that were taught during the Reformation: That man is justified before God by grace, through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Liberal Lutherans, like those in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, have chosen a different path. These Lutherans have been working for unity with the Roman Catholic Church. These two churches have been meeting, issuing statements, and signing declarations since at least 1999 to achieve this end.[2] The Vatican has even issued a commemorative Reformation stamp.[3]

Not that I’m against unity. I am not. I would love nothing more than for Christendom to be truly united in one church body, under its head, Christ. I am against a false and contrived unity.

As much as some groups might try to say that the differences between the Roman Catholic Church and Confessional Lutheranism (what resulted from the Reformation, and is codified in the Book of Concord) are now so insignificant that we could join together in communion, it simply is not the case. Theologically liberal Lutherans who disregard the Lutheran Confessions may like to hold hands with theologically liberal, academically enlightened, Roman Catholics, stroking each other’s feelings, and cooing to each other in the language of Higher Criticism about how Holy Scripture is faulty. Their confessional counterparts, however, have made no such concessions. The argument between Wittenberg and Rome – or Augsburg and Trent, if you like – is about how man is justified before God. It has not yet been resolved, and is not likely to be, in my opinion, before Christ returns.

The main issue surrounding the posting of the 95 Theses, in a nutshell, was that of purgatory and indulgences. Luther wanted to debate the subject, so he posted the Theses, written in Latin, on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517. This was not some act of defiance or vandalism. Lacking the modern means of communication, this was normal practice at the university. The Theses were quickly reprinted, translated, and distributed throughout Germany and Europe. Luther addressed the issue of indulgences from a number of angles[4]: The Pope doesn’t have the power he claims over the souls in purgatory; The Pope can only release people from punishments that he has imposed; Every truly penitent Christian already has pardon for his sins; Indulgences discourage works of mercy. Probably most famously, Luther talks about the Pope’s claim to control the so-called treasury of merit,[5] by asking why he does not simply grant indulgence to all the souls in purgatory:

Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial.[6]

While this may have been a pressing issue in the 16^th Century, the selling of indulgences isn’t really a “thing” anymore, right? Well, yes and no. The Roman church doesn’t actually sell indulgences in the way they did when the Pope was trying to raise money for building St. Peter’s basilica. There is no man like Johannes Tetzel, wandering the countryside, frightening people with the prospect of thousands of years of torture in purgatory, to get them to part with their money. Indulgences, however, still play a large and important role in the Roman Catholic religious system. The system of indulgences was modified in 1968 from a system of specific time periods (hours, days, weeks, months, years, etc.) to one of “partial” and “plenary” indulgence.[7]

An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints. An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin. Indulgences may be applied to the living or the dead.[8]

This isn’t simply some forgotten dogma in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that goes untaught. There are scores of pamphlets, popular books, and devotionals written about the souls in purgatory, and how to gain indulgence for them, and for one’s self. In one such booklet, Maria Simma talks about what Purgatory is, how she has been visited by souls being purified there, and what she does to gain for them indulgence:

What exactly is Purgatory? I’d say that it’s a marvelous invention of God...Suppose that one day a door opens, and a splendid being appears, extremely beautiful, of a beauty that has never been seen on earth. You are fascinated, overwhelmed by this being of light and beauty, even more so that this being shows that he is madly in love with you – you have never dreamed of being loved so much. You sense too that he has a great desire to draw you to him, to be one with you. And the fire of love which burns in your heart impels you to throw yourself into his arms. But wait – you realize at this moment that you haven’t washed for months and months, that you smell bad; your nose is running, your hair is greasy and matted, there are big dirty stains on your clothes, etc. So you say to yourself, “No, I just can’t present myself in this state. First I must go and wash; a good shower, then straight away I’ll come back.” But the love which has been born in your heart is so intense, so burning, so strong, that this delay for the shower is absolutely unbearable. The pain of the absence, even if it only lasts for a couple of minutes, is an atrocious wound in the heart, proportional to the intensity of the revelation of the love – it is a “love-wound.” Purgatory is exactly like this. It’s a delay imposed by our impurity, a delay before God’s embrace, a wound of love which causes intense suffering, a waiting, if you like, a nostalgia for love. It is precisely this burning, this longing which cleanses us of whatever is still impure in us.[9]

Maria goes on to describe how, when she was a little girl, she saw visions of people in her bedroom at night. She told her priest about the occurrences, and he confirmed to that she was being visited by the souls in purgatory. Maria described the reason for their visits:

In most cases, they ask to have Masses celebrated and that one be present at these Masses; they ask to have the rosary said and also that one make the Stations of the Cross...We must do a great deal for the souls in Purgatory, for they help us in their turn. We must have much humility; this is the greatest weapon against evil, against the Evil One. Humility drives evil away.[10]

This teaching about how the guilt of sin is remitted by our human works is contrary to God’s Word. God the Father, out of his mercy, and because of the death of Jesus on the cross, forgives sinners. We have redemption through the blood of Christ. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins.

In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace...And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world (Ephesians 1:7; 1 John 2:2).

In fact, Scripture teaches that God declares sinners righteous for Christ’s sake. Our sins have been “credited” to Christ, and his righteousness has been credited to us. When we believe the Gospel, this message of reconciliation, our faith is credited to us as righteousness.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek...Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law...But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness (Romans 1:16; 3:28; 4:5).

The Lutheran Confessions boldly confess the Scriptural teaching on man’s justification, the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls:

Our churches teach that people cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works. People are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received in to favor and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake. By His death, Christ made satisfaction for our sins. God counts this faith for righteousness (Romans 3:21-26; 4:5).[11]

This is what the Roman Catholic Church has to say, officially, about the doctrine of Justification:

If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.[12]

The canons on Justification  from the Council of Trent make for some interesting reading. They systematically anathematize the Gospel. That word anathema, incidentally, means “cursed”. So, what Canon IX, quoted above, is saying, is that anyone who believes that they are justified before God by faith alone, without an act, or movement, of their own will (works), is cursed. This is official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, and has never been modified, or rescinded.

The only Lutherans and Roman Catholics who have come to agreement on the doctrine of Justification are the Lutherans and Roman Catholics who have abandoned Holy Scripture and the teachings of their churches.

---

[1] The Augsburg Confession, not the 95 Theses, is the primary confession of faith of the Lutheran Church and one of the most important documents of the Lutheran Reformation. The Augsburg Confession was written in both German and Latin and was presented by a number of German rulers and free-cities at the Diet of Augsburg on June 25, 1530. The Holy Roman Emperor Charles V had called on the Princes and Free Territories in Germany to explain their religious convictions in an attempt to restore religious and political unity in the Holy Roman Empire and rally support against the Turkish invasion. It is the fourth document contained in the Lutheran Book of Concord. Central to the document and its subsequent Apology is its explanation of the Biblical doctrine of Justification. Confessional Lutherans teach forensic, or "legal", justification. This means that God declares the sinner to be "not guilty" (justified) because Christ has taken his place, living a perfect life according to God's law and suffering for his sins. For Confessional Lutherans justification is in no way dependent upon the thoughts, words, and deeds of those justified through faith alone in Christ. The new obedience that the justified sinner renders to God through sanctification follows justification as a consequence, but is not part of justification. For these reasons, if I were in charge of picking a date for the start of the Reformation, I would choose June 25, 1530, rather than the conventional October 31, 1517. Joseph Klotz, “Augustana,” The Hodgkins Lutheran, April 25, 2013, http://hodgkinslutheran.blogspot.com/2013/04/augustana.html.

[2]The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) is a document created, and agreed to, by the Catholic Church's Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) and the Lutheran World Federation in 1999. It states that the churches now share "a common understanding of our justification by God's grace through faith in Christ.” “Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification,” Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2017, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Declaration_on_the_Doctrine_of_Justification.

You can read the document here:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

[3]Jan Bentz, “Breaking: Vatican to issue stamp featuring Martin Luther,” LifeSiteNews, January 17, 2017. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-gives-stamp-of-approval-to-martin-luther The Vatican office charged with issuing stamps, known as the Philatelic and Numismatic Office, confirmed Tuesday to LifeSiteNews that Luther, who broke away from the Catholic Church in a schism 500 years ago, will be celebrated with a postage stamp in 2017. The office is in charge of the annual commission of stamps, coins, and other commemorative medals.

[4] Martin Luther, Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences, trans. Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry E. Jacobs, et. Al., (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), Vol.1, pp. 29-38. Accessed August 22, 2017. http://bookofconcord.org/95theses.php.

[5]  The Treasury of Merit, as concisely defined by Merriam Webster, is the superabundant satisfaction of Christ for human sins and the excess of merit of the saints which according to Roman Catholic theology is effective for salvation of others and is available for dispensation through indulgences. “Treasury of Merits,” Merriam-Webster, accessed August 22, 2017. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treasury%20of%20merits.

[6] Theses 82, ibid.

[7] “The Divine Mercy Devotion,” EWTN, accessed August 22, 2017, https://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/mercy/what.htm.  A plenary indulgence means that by the merits of Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the full remission of the temporal punishment due to sacramentally forgiven sins is obtained. The person becomes as if just baptized and would fly immediately to heaven if he died in that instant. A partial indulgence means that a portion of the temporal punishment due to forgiven sin is remitted. Partial indulgences are received either by doing some act to which a partial indulgence is attached (e.g. praying a partially indulgenced prayer), or by the incomplete fulfillment of the conditions attached to a plenary indulgence.

[8] Catechism of the Catholic Church. New Hope, KY: Urbi et Orbi Communications, 1994.

[9] Medjugorje, Sister Emmanuel. The amazing secret of the souls in purgatory. Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Pub. Co., 2005.

[10] ibid. p. 7-8, 14.

[11] AC IV 1-3.

[12] “On Justification,” The Council of Trent, accessed August 22, 2017, http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm. 

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).

Fundagelical Newness of Life

When I go out of town I love to read the newspaper, particularly when I’m in a small, isolated, rural community. You get a feel for the local culture. For example, when I worked for the Desplaines Valley News in Summit, IL, it was completely natural to find novenas and other Roman Catholic prayers interspersed among the advertisements. Though it is now changing, the population of the area where the paper was widely circulated was Polish, Hispanic, and Irish…and Roman Catholic. Reading the Daily Corinthian, Corinth, Mississippi, caused some religious culture shock. The predominant religious culture in northeast Mississippi is what I call American Fundagelicalism[1]. It is as ubiquitous in that area as Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism was in the area where I grew up. Reading the paper one morning, I came across an ad for a Church of Christ which, in part, read:

Once a person has been baptized for the remission of sins, he is a “new creature.” (2 Corinthians 5:17) Paul said to the saints at Rome that we have been “buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:4) Baptism of the penitent believer who has confessed Jesus as God’s Son puts one into a new relationship with God. Old sins are washed away (Acts 22:16), and he or she is able to live a new and different life in Christ. What a great thought: to know that we can leave the burden, the baggage, and the condemnation of sin at the cross, and start over (Carothers 2016).

One of the reasons I like being Lutheran is that it is the practice of our theologians to speak where the Bible speaks, and to remain silent where the Bible is silent. This is tough to do since we human beings want to explain everything, and expect that everything can be understood and explained to our satisfaction. Since confessional Lutherans, however, have the Bible alone as our rule and norm for determining doctrine[2], we are obliged to confess what scripture says. In fact, the word confession means, “to say the same as.” This is why confessional Lutherans subscribe to the Book of Concord; it says the same thing as Scripture.

This also gets us into trouble. It frustrates people to hear, “The Bible doesn’t go any farther than that,” or “Scripture is silent, so we can’t say.” Moreover, people become indignant when we make concrete assertions. When we confess, for example, that Baptism saves us[3], we are called arrogant for daring to say that we understand what Scripture says, thus condemning the interpretation of others.

Many in American Fundagelicalism believe that they are literal interpreters of Scripture when, in fact, they are not. I know many personally who believe that God created the world in six literal 24-hour days, but do not believe it is possible for God to be present in the bread and wine of Holy Communion, even when a plain reading of the text leads us to that interpretation[4].

Likewise, this sermonette is a good example of how literalistic interpreters of scripture read a text and, far from taking the plain meaning of the entire passage in context, superimpose a logical human view of how the spiritual things described in the passage should work so that they make sense to our puny human minds.

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace (Romans 6:1-14).

In Romans six Paul lays out how, through Baptism, we are made alive in Christ by being joined to his death and resurrection. Paul says, in verse four, that since we have been crucified with Christ and joined to him in this way, we are no longer alive to sin. Since we are now dead to sin and alive in Christ, we should, to quote Luther, “…by daily contrition and repentance be drowned and die with all sins and evil desires that a new man should daily emerge and arise to live before God in righteousness and purity forever” (Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation 1986). It is through our sorrow for our sins and our repentance that we resist and overcome evil desires. The thing is, repentance and faith are gifts given to us by Christ through the means of his word[5]. A person’s decision to accept Christ doesn’t put that person into a new relationship with God, as Rev. Carothers writes. Rather, God makes Christians when and where he wills, through the tools he has chosen – the means of Grace. Rev. Carothers treats the astounding thing that Paul tells us as a mere figure of speech – that our baptism unites us to Christ. The reason: to the human mind such a thing is inconceivable, so it can’t possibly mean what the plain reading in context says. Our connection to Christ, his death, and resurrection, isn’t simply a symbol in this passage, it is a spiritual fact accomplished by God’s work through our baptism; If it is not then “the likeness of His resurrection” to which we are also joined through Baptism must also be symbolic.

If you believe that Baptism is simply a symbolic act through which you demonstrate the sincerity of your commitment to Christ, then of course you wouldn’t think that it has the power to do anything. You would look at it as a human work which has no power to save. The real power, in that scenario, is in your decision to follow Christ (which is also a human work, though Fundagelicals can’t, for some reason, see this). My Fundagelical friends would disagree at this point and say that the power by which they are saved comes from their faith in Christ. Moreover, an infant, in comparison to an adult “penitent believer,” cannot believe because they don’t have the intellectual capacity to choose Christ, to believe with their heart and declare with their mouth[6]. They would be correct about the intellectual capacity thing, since the Bible says that men are saved by God’s grace, through faith in Christ. However, I would also point out that, without the working of the Holy Spirit, adults are just as incapable of faith as infants. Neither infant, nor adult can, by their own reason or strength, believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ, or come to him. To be saved by God’s grace – his undeserved good favor – means that the decision belongs to him, not to us. Emphasizing the fact that scripture says all people are spiritually dead and inclined to turn away from God, and that we are unable, in our natural state, to understand spiritual things[7], St. Paul writes this in Ephesians:

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them (Ephesians 2:1-10).

Nowhere in Scripture is Baptism tied to a decision to believe. The disciples are not commanded to baptize penitent believers. Instead, they are commanded by Christ to make disciples of all nations by baptizing and teaching. Baptism is tied to teaching[8]; it is tied to salvation, forgiveness, and repentance; it is tied to receiving the Holy Spirit[9]. If Baptism is something man does to demonstrate his obedience to God, Baptism could claim none of this. If, however, the work of Baptism belongs to God and not to man, then what we have in Baptism is undeserved gift rather than ordinance.

Faith, St. Paul says, comes though hearing and hearing comes through the word of Christ[10]. In other words, the means through which the Holy Spirit creates faith in unregenerate people is the word[11]. The sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion are ways God has given to his church to deliver that faith-creating word to people. A sacrament is nothing other than God’s word of promise connected by God to a physical element such as bread, wine, and water. An infant, for example, though considered to be innocent by the theology of much of American Fundagelicalism, is considered by God, according to Scripture, to be a lost and condemned creature that is, by nature, sinful and unclean[12]. This infant needs to receive God’s faith-creating word just as much as an unrepentant and unregenerate adult does. God has graciously given a way for that infant, who is unable to receive the preached word as an adult does, to come to faith and receive the Holy Spirit.

Those who can receive instruction are to be baptized after being instructed as the Ethiopian and the jailer were[13]. Little children, however, should be brought to baptism by those who have authority over them, just as little children under the old covenant were brought to circumcision by those who had authority over them. After all, Baptism, Paul writes, is the circumcision of Christ:

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it (Colossians 2:11-15).

But we could argue about Baptism all day and not get anywhere. The real issue lies, again, with who is doing the work. To the author of this message, the Christian life is defined by the law and a person’s keeping of it. “Jesus requires us to live differently if we are to wear his name,” Rev. Carothers writes. Indeed. To understand the “living differently,”  however, as a precondition to entering Christianity, as this message suggests, is once again to put the emphasis in the wrong place. We don’t “live differently” in order to become Christians, to be admitted to Baptism, and be justified. We are saved by God’s unmerited favor through faith in Christ, who died on the cross as the propitiation for our sin and rose again from the dead.  Baptism unites us to Christ. Because we have been united to Christ, and his death and resurrection, through Baptism, “We too can and must daily overcome and bury [sin]” (Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation 1986). This daily struggle to mortify sin in our lives is the natural reaction of the regenerate man – he wants to fight and kill the Old Man. It is certainly not the first step down a road of obedience, at the end of which waits for us a crown of life…if we did all that we were supposed to do.

Works Cited

Andreä, Jakob, et. al. "Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration: The Comprehensive Summary, Foundation, Rule and Norm." Book of Concord. 1580. http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-ruleandnorm.php (accessed August 17, 2016).

Anonymous. "Fundagelical." Urban Dictionary. April 21, 2005. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fundagelical (accessed August 17, 2016).

Carothers, Rev. Tim. "Newness of Life." The Daily Corinthian, August 11, 2016.

Issues, Etc. Encore: Reaction to the Tim LaHaye Interview on the Rapture - Dr. Kim Riddlebarger. Podcast. Lutheran Public Radio. Collinsville, IL, August 10, 2016.

Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation. Saint Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1986.

End Notes

---

[1] The secular world defines this contrived contraction of the words fundamentalist and evangelical as, “Someone who believes in a totalitarian world rule with an American Christo-theocratic party dictating legislation based on limited interpretation of scripture they consider applicable…James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Fred Phelps are leaders in the Fundagelical movement” (Anonymous 2005). This adversarial anti-Christian definition is not the sense in which I use this term. Rather, my definition of this term is based on the actual meanings of the terms fundamentalism (a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture) and evangelical (a member of the evangelical tradition in the Christian Church). I find this term useful for differentiating confessional Lutheranism from popular and main-line American Christianity, groups with which confessional Lutheranism could not be more at odds. The first time I heard this term was on The God Whisperers podcast; if you are offended, it’s their fault.

[2] Since for thorough, permanent unity in the Church it is, above all things, necessary that we have a comprehensive, unanimously approved summary and form wherein is brought together from God's Word the common doctrine, reduced to a brief compass, which the churches that are of the true Christian religion confess, just as the ancient Church always had for this use its fixed symbols; moreover, since this [comprehensive form of doctrine] should not be based on private writings, but on such books as have been composed, approved, and received in the name of the churches which pledge themselves to one doctrine and religion, we have declared to one another with heart and mouth that we will not make or receive a separate or new confession of our faith, but confess the public common writings which always and everywhere were held and used as such symbols or common confessions in all the churches of the Augsburg Confession before the dissensions arose among those who accept the Augsburg Confession, and as long as in all articles there was on all sides a unanimous adherence to [and maintenance and use of] the pure doctrine of the divine Word, as the sainted Dr. Luther explained it. 1. First [, then, we receive and embrace with our whole heart] the Prophetic and Apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the pure, clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true standard by which all teachers and doctrines are to be judged (Andreä 1580).

[3] 1 Peter 3:18-22

[4] Kim Riddlebarger, one of the hosts of “The White Horse Inn” radio program, uses the term “literalistic” rather than literal to describe how Fundagelicals interpret Scripture, interpreting things such as prophecy and poetry according to a strict literal reading, and symbolizing passages where human reason says they “must” be figurative, all the while disregarding the intended meaning of such passages in proper context (Issues, Etc. 2016).

[5] 2 Timothy 2:25

[6] Romans 10:9

[7] Romans 8:7

[8] Matthew 28:18-20

[9] Acts 2:38; 22:16; Mark 16:16; Titus 3:5-7; 1 Peter 3:21

[10] Romans 10:17

[11] 1 Corinthians 1:17-18

[12] Psalm 51:5; Psalm 58:3

[13] Acts 2:41; 8:26-39; 16:25-33