The Destruction of Marriage

Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them. Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” “What did Moses command you?” he replied. They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:1-10).

Christian advocates for the protection of marriage (marriage between a man and a woman – what the media has dubbed “traditional” marriage) have said for years that the true purpose of the fight for gay marriage was the destruction of the institution of marriage itself. People holding this opinion were, and continue to be, derided as sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, and reactionary. Over the last several years, however, in the wake of unprecedented success in the battle to legalize gay marriage, leaders and militant activists associated with the movement have begun to speak more candidly regarding the marriage fight. It turns out, the sexist, misogynistic, reactionary homophobes on the lunatic right fringe (read “Christians”) may have been right all along, regarding the motives of those fighting for “marriage equality”.

Gay rights activists (or should it be “marriage equality activists”) are fond of saying that they aren’t the ones who are destroying the institution of marriage, but rather straight people are. They cite the 50% divorce rate statistic which is thrown about with reckless abandon by experts. They point to prostitution, rampant infidelity among married couples, spousal abuse, and “loveless” marriages.

While the average supporter of the marriage equality movement may believe they are fighting for the civil rights of homosexuals to marry, those who organize and shape the direction of this movement have been exposing their true agenda as of late. This agenda, surprisingly enough, is the disillusion of marriage as an institution. These radical leftists view marriage as a misogynistic institution developed to oppress women and to facilitate the transfer of property from one male to another. Carina Kolodny, writing for the Huffington Post in February 2014 wrote proudly of the duplicity, and shamed advocates of traditional marriage as the real liars:

I definitely never lied. I am much smarter than that. I didn't perpetuate a fallacy; I just continually failed to correct it. When your chest inflated and your eyes grew wider and you declared that "gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage," I let somebody else tell you that you were wrong. And when that somebody else -- exhausted from having to defend their very personhood, tired from battling for their constitutional right to equality, drained from being persecuted by small men inflating their arrogant chests -- said to you, "No, marriage equality will not change traditional marriage," I didn't have the heart to correct them. For years and years I've strategically bit my tongue (Kolodny).

She goes on to make the case that, because of same-sex marriage, everyone will be forced to re-imagine the tenets of traditional marriage. This will lead to freedom for women, who are oppressed by men through marriage:

As questions continually arise, heterosexual couples will take notice – and be forced to address how much “traditional marriage” is built on gender roles and perpetuates a nauseating inequality that has no place in 2014…I believe that marriage equality will stomp out the remaining misogyny that you call “tradition.” That’s a win, not just for the LGBTQ community but for heterosexual women and the heterosexual men who see them as equals (Kolodny).

I must say, they do have a point. Certainly not about the tired radical feminist rhetoric that has been vomited by those on the left since the beginning of the sexual revolution. I suppose, however, it is not surprising that Ms. Kolodny wouldn’t take us Christians at our word when we support marriage as instituted by God, and deny that it is our intention to use marriage to enslave womyn. I guess if they’re willing to lie about what they believe, they probably figure we are as well.

They are right that the proponents of “traditional marriage” are responsible for the erosion of marriage as an institution. We should take just as much blame for what has happened to the institution of marriage as the leftist social activists, because we are just as human as they are. While Christians are certainly correct to worry about the erosion of marriage as a social institution, the worrying should be applied retroactively by a period of at least 45 years. And, considering that prostitution has been dubbed the world’s oldest profession, perhaps we should dial that back even a little further.

1969, however, is when California became the first state to enact no-fault divorce. It was at this point, at the height of the sexual revolution, it seems to me, that the Christian church began to seriously flirt with the idea of conforming more closely to the secular world’s view of marriage and sexuality, so as to be more tolerant and loving. Certainly, the other eroding factors mentioned above existed long before liberal wack-a-doo legislators on the left-coast decided that it was ok to dissolve a marriage for any reason, without having to prove wrong-doing on the part of the spouse. I seem to recall a story about an English king and a parade of headless ex-wives. The difference between good ol’ Henry VIII and the 40-year sonic dive into nationwide same-sex marriage in which our society is currently involved, is really one of acceptance of attitude.

Christian society, relying on God’s Law as a curb, refused to accept those things such as infidelity and divorce, even though sinful human beings engaged in those behaviors. What I’m getting at is the difference between living and sinning, and “living in sin”. Or, to put it in the words of St. Paul, it is the difference between walking according to the flesh, and walking according to the spirit.

Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you. Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live (Romans 8: 5-14).

People get all hacked-off when Christians call homosexual behavior sin. Even Christians feel uncomfortable affirming this biblical teaching. This is because, for at least a generation, it has been taught as undeniable truth that sexual orientation is determined by genitics and homosexuals simply "are what they are". Science is even confident, the media tells us, that they have identified a strong genetic component to homosexuality[1]. This argument is somehow supposed to shame the Christian into silence by painting him as a bigot and a bully for picking on a group of people who can't help what they are.

Well, science also says that alcoholism is genetically determined, and alcoholics also can't help what they are[2]. Yet, society recognizes that alcoholism is unnatural and destructive, and supports groups with tax money and tax breaks which council them not to engage in such behavior. Is this cruel and bigoted? Hardly. What the secular world cannot acknowledge is that all of humanity is predisposed toward sinful behaviors. This is because we are all sinners, with a broken and corrupt nature. It doesn't matter in what form your sin manifests - gluttony, greed, sexual immorality, lying, covetousness etc - take your pick. All sin condemns and separates us from God.

The answer to sin is not acceptance, but repentance. If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. But, if we confess our sin God, who is faithful and just, will forgive our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness[3]. There is forgiveness for the world in the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. Law and Gospel faithfully proclaimed, the waters of Holy Baptism, and the body and blood of Christ in, with, and under the bread and wine of the supper, coupled with God’s promises of redemption, create and sustain faith in us. They kill our corrupt sinful nature – our Old Adam – and make of us a new creation by the power of the Holy Spirit.

All of the sinful sexual perversion (along with the dissolution of marriage) that we deal with today was dealt with in ancient times as well; It isn’t as though human beings have changed since the Fall. Israelite husbands were divorcing their wives during the leadership of Moses long before Henry VIII got axe-happy. Jesus tells us, however, that this wasn’t meant to be. He teaches that divorce was only given to the people by Moses because of their stubbornness[4]. To put it another way, they allowed the dissolution of marriage because of sin – their sin. Because our nature is corrupt and sinful, we human beings sin. That doesn’t mean, however, we should accept it and live according to it.

…Jesus allows divorce for one reason only – “immorality,” or illicit sexual intercourse. His thought is plainly that a person dissolves his marriage by creating a sexual union with someone other than the marriage partner…the decree of divorce simply reflects that the marriage has already been broken (Packer and Tenney).

Just because people are sinful doesn’t mean society in general, but the Christian church in particular, should accept and celebrate sinful behavior. That isn’t being inclusive or loving. To hold that attitude is to reject Christ and embrace the world. It is truly loving to tell your neighbor the good news that, while they were dead in trespass and sin, God sent his Son Jesus to die on the cross in payment for that sin – whatever particular perversion they may struggle with (or, as is more often the case, be fond of) – and to call them to repent and to believe that this is most certainly true. All of the things St. Paul describes as works of the flesh that we commit are the sins for which Christ died as the atoning sacrifice. And, though Christians will inevitably fall into sin, that does not mean they should give in and gratify the desires of their sinful nature and flesh on purpose – that would be to make sin their way of life. In short, simply because some people will divorce, commit acts of infidelity, or are same-sex attracted does not mean that we should accept those things as a normal, healthy part of human behavior. Having a standard and failing to live up to it is quite a different thing than living as if there was no standard at all.

So, ultimately, the issue regarding the deterioration of marriage and sexuality has nothing to do with marriage equality being a civil right or whether or not “being gay” equates to a separate gender and needs to be a federally-protected group. It is even irrelevant to the discussion whether or not homosexuality is genetic, because all mankind is already predisposed toward evil and away from God. It’s not same-sex marriage that is destroying marriage; it isn’t divorce, or infidelity that is destroying marriage. The sinfulness of mankind is at the root of the deterioration of marriage. All of these things – homosexuality, adultery, divorce etc – are different manifestations of sin. The issue is, as always, Christ and him crucified. Let us keep our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith. For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. The Father gave the Son to ransom mankind from sin – all sin. Repent, and believe the Gospel. Marriage will then take care of itself.

Works Cited

Davis, Jeanie Lerche. "Alcohol Addiction, High Anxiety Linked to Same Gene." 26 05 2004. WebMD. 12 06 2014. <http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/news/20040526/researchers-identify-alcoholism-gene>.

Knapton, Sarah. "Being homosexual is only partly due to gay gene, research finds." 13 02 2014. The Telegraph. 12 06 2014. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html>.

Kolodny, Carina. "Marriage Equality Is Destroying 'Traditional Marriage,' and Why That's a Good Thing (An Open Letter)." 20 02 2014. The Huffington Post. 12 06 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carina-kolodny/marriage-equality-is-dest_b_4823812.html?view=print&comm_ref=false>.

Packer, J. I. and M. C. Tenney, Illustrated Manners and Customs of the Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980.

End Notes

[1] A study found that, while gay men shared similar genetic make-up, it only accounted for 40 per cent of the chance of a man being homosexual. But scientists say it could still be possible to develop a test to find out if a baby was more likely to be gay (Knapton).

[2] Both the CREB gene and the central amygdala have been linked with withdrawal and anxiety. When there is less CREB in the central amygdala, rats show increased anxiety-like behaviors and preference for alcohol. Pandey's newest study puts it all together: It is "the first direct evidence that a deficiency in the CREB gene is associated with anxiety and alcohol-drinking behavior," Pandey writes (Davis).

[3] 1 John 1: 8-10

[4] Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-10

Listen to lesbian activist Masha Gessen talk about the "lie of gay marriage" at the Sidney Writer's Festival.

Book Review - Heaven is For Real

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven (Hebrews 1:1-3).

Note: This is a review, or rather an opinion piece, on the book, "Heaven is for Real" by Todd Burpo. I do not go into terribly great detail describing the visions of Colton Burpo, who allegedly went to heaven. If, however, you don't want to know what he allegedly saw before you read the book, skip to paragraph five of this article, where my opinion begins. - THL

In 2003, three year old Colton Burpo suffered from undiagnosed appendicitis. He and his family were traveling from Imperial, NE to Greely CO. Colton’s father, Todd, is a pastor at a Wesleyan Church in Imperial, and the family was accompanying him to Greely on a church-related trip. Colton became ill and, rather than taking him to the local emergency room, the family decided to take him to their own doctor in Imperial; they believed that he simply had the stomach flu, which had been going around. Colton’s condition continued to worsen after seeing the doctor. After much discussion and prayer the family took Colton to North Platte Medical Center for treatment, where he was finally properly diagnosed. Colton underwent an emergency appendectomy, and a further surgery to clean out abscesses[1] (Burpo and Vincent).

Several months after the surgery, Colton began speaking about strange things which he experienced, such as angels singing to him while he was in the hospital. Colton’s father, suspecting that his son may have had a spiritual experience of some kind, carefully probed him with questions, careful, as he put it, not to put ideas into his son’s head[2] (Burpo and Vincent). Over the next several years Colton would go on to describe how, during his surgery, he was taken to Heaven. Colton explained how he met Jesus, John the Baptist, his grandfather “Pop” (who died before he was born), and his sister, who had been lost to miscarriage, also prior to Colton’s birth. Colton’s father describes his son’s reported visions with breathless wonder. Colton reported that, in heaven, no one is old or wears glasses. Colton also told his father that everyone in Heaven has wings. Colton even had a vision of the battle of Armageddon. According to Colton, his father will be involved in the fighting of monsters, using either a sword or a bow[3] (Burpo and Vincent). Colton also described how the angels in heaven have swords to keep Satan out of heaven[4] (Burpo and Vincent). Todd Burpo also included other descriptions and “insights” given to him by Colton, who sat on Jesus’ lap during his visit to Heaven.

Summarizing Todd and Colton’s answer to the question, “Why do you think Colton was allowed to see Heaven?” the two say: 1) God wants people to know that he is big and loves them a lot, 2) God wants to comfort those who believe, 3) God wanted to give a confirmation that Heaven is “for real”[5].  The overall purpose of the book is geared to conveying this three-fold message.

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14).

I do not believe that Colton experienced an actual vision of Heaven from God. The only other options remaining are: 1) he lied about his experience, 2) he experienced some kind of hallucination brought about by some physical cause, such as his serious illness or anesthesia, 3) he experienced a counterfeit miracle.  Taking the things Colton said at face value – and there is no reason not to do so – I do not believe that he was lying. After all, he was only three years old. On the other hand, he seems to have provided details about the goings-on in the hospital while he was unconscious that he could not have known[6]. That leaves only one possibility – demonic vision.

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people (Jude 1:3).

I think that he may have actually had a real experience; I tend to think it was satanic. I do not believe that God speaks to us other than through his word[7]. Even St. Paul, who saw things inexpressible, resolved to know nothing but Christ crucified among the Corinthians[8]. If there ever was someone who could claim his vision of heaven as proof of its existence and a reason for people to believe the things he said, surely it would be Paul. I mean, if Colton really saw the resurrected Christ, wouldn't that make him an Apostle? Should his words not be recorded and be considered Holy Scripture? This idea that men should seek special revelations apart from God’s word was called “enthusiasm” by the Reformers. In the Smalcald Articles, Luther wrote this about Enthusiasm:

In a word, enthusiasm dwells in Adam and his children from the beginning to the end of the world. Its venom has been implanted and infused into them by the old serpent. It is the origin, power, and strength of all heresy, especially of that of the papacy and Muhammad. Therefore, we must constantly maintain this point: God does not want to deal with us in any other way than through the spoken Word and the Sacraments. Whatever is praised as from the Spirit – without the Word and Sacraments – is the devil himself. God wanted to appear even to Moses through the burning bush and spoken Word (Exodus 3:2-15). No prophet, neither Elijah nor Elisha, received the Spirit without the Ten Commandments or the spoken Word. John the Baptist was not conceived without the word of Gabriel coming first, nor did he leap in his mother’s womb without Mary’s voice (Luke 1:11-20, 41). Peter says, “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). Without the outward Word, however, they were not holy. Much less would the Holy Spirit have moved them to speak when they were still unholy. They were holy, says he, since the Holy Spirit spoke through them[9] (McCain, Baker and Veith).

I believe that this book is dangerous to faith in Christ because it encourages people to look for and trust in a revelation from God apart from his word. Our attitude, when confronted with alleged divine revelation, should be one of, “I don’t know…but what I DO know is this: Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again.” We should, as the Bereans did with the Gospel message proclaimed to them by St. Paul, test everything by God’s Word[10].

While Christ features prominently in Colton’s vision, and it is even said at one point that a person must “have Jesus in your heart” to get to heaven, the reason why is never clearly stated. In other words, the Gospel is absent, but in the most subtle way. Consequently, this book could have the effect of confirming unrepentant people in their current situation as lost and condemned sinner. Those who are searching for any antidote to the feelings of guilt for their sin, brought upon them by the preaching of the law, will find false comfort in the message extended in this book – the half-gospel that God loves them – and assume that all is well just the way things are. There is no talk of sin, or repentance, or need for a savior. There is no mention of Christ crucified, except to say, "Jesus died on the cross so that we could go see his dad[11]."

This type of confirming vision strikes me as unscriptural, not to mention unnecessary. If you are a believer in Christ, you don't need a vision of Heaven to prove to you that it is real; Christians already believe that it is real. If you're not a believer, this does not tell you how to get to heaven, other than to have Jesus in your heart, and that could mean different things to different people. To an unregenerate person, inclined away from God and toward evil, this is hardly preaching law and gospel.

Scripture is quite clear that we human beings are lost and condemned. We are dead in our trespasses and sins, and there is nothing we can do to rectify the situation. Scripture is also clear that Jesus, true God, begotten of the Father in eternity, and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary, paid the penalty for our sin. This is the word of Christ through which faith comes. In the words of Luther’s Small Catechism:

…[Jesus] has redeemed me, a lost and condemned person, purchased and won me from all sins, from death, and from the power of the devil; not with gold or silver, but with His holy, precious blood and with His innocent suffering and death, that I may be His own and live under Him in His kingdom and serve Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, just as He is risen from the dead, lives and reigns to all eternity (Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation).

This is most certainly true.

Works Cited

Burpo, Todd and Lynn Vincent. Heaven Is For Real: A Little Boy's Astounding Story of His Trip To Heaven and Back. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010. iBook Edition.

Engelbrecht, Rev. Edward A., ed. The Lutheran Study Bible. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2009.

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

McCain, Paul Timothy, et al., Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions. Trans. William Hermann Theodore Dau and Gerhard Friedrich Bente. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2005.

---

[1] Heaven is For Real, p. 137

[2] Ibid, p. 149

[3] Ibid, p. 221

[4] Ibid, p.216-17

[5] Ibid, p. 169, 243-48

[6] Explaining everything in the kindest way, I choose not to entertain the idea that Colton was coached by his father, and accept the account as it is given.

[7] Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ (Romans 10:17).

[8] 1 Corinthians 2:2; 2 Corinthians 12:1-10: The heart of the Gospel is Jesus’ atoning sacrifice. In his second letter to the Corinthians, regarding the “man in Christ”, clearly Paul is speaking of himself. Paul is absolutely passive; the Lord alone is doing and giving…Paul uses terminology typical of intertestamental Judaism, but he shows no interest in its details. His spiritual faculties were alert, but Paul’s total focus on the Lord and complete forgetfulness of self made him unaware of how his body related to this experience. He may have had the experience as a vision, or he may have been physically taken to heaven (Engelbrecht).

[9] SA VIII 9-13.

[10] Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true (Acts 17:11).

[11] Ibid, p. 184-85

For God so loved...The Elect? A Confessional Lutheran on Limited Atonement

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).

The Limited Atonement is the notion, in a nutshell, that Jesus did not die for everyone, but only for those whom the Father chose from his sovereign will. This teaching is intimately tied together with the Calvinistic teaching on predestination, sometimes called “double” predestination – that God chose some people to be saved, and others to be damned. I mean, it only follows logically that if God the Father predestined you to Hell, Jesus certainly didn’t die for you. One of the problems with the idea that Jesus did not die for all people, however, is the biblical evidence that, well…Jesus died for all people.

I suppose I should, in good Lutheran fashion, write, “For God so loved the world” on a table with a piece of chalk and simply point to it whenever anyone suggested that Jesus didn’t die for all mankind, and call it a day. Since, however, I am a Confessional Lutheran, and I have always found it difficult to keep my trap shut, you shall, therefore, not be spared a wordy explanation of what I believe, teach and confess, and what I reject and condemn. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise…

It seems an exercise in futility to argue with any Calvinist regarding what their theology calls the “limited” atonement. Calvinists would have us understand that the word “world” in John 3:16 means “elect”, just as they insist that the word “is” in the Matthew account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper means “represents”[1]. In both of these instances, the plain reading of the text is rejected because it just doesn’t make sense to human reason. If God picked some to be saved, logic dictates that he picked others to be damned. If Jesus’ body is in heaven at God’s right hand, logic dictates that it can’t be in the bread and wine of communion, last will and testament of the Christ notwithstanding[2][3].

This issue comes up now because I recently heard a wonderful lecture given by a Calvinist lecturer, and his “limited atonement seed” got stuck in my proverbial craw. During the lecture it became apparent that this man giving the talk was as happy and theologically satisfied to be a Calvinist as I am to be a Lutheran. Consequently, as background material for his topic (which, for the purpose of this little diatribe, is immaterial) he discussed several doctrinal issues: “double” predestination, the total depravity of the human nature, his disdain for the concept of baptismal regeneration (which shall receive its own treatment in due course, I can assure you), and, of course, the limited atonement.

As a member of a confessional Lutheran church body I find it frustrating that the Lutheran voice is so seldom heard in this theological debate in America. Luther preferred the designation Evangelical because of their focus on the Gospel, to the term “Lutheran”, which was used by his adversaries derisively (Lutheranism). To call one’s self an “Evangelical” today, however, doesn’t even bring to mind Luther, Lutheran theology, or even the “Solas” of the Reformation[4]. Instead, you get images of fire-and-brimstone tent revival meetings (Arminianism), some variety of the Reformed churches (Calvinism), or some sort of big-box mega-church. 

Both Calvinism and Lutheranism claim to hold to the sola scriptura principle of the Reformation – scripture alone is the only rule and norm by which all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated. Calvinism, however, seems at least in practice, to change the maxim to read “sola scriptura…plus human reason”. Lutheranism excludes human reason from the formulation of doctrine. On first reading that might seem to be a knock against Luther and the rest of the boys, particularly in light of our modern culture which exalts the human reason and science to the point of idolatry. It is, however, one of the greatest characteristics of Lutheran theology, particularly when one understands that Christian doctrine is not human teaching, but God’s teaching given to man in the written word of Holy Scripture.

The Lutheran reformers took great pains to make sure that they were not theological innovators, but rather codifiers of Biblical doctrine. They meticulously documented in the 1580 Book of Concord how the doctrines contained therein were drawn from Holy Scripture, and were the same teachings that had always been taught in the church, going back to the ancient fathers[5]. They put down for the record in the Book of Concord that they were simply reforming what had been corrupted in the church during the Middle Ages, and they make a well-documented and compelling case. This was done in reaction to Rome’s attempt to classify them along with Calvin and Zwingli, as well as with the so-called “radical” reformers such as Muenzer, Karlstadt, Schwenkfeld, Franck, and others (McCain, Baker and Veith).

The Lutheran reformers did not advocate the abandonment of reason and thought, but rather that human reason and intellect was useful only if it was employed within its proper sphere. We have a brain with which to decipher Holy Scripture, which was handed down to us by God through men in human language, and in a real historical context. Doctrine (which is just a fancy word for “Teaching”) is to be drawn from scripture alone, using human reason and intellect to apply the rules of grammar and logic, subservient to the text, with the Holy Spirit as guide (Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation). By contrast, Christian Doctrine is not to be reasoned out according to what makes sense or feels good to us. In short, Lutherans are ok with taking God at his word, even if that word, in places, does not seem to jive with human logic. Lutherans affirm the words of Holy Scripture, even when they seem to us paradoxical. Good Lutheran theology simply says what God’s word says and, where God stops explaining, Lutheran theology stops explaining and gives glory to Him.

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people — for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles… Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves (1 Timothy 2:1-7; Ephesians 1:3-6).

The apparent contradiction that God wants all men to be saved, and that God has elected a definite number of people to salvation from eternity simply cannot be rectified by human reason. It is an apparent paradox. I say “apparent”, because all of these things we cannot now grasp will be made clear in eternity, as St. Paul wrote:

For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Luther and the reformers understood the doctrine of election (predestination) as St. Paul described it – through Christ[6] ^{(McCain, Baker and Veith)}. Holy Scripture teaches that God, from eternity, elected (or predestined) believers in Christ his Son to be his own, without regard to any merit on their part, but simply by God’s grace. There is no mention of any election to damnation. The election is to be understood only through Christ. The key words there are “in Him” and “through Jesus Christ”. The elect are elect, not because God picked his favorites and wrote them down on a “saved” list, and decided to damn all the rest. He chose his elect “in Him” – those who believe/did believe/would believe in Christ would constitute the elect. This is also what St. Paul writes about in Romans:

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified (Romans 8:28-30).

To Calvin, for God to elect some to eternal life and others to “reprobation” reveals God’s glory by showing his justice, as well as by impressing upon the elect God’s infinite mercy to them (Craig). The problem is that Scripture does not say that. This is philosophy. This idea is a product of the rational human mind which is, along with mankind’s nature, (to borrow a Calvinist-ism) “totally depraved”.

There is nothing in the surrounding context of John 3:16 which would suggest that “the world” about which Jesus speaks refers only to a group of The Elect, rather than to the plain meaning of the phrase “the world” – the whole of humanity. The Greek word used for “world” in John 3:16 is the same Greek word used for “world” in John 1:10:

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God – children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husbands will, but born of God (John 1:10-13).

To whom did Jesus come? He came to the whole of humanity but, because of their depravity, the “world” did not recognize him. By whom was he subsequently rejected? By a smaller group out of the whole of humanity, the Jews, called in this passage, “his own”. To whom did he give the right to become children of God? To those of “the world” who believed in his name. By what means are these Children of God born? They are born by the will of God. How does that work, and by what criterion does God make Children? Through faith in Jesus. That’s as far as we can go, because that’s as far as Scripture goes.

In spite of the rejection of Christ by “the world”, Jesus came into the world to save us from our sin by his death and resurrection. St. Paul seems to echo John when he writes:

For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all (Romans 11:32).

It is not surprising that, following this very passage and ending his longer discussion of God’s sovereignty and eternal election through the three previous chapters in the book of Romans, St. Paul concludes with this doxology:

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” “Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?” For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen (Romans 11:33-36).

Thanks be to God that he has given us all that we need to have faith, and to understand that which he wants us to know in Holy Scripture, by the power of His Holy Spirit – that Jesus Christ, the God-man, died on the cross and rose from the dead to reconcile mankind with God by bearing the guilt of our sin.

Works Cited

Craig, Edward, ed. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Questions to Sociobiology. Vol. 8. New York: Routledge, 1998. 10 vols. 1 May 2014. <Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Questions to Sociobiology>.

Hesselink, I. John. Calvin's First Catechism: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997.

"Lutheranism." n.d. Wikipedia. 1 May 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheranism>.

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

McCain, Paul Timothy, et al., Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions. Trans. William Hermann Theodore Dau and Gerhard Friedrich Bente. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2005.

---

[1] Matthew 26:26

[2] Christ’s words in the Sacrament must be taken at face value especially because these words are the words of a testament, and even and ordinary person’s last will and testament may not be changed once that person has died (1 Cor. 11:25; Gal. 3:15) (Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation).

[3] Calvin: Accordingly, body and blood are represented under bread and wine, so that we may learn not only that they are ours, but that they are life and food for us…The sharing in the Lord’s body, which, I maintain, is offered to us in the Supper, demands neither a local presence, nor the descent of Christ, nor an infinite extension of his body, nor anything of that sort; for, in view of the fact that the Supper is a heavenly act, there is nothing absurd about saying that Christ remains in heaven and is yet received by us. For the way in which he imparts himself to us is by the secret power of the Holy Spirit, a power which is able not only to bring together, but also to join together, things which are separated by distance and by a great distance at that (Hesselink).

[4] Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura (Grace alone, Faith alone, Scripture alone).

[5] The Catalog of Testimonies was appended to several early editions of the Book of Concord to show that Lutheran teaching about the two natures of Christ is thoroughly in line with the historic and universal faith of the Christian Church…Christology makes justification what it is: a powerful present joyful reality through Word and Sacrament by means of which the God-man, Jesus Christ, is present with us, and for us according to both His divine and human nature, giving us forgiveness, life and salvation. Reformed theologians…accused Lutherans of making up new understanding about the two natures of Christ. Therefore, it was necessary for Lutherans to refute these claims and show that their doctrine is, in fact, thoroughly in keeping with Scripture and the Ancient Church Fathers, who taught the same things (McCain, Baker and Veith).

[6] FC Ep. XI. 4; FC SD XI. 

Desperately Sick and Deceitful

Lucas Cranach the Elder, Adam and Eve,1538

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves (Genesis 3:1-7).

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. But if we confess our sins, God who is faithful and just, will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness..." I was called to confession with these words of Holy Scripture many times in my youth, at the beginning of the Divine Service. No Christian would doubt that he is a sinner and has sinned against God in thought, word, or deed, by what we have done, and by what we have left undone. But is our inclination toward evil and away from God sin? Does Holy Scripture teach the concept of Original Sin?

Original Sin is the total corruption of mankind’s whole human nature which all people have inherited from Adam through their human parents. This corruption of the human nature inclines man toward evil and away from God; it brings guilt and condemnation on all people, leaves all people spiritually blind and dead, and causes all people to commit all kinds of sinful acts (Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation).

Some Christian denominations do not view this corruption, and the inclination of the human nature away from God, called “concupiscence” by theologians, as sin in and of itself. Many teach that this inclination to evil will eventually cause a person to sin, at which point they will be guilty of sin. Some even go so far as to say that it is inevitable that all people are bound to eventually commit acts of sin, due to this corruption of the human nature. If this is true, however, it means that there is a time after a person is born, and before they are morally accountable, when they are sinless – not guilty of sinning. Holy Scripture, however, is clear on the state of man’s nature after the Fall.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned…Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification (Romans 5:12, 16).

God created man with free will. He placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and commanded them not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, or they would certainly die.” Yielding to the Devil’s temptation, Adam and Eve disobeyed God and, through the “one man” Adam, sin entered the world[1]. At the Fall, mankind became subject to death, both spiritual and physical. St. Paul writes that the disobedience of Adam made all people sinners[2]. God told Adam and Eve that if they sinned by disobeying his command the consequence would be death. Paul echoes this by reiterating the fact that the wages of sin is death[3]. All people, from the oldest old man to unborn babies in the womb are subject to death. Everyone dies. All people who come into existence are subject to the punishment for sin – death. If it were true that the corruption of the human nature, and the inclination of our human nature away from God, were not sin (and simply a defect which eventually causes sin), then people would not die prior to committing “actual” sins. We observe, however, that this is not the case when we see unborn babies, infants, children, adults, and elderly people die.

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me…As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions – it is by grace you have been saved (Psalm 51:5; Ephesians 2:1-5).

In Psalm 51 David confesses that he was sinful from the time of his conception. He does not confess merely his actions, but acknowledges before God and man the corruption of his very nature, which is revealed by his actions. Paul, writing to the Ephesians, calls both the corruption of the human nature and the actual acts of disobedience (the actual sins) sin. Paul explains that, prior to being made “alive in Christ” he, along with the Ephesian Christians, were “dead in their transgressions” and also “by nature, objects of wrath”. In other words, not only did they commit actual transgressions, prior to being made alive by the working of the Holy Spirit they were under God’s wrath due to the corruption of their human nature. If we are “by nature objects of wrath” prior to conversion, this must be because we are, by nature, sinners (Perman). In other words, one is not a sinner because he sins, but rather one commits sins because he is a sinner.

Holy Scripture describes man’s heart, i.e. his nature, as beyond cure and deceitful[4]. Moses writes in the sixth chapter of Genesis that the LORD saw that every inclination of the thoughts of his [man’s] heart was only evil, all the time[5]. It was because of this wickedness that God resolved to wipe mankind from the face of the earth by means of a flood. Several verses later, in the beginning of the account of Noah, Noah is identified as a righteous man, and blameless among the people of his time. His righteousness, however, was not due to the fact that he had not sinned, or did not have a corrupt sinful nature; Genesis chapter nine records a graphic instance of Noah’s sinfulness[6]. Noah, however, “walked with God[7].” In other words, Noah was accounted righteous in the same manner that Abraham would later be accounted righteous, by God’s grace through faith in God’s promise[8].

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus demonstrates that these inclinations toward evil and away from God which originate out of mankind’s corrupt nature are sin. In his discourse about adultery Jesus tells the crowd that the sin of adultery is not committed by the mere physical act, but by the lust which manifests itself from a man’s heart, i.e. his nature[9]. Jesus goes on to make this point further. “If your right eye causes you to sin,” Jesus explains, “gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.” Of course we know that it is not our eyes or hands that cause us to commit acts of sin, but the evil desires which originate from our desperately sick and deceitful heart.

Along with Paul we ask, “Who will save us from this body of death?” Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Scripture tell us that if we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. But, if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness[10]. 

While mankind was God’s enemy, dead in trespass and sin, hostile toward him and by nature objects of his wrath, God resolved to reconcile the world to himself in the person and work of Jesus. Born of a woman, born without sin, Christ, the divine Son, second person of the trinity, took on human nature and voluntarily subjected himself to the punishment for sin – death – that mankind deserved. By his holy, precious blood and his innocent suffering and death Jesus redeemed mankind, and purchased and won us all from all sins, from death, and from the power of the devil. He earned for man what no man can earn, and he gives it to us by his grace. Christ is risen! He is risen indeed!

Works Cited

Engelbrecht, Rev. Edward A., ed. The Lutheran Study Bible. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2009.

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

Perman, Matt. What is the Biblical Evidence for Original Sin? 23 January 2006. 17 April 2014. <http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-biblical-evidence-for-original-sin>.

---

[1] Romans 5:12

[2] Romans 5:16

[3] Romans 6:23

[4] Jeremiah 17:9

[5] Genesis 6:5

[6] Genesis 9:21

[7] Genesis 6:9

[8] Genesis 4:26 says, “At that time men began to call on the name of the LORD.” This verse is generally understood by theologians to say that people were, as the population on earth increased, teaching others about, and passing down to the next generation, God’s promise of a savior that he gave to Adam and Eve after they were expelled from paradise. It could more accurately be translated, “At that time men began to proclaim the name of the LORD.” It was in this promise that Noah believed, and it is by this faith that he was accounted as righteous. It is the same faith which makes Christians righteous today (Engelbrecht).

[9] Matthew 5:27-30

[10] 1 John 1:8-9