A few weeks ago, the Nashville Statement came out. For those who don't know, it's a statement of Christian stances on gender and sexuality. It has a special focus on two of the current hot topics of the day - homosexuality, and transgenderism.
By and large, I don't have any objections with the statement. I think it's a re-telling of long accepted Christian beliefs concerning gender and sexuality. Most of the objections I've seen are simply ad hominems against those who signed it. I also see a lot of people saying "Well if that's your stance, then you should also be doing this and that and those." In other words, calling the signers hypocrites for taking a stance on this issue, and not others. Again, ad hominem.
The only thing I really take pause with is in Article 7. It's this wording:
"We deny that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption."
The bolded part is what I object to. I'd like to know what they mean by "self-conception," because in this context I read it as "Thinking of yourself as homosexual." I shudder against this because it sounds tantamount to saying, "Even if you're gay you shouldn't think of yourself as gay." I can't think of a good reason for this. I wonder if the writers are conflating orientation with behavior. The Bible does not condemn having the orientation, which you can't control anyway. It condemns the behavior. Let a faithful homosexual Christian be honest about their orientation. There's no reason, nor is there godly love, in trying to keep them in the closet like that.
My biggest worry with the Nashville Statement is not the content, but rather the application. We need to be incredibly careful in carrying out the sentiment of this statement. I think the Catholic Catechism, clause 2358, sums this nicely:
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
You replace "homosexual" with "transgender" in that quote and it's the same thing. There is no doubt that plenty of people in the church who have these tendencies, whether or not they act out on them, are going to be deeply hurt and offended. And it makes sense. Sexuality is a hard thing to control. Our culture is pretty accepting and encouraging of these kinds of things. For many their orientation is intertwined with their identity. To tell them that acting on their urges, or indeed their identity, is sin is to say something very harsh. And sometimes truth is harsh. But I'd hate to be the one who has to tell someone this truth. All we can do is speak this harsh truth, as lovingly as possible, and pray that it not be seen as malice but as something that leads to repentance.
Tuesday, September 12, 2017
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Why a Christian Might Sin
A lot of people gripe about Christians when they sin. They think that Christians are supposed to be a group of perfect people who never do anything wrong. However there are a few things that explain why a Christian might continue to sin.
First, as long as we are in these corrupted physical bodies, sin continues to be a part of our nature. As a result, it's inevitable that everyone, including Christians, will sin. Christians have the Holy Spirit which gradually draws them away from sin and toward holiness, but it's a process that takes a lifetime. And since it's a process, sin will still happen.
Second, the Christian may not realize they are sinning. They may simply be unaware they are in the process of committing a sin. There is the old example of taking home office supplies from work. They may know that stealing is a sin, but not realize that by taking the pen from work, they're stealing.
Third, they may not realize what they are doing is a sin. For example, grumbling. You might hear a Christian complain about something, and get annoyed. But they don't know that grumbling about their neighbor or coworker is considered sin. This could be the result of poor discipleship.
Fourth, they may not have yet been convicted by the Holy Spirit to repent of a certain sin. The Holy Spirit doesn't throw all of your sins into the open at once. I don't think anyone could handle being shown the myriad of ways they sin on a daily basis. Trying to change all those habits at once would be frustrating and fruitless. Instead it's a progressive thing, as I mentioned in my first point. A person may speak foul words and know that there's some verse saying not to do that. But they continue because the Spirit hasn't moved in them to stop using that bad language.
Fifth, they may be in an emotional state where they can't really think clearly about what they're doing. This happens, for instance, when people suffer from depression. If you get into a bad state of mind, or have a chemical imbalance, it's possible to be unable to think with the necessary impartiality to say. "Hey, what I'm doing is sinful."
I don't mean to excuse all sin. Obviously discipleship, repentance, and accountability are necessary for the goal of holiness. Even so, I think it's reasonable to be empathetic toward Christians who commit sin and show them the grace due to the situation.
First, as long as we are in these corrupted physical bodies, sin continues to be a part of our nature. As a result, it's inevitable that everyone, including Christians, will sin. Christians have the Holy Spirit which gradually draws them away from sin and toward holiness, but it's a process that takes a lifetime. And since it's a process, sin will still happen.
Second, the Christian may not realize they are sinning. They may simply be unaware they are in the process of committing a sin. There is the old example of taking home office supplies from work. They may know that stealing is a sin, but not realize that by taking the pen from work, they're stealing.
Third, they may not realize what they are doing is a sin. For example, grumbling. You might hear a Christian complain about something, and get annoyed. But they don't know that grumbling about their neighbor or coworker is considered sin. This could be the result of poor discipleship.
Fourth, they may not have yet been convicted by the Holy Spirit to repent of a certain sin. The Holy Spirit doesn't throw all of your sins into the open at once. I don't think anyone could handle being shown the myriad of ways they sin on a daily basis. Trying to change all those habits at once would be frustrating and fruitless. Instead it's a progressive thing, as I mentioned in my first point. A person may speak foul words and know that there's some verse saying not to do that. But they continue because the Spirit hasn't moved in them to stop using that bad language.
Fifth, they may be in an emotional state where they can't really think clearly about what they're doing. This happens, for instance, when people suffer from depression. If you get into a bad state of mind, or have a chemical imbalance, it's possible to be unable to think with the necessary impartiality to say. "Hey, what I'm doing is sinful."
I don't mean to excuse all sin. Obviously discipleship, repentance, and accountability are necessary for the goal of holiness. Even so, I think it's reasonable to be empathetic toward Christians who commit sin and show them the grace due to the situation.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
An Involved God
Something I've changed my mind a few times about has been how involved God is in our daily lives. For as long as I've been a Christian, I've believed that God is ultimately in control. But I've questioned just how actively involved in things God is. I'm not kidding when I say I've been to just about every extreme.
For a while I believed something which was kind of Calvinist in nature. I held that everything that happened in my life was ordained by God. So even something simple like picking a pair of socks for the day or stubbing my toe was something that God saw beforehand and approved of. God selected who I would run across in life, what job I'd work at, what TV shows I'd watch that day, etc. In this sense, God was heavily involved. It was also more personal since God himself had approved an eternity beforehand what would happen on a daily basis.
Then my thoughts switched and I held that God was pretty hands-off about things. He decided the times of our birth and death. He also gave us natural talents in certain things. For me that would involve programming and writing. Throughout our lives, God would intervene to make a few things happen, but it wouldn't always be obvious it was God acting. Outside of these, he let us choose things for ourselves. What college to attend, what job to work at, who to marry, what car to buy, and so on. In regards to God's plan for my life, he knew what choices I would make, and permitted them to happen. If something was incredibly outside his will, he would have done something to stop me from doing it. The Holy Spirit was still working repentance and greater holiness in me, but nothing dramatic. This felt almost deistic in nature, since it seemed like God wasn't very active in my life, at least not in any glaringly obvious way.
I had switched to this more laissez-faire belief because, for the life of me, I could not find any Bible passages indicating God had any strongly active roles in daily life. It didn't adversely affect my faith. My faith isn't founded upon how active God is in my daily life, but the death and resurrection of Jesus, which is a sure thing.
Since then I think I have swung to what seems to be a reasonable, happy medium. I didn't expect the issue to be addressed in the Small Catechism but it was. I think the way Martin Luther handled the questions is pretty good. Specifically, questions 108 and 110 for the explanation of the Small Catechisms address the question nicely. They indicate that God is presently active in sustaining the universe. That's something that I assumed for a long time. I take it to mean that if God were to stop tending to the universe it would fall apart. They also indicate that God actively provides needs.
This idea of God providing things on a daily basis is certainly more involved than the hands-off approach, but not so strongly active as to take on a Calvinistic perspective. I couple this with the notion of God having a perfect will and a permissive will. God provides and leads, but doesn't direct everything. Honestly, my take on God's will and my will are a post unto itself. So let us suffice to say that I think God is involved in my life, which is a comforting and (at least seemingly) true notion.
For a while I believed something which was kind of Calvinist in nature. I held that everything that happened in my life was ordained by God. So even something simple like picking a pair of socks for the day or stubbing my toe was something that God saw beforehand and approved of. God selected who I would run across in life, what job I'd work at, what TV shows I'd watch that day, etc. In this sense, God was heavily involved. It was also more personal since God himself had approved an eternity beforehand what would happen on a daily basis.
Then my thoughts switched and I held that God was pretty hands-off about things. He decided the times of our birth and death. He also gave us natural talents in certain things. For me that would involve programming and writing. Throughout our lives, God would intervene to make a few things happen, but it wouldn't always be obvious it was God acting. Outside of these, he let us choose things for ourselves. What college to attend, what job to work at, who to marry, what car to buy, and so on. In regards to God's plan for my life, he knew what choices I would make, and permitted them to happen. If something was incredibly outside his will, he would have done something to stop me from doing it. The Holy Spirit was still working repentance and greater holiness in me, but nothing dramatic. This felt almost deistic in nature, since it seemed like God wasn't very active in my life, at least not in any glaringly obvious way.
I had switched to this more laissez-faire belief because, for the life of me, I could not find any Bible passages indicating God had any strongly active roles in daily life. It didn't adversely affect my faith. My faith isn't founded upon how active God is in my daily life, but the death and resurrection of Jesus, which is a sure thing.
Since then I think I have swung to what seems to be a reasonable, happy medium. I didn't expect the issue to be addressed in the Small Catechism but it was. I think the way Martin Luther handled the questions is pretty good. Specifically, questions 108 and 110 for the explanation of the Small Catechisms address the question nicely. They indicate that God is presently active in sustaining the universe. That's something that I assumed for a long time. I take it to mean that if God were to stop tending to the universe it would fall apart. They also indicate that God actively provides needs.
This idea of God providing things on a daily basis is certainly more involved than the hands-off approach, but not so strongly active as to take on a Calvinistic perspective. I couple this with the notion of God having a perfect will and a permissive will. God provides and leads, but doesn't direct everything. Honestly, my take on God's will and my will are a post unto itself. So let us suffice to say that I think God is involved in my life, which is a comforting and (at least seemingly) true notion.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Devotionals
Back when I was going through the membership class with my hometown church's pastor, one of the things he offered me was the little daily devotional book published by the LCMS, "Portals of Prayer." Each day has two readings (from what I've seen, a New Testament reading and a Psalm) followed by a page-long message and a short prayer.
At first I was hesitant to read the book. Given the chance I would rather dig into deeper theological stuff. Such as reading the Defense of the Augsburg Confession, which I haven't had time to do for a while. However, after a couple weeks school started taking up a huge portion of my time and mental power. Suddenly, reading confessions wasn't so easy. But I wanted to continue getting some kind of dose of theology and Bible. That's where the devotional came in. The whole thing only takes a few minutes to go through. It's nice to have a planned reading for the day as well as a message to go with it. Whether it's had any impact on me isn't clear, but I still like it. It's certainly better than not having any Biblical readings at all.
At first I was hesitant to read the book. Given the chance I would rather dig into deeper theological stuff. Such as reading the Defense of the Augsburg Confession, which I haven't had time to do for a while. However, after a couple weeks school started taking up a huge portion of my time and mental power. Suddenly, reading confessions wasn't so easy. But I wanted to continue getting some kind of dose of theology and Bible. That's where the devotional came in. The whole thing only takes a few minutes to go through. It's nice to have a planned reading for the day as well as a message to go with it. Whether it's had any impact on me isn't clear, but I still like it. It's certainly better than not having any Biblical readings at all.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
"Sin Boldly"
Some time ago I came across an interesting quote from Martin Luther: "Sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly." Luther had a penchant for exaggeration in his writing. It seems like Luther is telling people to go ahead and sin it up. But that's not quite what he's talking about. The paragraph containing this statement reads as follows:
"If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong [sin boldly], but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner."
The statement sticks out to me because, at face value, it really sounds antithetical to what Luther worked so many years for. Didn't he champion the notion that faith brings repentance? Where is repentance in flagrant sin?
What Luther is really saying is that we should admit we are sinful, accept it, and strive to serve God anyway. We don't always intend to sin. I don't go out of my way to swear when I hit my toe or get angry at someone. I may impulsively act selfish or arrogant. Sin's just a part of life. People react differently to their sinful nature. Some deny they ever sin. Others are hypocritical, claiming to be a godly person but hiding their faults. Others are aware of their sinfulness and stress about it every day. Here Luther says we should accept we are sinful, repent of them, then just plain live life. Your repentance won't be perfect, and at some point you'll fall. You might fall many times a day. That's part of being human. Yet as the quote above says, Jesus's sacrifice covers those sins because we are faithful.
We "sin boldly" when we admit we are sinful. The quote above invites us to trust in Jesus ever more, and continue to pray because of that sinfulness. This, I think, is a healthy and realistic view of ourselves. It brings me comfort to know that, although I continue to sin, I still remain saved. This leads me to continue living a faithful life.
"If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong [sin boldly], but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner."
The statement sticks out to me because, at face value, it really sounds antithetical to what Luther worked so many years for. Didn't he champion the notion that faith brings repentance? Where is repentance in flagrant sin?
What Luther is really saying is that we should admit we are sinful, accept it, and strive to serve God anyway. We don't always intend to sin. I don't go out of my way to swear when I hit my toe or get angry at someone. I may impulsively act selfish or arrogant. Sin's just a part of life. People react differently to their sinful nature. Some deny they ever sin. Others are hypocritical, claiming to be a godly person but hiding their faults. Others are aware of their sinfulness and stress about it every day. Here Luther says we should accept we are sinful, repent of them, then just plain live life. Your repentance won't be perfect, and at some point you'll fall. You might fall many times a day. That's part of being human. Yet as the quote above says, Jesus's sacrifice covers those sins because we are faithful.
We "sin boldly" when we admit we are sinful. The quote above invites us to trust in Jesus ever more, and continue to pray because of that sinfulness. This, I think, is a healthy and realistic view of ourselves. It brings me comfort to know that, although I continue to sin, I still remain saved. This leads me to continue living a faithful life.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Praying for the Deployed
In a recent church service I got a little emotional during the prayers. It seems to be standard that the church prayers include praying for those who are deployed in the military. When a member of the church congregation goes overseas, their name is put in the church's prayers, where we ask God to keep them safe and bring them home to us. And every week they're prayed for until they return.
It's kind of hard to explain why I felt moved by this. The aim of the church is to be a stable bastion in one's life. The Lutheran church in particular seems to do well at this. It's got robust organization and plenty of programs and activities that help people walk in their faith. Praying for deployed soldiers is the church's way of saying "We're gonna take care of you in whatever way we can until you return to us." The prayer itself asks for the soldier to be returned safely, since that's the desire of everyone in the congregation. It says to the soldier that he/she is in the church's thoughts, hearts, plans and prayers. In this aspect the church acts as that source of stability by extending emotional and spiritual support. And something about all that really moves me.
It's kind of hard to explain why I felt moved by this. The aim of the church is to be a stable bastion in one's life. The Lutheran church in particular seems to do well at this. It's got robust organization and plenty of programs and activities that help people walk in their faith. Praying for deployed soldiers is the church's way of saying "We're gonna take care of you in whatever way we can until you return to us." The prayer itself asks for the soldier to be returned safely, since that's the desire of everyone in the congregation. It says to the soldier that he/she is in the church's thoughts, hearts, plans and prayers. In this aspect the church acts as that source of stability by extending emotional and spiritual support. And something about all that really moves me.
Monday, January 20, 2014
Reading the Augsburg Confession
After I went through the Small Catechism and a Revelation commentary, I found myself without ideas for a devotional. Then I remembered there was an entire book of Lutheran theology called the Book of Concord. So now I'm going through it on its website. First off is the Augsburg Confession! I'm almost done with it so after that, I'll provide a post reflecting what I've learned from it. I'll say this much: despite the older form of English it has, it's not terribly difficult to understand.
Monday, December 23, 2013
Catechism Highlights, Pt 2
I almost forgot to do this! There are a lot of questions to cover, so I may miss some that caught my eye.
105. What is the Christian's proper response to theories of evolution regarding the beginning of the world?
The catechism's way of addressing the issue of evolution is pretty fideistic. It essentially says "The Bible speaks of a young Earth, so that must be true!" It also calls evolutionary theories "scientifically unverifiable."
This implies the LCMS holds to a Young Earth Creationism (YEC) understanding of the world - a literal seven days of creation, with the universe being around 6,000 years old. Although I once held to YEC I now consider myself an Old Earth Creationist (OEC). I accept scientific aging of the universe at about 13.7 billion years old, as well as a very old Earth and evolution. This is due to me mostly being an evidentialist - I go where the evidence takes me. Up until now I haven't seen very much evidence pointing to the viability of a young Earth. I see YEC/OEC as a doctrine of secondary importance, so I don't mention it often nor do I try to persuade others' stance on it.
107. Do people still have the image of God?
According to the catechism, we don't bear the image of God anymore because of sin. We are not the image-bearers that many people like to tell us. By accepting Jesus the image is rebuilt in us but won't be fully completed until after the end of this age.
108. How does the universe still depend on God? and 110. What does God do to take care of me?
One of the questions I've been wondering is, how active is God in my daily life? Or in general, just how much involvement does he have? Does he oversee and care for every single detail, or does he let us decide how the paths of our lives will go? The answers to 108 and 110 suggest that God sustains the physical world (by digging a bit into the grammar of the Greek it seems to be a passive thing) and he provides for and defends his followers. In his foreknowledge, God established the universe in a way that, through natural occurrences and human action, that his will would be done.
140. Has Christ redeemed only you?
A shock to my system: Christ has redeemed everyone, not just believers. This notion, called universal atonement, is a bit foreign to me. I suppose while everyone is redeemed, not everyone is saved because they lack faith.
213. For what do we pray in the Second Petition?
The Second Petition is the line "Your kingdom come" in the Lord's Prayer. I have long thought this was a petition for God to bring the end time sooner. Under Lutheran teaching, God's kingdom is already present. So in saying this we ask that the already present kingdom may be further edified.
215. What is the good and gracious will of God?
Christians today seem to obsess over knowing what God's will for their lives is. Who do they marry? What country should they be a missionary in? What should be their major in college? There are books and sermons on discerning God's will, even though he has shown himself generally tight-lipped in talking about it until we need to know.
The answer to this question is nicely summed in three phrases: obedience, evangelism, and proper instruction. How the specifics are worked out are left to God and man's free will.
218. How is God's will done in our lives?
Answer: when God defeats plans which oppose his, keeps us following godly behaviors, and supports us throughout our lives.
226. What does God want us to do for those who sin against us?
The answer to this is a real challenge for me to carry out. We are to forgive them and do good to them.
249. If Christ has already won forgiveness and salvation for us and gives us all this by grace alone, why do we still need baptism?
Apparently I'm not the first one who thought saying Jesus alone saves, but then adding baptism, seemed wonky. This is the closest the catechism came to answering the objection I had to Lutheran doctrine. Jesus alone saves, but it's distributed in baptism. I am not entirely sure this satisfies my objection.
269. What special authority has Christ given to His church on Earth?
This introduces a doctrine called the Office of the Keys. Honestly it's something I could devote an entire blog post to. In short, ministers can withhold divine forgiveness from unrepentant people, and it will be as effective as if God himself were denying them forgiveness. It is a bit weird but also understandable. Pastors work in the place of Christ and act on his authority.
292. Do all communicants receive the body and blood in the Sacrament, whether or not they believe?
I wonder how this applies not toward unbelievers, but those churches that don't believe the wine (or grape juice) and bread really are the body and blood of Jesus. It would appear that they still really are taking Jesus's body and blood, even though their official doctrine says it's just symbolic.
105. What is the Christian's proper response to theories of evolution regarding the beginning of the world?
The catechism's way of addressing the issue of evolution is pretty fideistic. It essentially says "The Bible speaks of a young Earth, so that must be true!" It also calls evolutionary theories "scientifically unverifiable."
This implies the LCMS holds to a Young Earth Creationism (YEC) understanding of the world - a literal seven days of creation, with the universe being around 6,000 years old. Although I once held to YEC I now consider myself an Old Earth Creationist (OEC). I accept scientific aging of the universe at about 13.7 billion years old, as well as a very old Earth and evolution. This is due to me mostly being an evidentialist - I go where the evidence takes me. Up until now I haven't seen very much evidence pointing to the viability of a young Earth. I see YEC/OEC as a doctrine of secondary importance, so I don't mention it often nor do I try to persuade others' stance on it.
107. Do people still have the image of God?
According to the catechism, we don't bear the image of God anymore because of sin. We are not the image-bearers that many people like to tell us. By accepting Jesus the image is rebuilt in us but won't be fully completed until after the end of this age.
108. How does the universe still depend on God? and 110. What does God do to take care of me?
One of the questions I've been wondering is, how active is God in my daily life? Or in general, just how much involvement does he have? Does he oversee and care for every single detail, or does he let us decide how the paths of our lives will go? The answers to 108 and 110 suggest that God sustains the physical world (by digging a bit into the grammar of the Greek it seems to be a passive thing) and he provides for and defends his followers. In his foreknowledge, God established the universe in a way that, through natural occurrences and human action, that his will would be done.
140. Has Christ redeemed only you?
A shock to my system: Christ has redeemed everyone, not just believers. This notion, called universal atonement, is a bit foreign to me. I suppose while everyone is redeemed, not everyone is saved because they lack faith.
213. For what do we pray in the Second Petition?
The Second Petition is the line "Your kingdom come" in the Lord's Prayer. I have long thought this was a petition for God to bring the end time sooner. Under Lutheran teaching, God's kingdom is already present. So in saying this we ask that the already present kingdom may be further edified.
215. What is the good and gracious will of God?
Christians today seem to obsess over knowing what God's will for their lives is. Who do they marry? What country should they be a missionary in? What should be their major in college? There are books and sermons on discerning God's will, even though he has shown himself generally tight-lipped in talking about it until we need to know.
The answer to this question is nicely summed in three phrases: obedience, evangelism, and proper instruction. How the specifics are worked out are left to God and man's free will.
218. How is God's will done in our lives?
Answer: when God defeats plans which oppose his, keeps us following godly behaviors, and supports us throughout our lives.
226. What does God want us to do for those who sin against us?
The answer to this is a real challenge for me to carry out. We are to forgive them and do good to them.
249. If Christ has already won forgiveness and salvation for us and gives us all this by grace alone, why do we still need baptism?
Apparently I'm not the first one who thought saying Jesus alone saves, but then adding baptism, seemed wonky. This is the closest the catechism came to answering the objection I had to Lutheran doctrine. Jesus alone saves, but it's distributed in baptism. I am not entirely sure this satisfies my objection.
269. What special authority has Christ given to His church on Earth?
This introduces a doctrine called the Office of the Keys. Honestly it's something I could devote an entire blog post to. In short, ministers can withhold divine forgiveness from unrepentant people, and it will be as effective as if God himself were denying them forgiveness. It is a bit weird but also understandable. Pastors work in the place of Christ and act on his authority.
292. Do all communicants receive the body and blood in the Sacrament, whether or not they believe?
I wonder how this applies not toward unbelievers, but those churches that don't believe the wine (or grape juice) and bread really are the body and blood of Jesus. It would appear that they still really are taking Jesus's body and blood, even though their official doctrine says it's just symbolic.
Saturday, November 2, 2013
One to Another
Tomorrow I will most likely be finishing my reading of the Small Catechism. Eventually I will try to get a post up with the thoughts I had on the remaining questions I read in the explanation of the catechism.
I have already picked what I want to read up on next. Coming from an Assemblies of God church, I have been taught a more literal, millenialist teaching of Revelation with a focus on a pre-tribulation Rapture. Lutherans don't hold to a literal reading of Revelation. The book was mentioned in discussion the other day and it made me curious. I looked up a study on Revelation and found this one. I'll go through it over the course of a couple weeks or so, just depending on how I pace myself. It will be really neat to get an understand of Revelation that pre-dates what I was taught originally.
I have already picked what I want to read up on next. Coming from an Assemblies of God church, I have been taught a more literal, millenialist teaching of Revelation with a focus on a pre-tribulation Rapture. Lutherans don't hold to a literal reading of Revelation. The book was mentioned in discussion the other day and it made me curious. I looked up a study on Revelation and found this one. I'll go through it over the course of a couple weeks or so, just depending on how I pace myself. It will be really neat to get an understand of Revelation that pre-dates what I was taught originally.
Friday, October 4, 2013
Catechism Highlights, Pt. 1
Here are a few things I've read in the explanation to the Small Catechism that I've found interesting.
53. Does anyone have authority to take another person's life?
4. What is the key to the correct understanding of the Bible?
The answer indicates that the core to meaning the Bible is Jesus. In other words, whatever is read must be understood in light of the death and resurrection of Jesus. In some things this may be hard to notice. Parts of the Old Testament gain new meaning when you factor Jesus into the equation. Often I am inclined to read the books of the Bible as separate works with different genres. But they are unified through the message of Jesus.
5. How is human reason to be used in understanding Holy Scriptures?
The thing that interests me is how the answer indicates that it's OK to use reason when trying to understand the Bible (including philosophy), but it has to be subject to the Holy Spirit. This is another strike against the claim of fideism I've put on Lutheranism in general.
36. Does God require us to observe the Sabbath and other holy days of the Old Testament?
This is one of the more radical things I've read thus far. Radical in the sense that the answer indicates we as Christians are not required to pick a day to observe as a Sabbath. Rather, Jesus Christ is our Sabbath, our rest (Matt. 11:28, Matt 12:8, Col. 2:16-17, Heb. 4:9-10). Through Jesus Christ we have a perpetual, constant Sabbath rest even if we're not physically relaxing.
37. Does God require the church to worship together on any specific days?
The answer here is that while God does command us to worship together, there is no day we're required to meet up on. Most Christians have church on Sundays. Seventh Day Adventists prefer Saturdays. There is no set date for it. Indeed I have seen instances of churches holding services on Sunday, but also Wednesdays and Saturdays. Sunday is the normal day of worship mainly because that's the day Jesus was resurrected on.
I was surprised at this answer. The catechism says "yes" - lawful governments are authorized to execute criminals and fight just wars, which include taking lives.
56. What does God forbid in the Sixth Commandment?
Divorce is unacceptable except in cases of marital unfaithfulness. This includes adultery, but also desertion. From the Bible verse used to support the desertion parts it seems to imply the deserting member is an unbeliever. Maybe it's also expanded to believers as well. I'm a little surprised abuse is never considered a reason for divorce. I personally would not bat an eye over that being a reason people get divorced, because it strikes me as completely out of God's will for someone to remain with an abusive partner.
71. What does God mean when He threatens to punish the children for the sin of the father to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Him?
It seems Martin Luther didn't realize that the above statement wasn't meant to literally mean punishment for sin would extend to one's children. He cites Ezekiel 18:20 saying that sons will not be punished for their fathers' sins. The statement the question addresses, if I recall correctly, is a reference to how the gods of the neighboring nations actually would place a generational punishment like this. By mentioning it, God speaks of how powerful he is. It is a sort of metaphor which speaks of God's sovereignty.
80. How many kinds of sin are there?
The catechism mentions two types of sin: original sin and actual sin. Actual sin is the stuff we do, and nobody seems to deny it's there. Original sin states we are wholly corrupted due to the first sin ever committed by Adam and Eve. I know this is something not everyone agrees with, although I haven't really focused much on it.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Reading Through the Small Catechism
As I mentioned a couple months ago, I went through the membership class for the LCMS and received a copy of the Small Catechism. It came in a small book with a blue cover. At least, I think it's blue - I'm colorblind so I might be wrong. After the Small Catechism, the book goes through the various parts of the catechism and addresses some 300 questions about the various parts of it.
I have this thing where I get a little bothered by people not knowing what they believe or why. So imagine the plank in my eye when I realized that even though I called myself a member of the LCMS church, I really did not have an expansive understanding of what it teaches! So recently I have committed myself to reading 5-10 of the questions in the explanation of the Small Catechism on a daily basis. Overall it should take me a month or two to finish.
While there is a lot of information that I'm processing, and much of it stuff I already figured out, every now and then I'm running across something that stands out as a "Hmm, that's kind of cool" thing. I may end up writing a post about these as I find them.
I have this thing where I get a little bothered by people not knowing what they believe or why. So imagine the plank in my eye when I realized that even though I called myself a member of the LCMS church, I really did not have an expansive understanding of what it teaches! So recently I have committed myself to reading 5-10 of the questions in the explanation of the Small Catechism on a daily basis. Overall it should take me a month or two to finish.
While there is a lot of information that I'm processing, and much of it stuff I already figured out, every now and then I'm running across something that stands out as a "Hmm, that's kind of cool" thing. I may end up writing a post about these as I find them.
Monday, August 19, 2013
More about Music
It's been a couple months since I last mentioned music on here, but in the time my opinion hasn't really changed. I've noticed traditional Lutheran worship to be very, very musical. It's not just the hymns. It's also the traditional songs with fancy Latin names which are tripping me up.
Something I have come to realize is that I will probably never really enjoy a traditional service. The first time I participated in one, it was a very cool experience. I felt like I had been teleported back into the Middle Ages, hearing the organ being used to indicate to the congregation where to start and stop a song, move to the next segment of the service, and so on. But having spent the past summer in that kind of service I can honestly say... it's really not the thing for me.
Liturgical music like the Gloria In Excelsis, Kyrie, or Sanctus have proven very hard for me to learn. That's because they were each written at least a thousand years ago. Gloria In Excelsis dates to the AD 300s. The age doesn't bother me as much as the extreme lack of rhythm. I'm no musical expert, but these songs were clearly written in a different setting than a modern Western society. Evidently what passed as good musical composition was unlike the tastes of today. I've tried listening to a couple in their original Latin texts, and even then I was underwhelmed.
Hymns are a bit more tolerable because at least they have a more consistent flow. But I guess you could say they lack energy behind them. By and large the songs sound flat to me. A couple of them throw in catchy inflections of the tone but the rest are rather... bland.
Honestly, sometimes I have to remind myself that God accepts any style of singing intended to worship him. Because I wouldn't be terribly impressed if I were in his place. It also surprises the heck out of me that I've come across people in my age range who actually prefer this style of service.
Don't mistake this as me judging the traditional type of service, or those who enjoy it. To each his or her own. But I guess that after being fed a steady diet of rock and pop, hymns on an organ really don't stir me. I find these kinds of things too hard to learn. I don't mind singing in church (you can thank my four years in the Assemblies of God for that!) but most tunes are really hard for me to catch on to.
I strongly prefer a contemporary style of service. Mainly because we're not spending ten minutes singing the same ancient songs that we've going over hundreds of times. Also because there are - gasp - guitars used! That said, I don't have a problem with traditional liturgical songs popping in to the contemporary service every now and then. I guess I just object to the idea that every other part of a service needs to be sung with an organ.
Something I have come to realize is that I will probably never really enjoy a traditional service. The first time I participated in one, it was a very cool experience. I felt like I had been teleported back into the Middle Ages, hearing the organ being used to indicate to the congregation where to start and stop a song, move to the next segment of the service, and so on. But having spent the past summer in that kind of service I can honestly say... it's really not the thing for me.
Liturgical music like the Gloria In Excelsis, Kyrie, or Sanctus have proven very hard for me to learn. That's because they were each written at least a thousand years ago. Gloria In Excelsis dates to the AD 300s. The age doesn't bother me as much as the extreme lack of rhythm. I'm no musical expert, but these songs were clearly written in a different setting than a modern Western society. Evidently what passed as good musical composition was unlike the tastes of today. I've tried listening to a couple in their original Latin texts, and even then I was underwhelmed.
Hymns are a bit more tolerable because at least they have a more consistent flow. But I guess you could say they lack energy behind them. By and large the songs sound flat to me. A couple of them throw in catchy inflections of the tone but the rest are rather... bland.
Honestly, sometimes I have to remind myself that God accepts any style of singing intended to worship him. Because I wouldn't be terribly impressed if I were in his place. It also surprises the heck out of me that I've come across people in my age range who actually prefer this style of service.
Don't mistake this as me judging the traditional type of service, or those who enjoy it. To each his or her own. But I guess that after being fed a steady diet of rock and pop, hymns on an organ really don't stir me. I find these kinds of things too hard to learn. I don't mind singing in church (you can thank my four years in the Assemblies of God for that!) but most tunes are really hard for me to catch on to.
I strongly prefer a contemporary style of service. Mainly because we're not spending ten minutes singing the same ancient songs that we've going over hundreds of times. Also because there are - gasp - guitars used! That said, I don't have a problem with traditional liturgical songs popping in to the contemporary service every now and then. I guess I just object to the idea that every other part of a service needs to be sung with an organ.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Confirmation.rar
A couple months ago, the pastor of my home church offered to teach me the basics of the Lutheran doctrine needed to be considered worthy of taking Communion. I kind of let the offer slide because it would be one-on-one and I find such situations quite awkward. But one thing led to another and we ended up arranging a set of three meetings, where he would teach me the proper material.
Perhaps because he saw that I already knew a lot of the stuff, he ended up going over the stuff more quickly than he would with a Confirmation class. The whole thing took about four hours over the course of three meetings. At the last meeting he gave me a small book containing the Small Catechism and expansive explanations of the various parts.
It impressed me just how much the Lutheran church wants you to know before you can take Communion. For a denomination that comes off as fideistic to me, they sure expect you to know quite a bit! When I wanted to get membership in the Assemblies of God I was simply given a small paperback book explaining their main doctrinal points. But to get into the Lutheran church you need to know the Ten Commandments, the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, as well as understanding of baptism, Communion, and confession. That's pretty intense, and I daresay thoroughly Biblical. In a couple weeks I will be making an affirmation of faith, but even before then I think I'm now "qualified" to take part in Communion in the LCMS.
Perhaps because he saw that I already knew a lot of the stuff, he ended up going over the stuff more quickly than he would with a Confirmation class. The whole thing took about four hours over the course of three meetings. At the last meeting he gave me a small book containing the Small Catechism and expansive explanations of the various parts.
It impressed me just how much the Lutheran church wants you to know before you can take Communion. For a denomination that comes off as fideistic to me, they sure expect you to know quite a bit! When I wanted to get membership in the Assemblies of God I was simply given a small paperback book explaining their main doctrinal points. But to get into the Lutheran church you need to know the Ten Commandments, the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, as well as understanding of baptism, Communion, and confession. That's pretty intense, and I daresay thoroughly Biblical. In a couple weeks I will be making an affirmation of faith, but even before then I think I'm now "qualified" to take part in Communion in the LCMS.
Monday, July 8, 2013
Impressed
The LCMS has impressed me recently, in two ways.
First: last Sunday was the first Sunday after Independence Day (4th of July). As expected, there was some mention of America and the freedom we have therein. But our pastor started off with some pretty clear-cut words. His words were essentially, "We are blessed to be in America, although the nation has declined morally and deviated from the Constitution."
Wow. That's bold to say in this day and age. I agree on both accounts, of course, but a pastor saying that requires some real gall. It's all too easy to lose congregants for speaking truth. I value and admire any pastor who would be willing to speak an inconvenient truth such as that.
Second: I am pleased as to how thoroughly scriptural Lutheran theology is. I've seen how other denominations have needed to input their own understandings or interpretations to get their particular beliefs. Then I read instructional material given by a Lutheran church and, my goodness, the stuff is referenced and cross-referenced every which way. They also have the backing of history, a second way of validating their beliefs. All told, I can feel confident that what I'm being taught is indeed sound doctrine.
First: last Sunday was the first Sunday after Independence Day (4th of July). As expected, there was some mention of America and the freedom we have therein. But our pastor started off with some pretty clear-cut words. His words were essentially, "We are blessed to be in America, although the nation has declined morally and deviated from the Constitution."
Wow. That's bold to say in this day and age. I agree on both accounts, of course, but a pastor saying that requires some real gall. It's all too easy to lose congregants for speaking truth. I value and admire any pastor who would be willing to speak an inconvenient truth such as that.
Second: I am pleased as to how thoroughly scriptural Lutheran theology is. I've seen how other denominations have needed to input their own understandings or interpretations to get their particular beliefs. Then I read instructional material given by a Lutheran church and, my goodness, the stuff is referenced and cross-referenced every which way. They also have the backing of history, a second way of validating their beliefs. All told, I can feel confident that what I'm being taught is indeed sound doctrine.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Personal Relationship? Yes and No.
About a month ago I posted on the LCMS's Facebook page asking what the synod believed about a couple popular concepts in Christianity today were. One of the things I asked about was whether or not the notion of a "personal relationship with God" was Biblical. In the past I thought it was, but when I started questioning it, the evidence seemed to lean the other way.
I was surprised to receive my answer from the LCMS's Director of Worship, Rev. Will Weedon. I guess my questions were deep enough that they wanted someone high up in the administrative hierarchy to address it. His answer was a "Yes and no" sort of response. He was clear that we do have a personal relationship, but perhaps not in the sense that people like to think of it as.
The way I understand it, when there is talk of a personal relationship with God, it's sort of an informal friendship kind of thing. Phrases like "Jesus is my homeboy" or, as 13 year old girls struggling with being alone say, "Jesus is my boyfriend." This kind of mentality makes Jesus Christ the kind of person you'd go to the bar and have a beer with. A sort of buddy-buddy with God kind of thing. Then there is the notion that if you're sufficiently on fire for God, that he will routinely speak to you.
As Rev. Weedon explained, the kind of relationship we have with God isn't a buddy-buddy kind, but rather a Father-child one. We are entitled to come boldly before God and ask for what we need, and confide our troubles in him. We are also called to be obedient to God, and can trust that he will be faithful and trustworthy to us. Does this entail that God will give us divine revelations every other day? Probably not. Indeed we may not "hear" from God very often. But that is alright - we have all we need to hear from God in the Bible. The truth that may be tough for some to read seems to be that God is not our buddy but he is our Abba Father. Let's not trivialize it by making him our drinking buddy.
I was surprised to receive my answer from the LCMS's Director of Worship, Rev. Will Weedon. I guess my questions were deep enough that they wanted someone high up in the administrative hierarchy to address it. His answer was a "Yes and no" sort of response. He was clear that we do have a personal relationship, but perhaps not in the sense that people like to think of it as.
The way I understand it, when there is talk of a personal relationship with God, it's sort of an informal friendship kind of thing. Phrases like "Jesus is my homeboy" or, as 13 year old girls struggling with being alone say, "Jesus is my boyfriend." This kind of mentality makes Jesus Christ the kind of person you'd go to the bar and have a beer with. A sort of buddy-buddy with God kind of thing. Then there is the notion that if you're sufficiently on fire for God, that he will routinely speak to you.
As Rev. Weedon explained, the kind of relationship we have with God isn't a buddy-buddy kind, but rather a Father-child one. We are entitled to come boldly before God and ask for what we need, and confide our troubles in him. We are also called to be obedient to God, and can trust that he will be faithful and trustworthy to us. Does this entail that God will give us divine revelations every other day? Probably not. Indeed we may not "hear" from God very often. But that is alright - we have all we need to hear from God in the Bible. The truth that may be tough for some to read seems to be that God is not our buddy but he is our Abba Father. Let's not trivialize it by making him our drinking buddy.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Lectionary & The Holy Spirit
It seems that most denominations use lectionaries in there services. A lectionary is a sort of schedule of verses to be used on a given Sunday. The churches I attend seem to use three-year lectionaries. I don't think that the lectionary ends up quoting every piece of the Bible, but instead covers the main points.
To the best of my knowledge, neither of the AG churches I attended had any sort of lectionaries for there Bible readings. Certainly we were encouraged to use reading plans - lectionaries in and of themselves - for our personal devotional time, but typically the chosen reading for the worship service wasn't as planned out. I went to two AG churches. The first one's pastor was more methodical, choosing a book and going through it in a structured fashion. The second one's pastor went with what he felt the Holy Spirit leading him to, meaning we might go anywhere in the Bible.
The LCMS uses the Revised Common Lectionary, which was produced in the early 90s. I haven't been involved with Lutheranism long enough to really have a "feel" for it or anything.
There is something inside me that questions the use of a lectionary. Remember, these things pre-plan the Bible verses used for sermons, and may very well be used for decades or centuries, without variation. Does this stop the Holy Spirit from working as he would like? Is it possible that God may intend for a pastor to speak to his congregation about one topic, but because that's not what the lectionary calls for, it doesn't happen? Or is it the case that, in his omniscience and omnipotence, God is able to use the lectionary and get his point across to the believers just by using this structured system? Does God want a lectionary to be used?
Honestly, I feel like God is able and willing to use lectionaries. Mainly because it's what's been done for thousands of years. Jews used lectionaries, as early as the time of Moses according to some. The Catholic church has used them for the entirety of its existence, and even Lutheran churches continue to use it. The way I see it, even if these don't give the Holy Spirit the kind of "free reign" seen in other types of churches, God can still work in peoples' lives through the passages prescribed for a given Sunday.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Preserving Truth
There are a couple things I've noticed about how services are carried out that kind of impress me.
First, it's how Christ-centric the service is. Jesus gets seriously emphasized in the structure of a typical Sunday service. It begins with confession and absolution, which reminds us of our sinful nature and how Jesus has won forgiveness for us. Instead of just one part of Scripture being read, as I have seen to happen in the Pentecostal and Baptist churches, there are three sections read including a part of a Gospel - ensuring that Jesus will somehow be mentioned. Sermons vary in content but invariably speak of Christ. The creeds, whatever may be spoken, talk of Jesus and his actions. Communion is seen as a time where the bread and wine take on the essence of Jesus's body and blood (that's another post in and of itself right there). And it goes on. If it were of any question at first of who the service was about, a person would see quickly it's about Jesus.
Second, it's how the order of actions in the service are designed to preserve truth. There is a lot more that goes on in a Lutheran service than in, say, Pentecostal or Baptist. For those kinds of churches it seems to generally be something like: opening hymn, prayer, greeting, worship, sermon, benediction, and closing hymn. The sermon tends to take up the largest chunk of time. In the Lutheran church there are many more things which don't change - confession, absolution, the creeds, the Lord's Prayer, Communion, and the standard songs if it's a traditional service. I think these unchanging parts are pretty important, because they prevent theology from being changed wrongly. The preacher might accidentally or intentionally try to include false teachings into their sermons but the stuff that's around in every service will make sure no major doctrine is distorted.
First, it's how Christ-centric the service is. Jesus gets seriously emphasized in the structure of a typical Sunday service. It begins with confession and absolution, which reminds us of our sinful nature and how Jesus has won forgiveness for us. Instead of just one part of Scripture being read, as I have seen to happen in the Pentecostal and Baptist churches, there are three sections read including a part of a Gospel - ensuring that Jesus will somehow be mentioned. Sermons vary in content but invariably speak of Christ. The creeds, whatever may be spoken, talk of Jesus and his actions. Communion is seen as a time where the bread and wine take on the essence of Jesus's body and blood (that's another post in and of itself right there). And it goes on. If it were of any question at first of who the service was about, a person would see quickly it's about Jesus.
Second, it's how the order of actions in the service are designed to preserve truth. There is a lot more that goes on in a Lutheran service than in, say, Pentecostal or Baptist. For those kinds of churches it seems to generally be something like: opening hymn, prayer, greeting, worship, sermon, benediction, and closing hymn. The sermon tends to take up the largest chunk of time. In the Lutheran church there are many more things which don't change - confession, absolution, the creeds, the Lord's Prayer, Communion, and the standard songs if it's a traditional service. I think these unchanging parts are pretty important, because they prevent theology from being changed wrongly. The preacher might accidentally or intentionally try to include false teachings into their sermons but the stuff that's around in every service will make sure no major doctrine is distorted.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
What Are The Lyrics, Again?
Martin Luther held music in high regard. He is quoted as saying that second to the Word of God, music is one of the best and most powerful things out there. In a traditional Lutheran service you are bound to find a lot of music being used.
Such is the nature of my home church. There is a whole lot of singing done in the service, be it hymns or things with strange Latin names - the Kyrie, Nunc dimittis, Sanctus, and so on. Even the word "Amen" is sung. Personally I don't mind this, since singing is strongly present throughout Christian history, and I would imagine there was plenty of it in ancient Judaism.
The hymnals contain something like 650 songs, and each week we seem to use different songs. Then there are the ones which are considered normal parts of the service. Trying to learn how to sing all these songs is quite the hassle. I know how many beats a half note or full note with the dot next to it lasts, but otherwise I never learned how to read music. I couldn't tell you what a C flat or a G sharp sounds like. I don't know what octave I sing in. I learn music by listening to it repeatedly and getting a feel for the tune and lyrics. The hymns are easier to learn since they at least have a repeating rhythm, even though they don't normally rhyme too well. It's the Kyrie or Sanctus that gets me - they have no obvious rhythm. Of course they were also made centuries ago, in a totally different culture where tastes in music were different.
Right now, I don't really chime in with the singing. Or if I do, it's really, really crappy singing because I barely understand the tune. And I've yet to hear the same hymn twice. Getting a feel for the musical aspect is something that I will need to get used to. I'll probably just take it one thing at a time, learning one then moving on to the other.
Such is the nature of my home church. There is a whole lot of singing done in the service, be it hymns or things with strange Latin names - the Kyrie, Nunc dimittis, Sanctus, and so on. Even the word "Amen" is sung. Personally I don't mind this, since singing is strongly present throughout Christian history, and I would imagine there was plenty of it in ancient Judaism.
The hymnals contain something like 650 songs, and each week we seem to use different songs. Then there are the ones which are considered normal parts of the service. Trying to learn how to sing all these songs is quite the hassle. I know how many beats a half note or full note with the dot next to it lasts, but otherwise I never learned how to read music. I couldn't tell you what a C flat or a G sharp sounds like. I don't know what octave I sing in. I learn music by listening to it repeatedly and getting a feel for the tune and lyrics. The hymns are easier to learn since they at least have a repeating rhythm, even though they don't normally rhyme too well. It's the Kyrie or Sanctus that gets me - they have no obvious rhythm. Of course they were also made centuries ago, in a totally different culture where tastes in music were different.
Right now, I don't really chime in with the singing. Or if I do, it's really, really crappy singing because I barely understand the tune. And I've yet to hear the same hymn twice. Getting a feel for the musical aspect is something that I will need to get used to. I'll probably just take it one thing at a time, learning one then moving on to the other.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Closer to Truth
Ever since my crisis of faith in the latter half of 2011, where I bordered on agnosticism, I've had an incessant passion to find religious truth. I know that there is a God - personal experiences and reason make it clear to me. The God of the universe is the God of the Jews and Christians. But the specific manner of Christian practice is something I have been uncertain about for a long time.
This desire to find religious, doctrinal truth is part of what led me from the Pentecostal church to the Lutheran church. (Don't mistake such statements for hating against Pentecostals; they have just as much faith in God, perhaps more, as other types of Christians. But I don't think a lot of their doctrine is what was historically believed by the church.) Yet part of me feels... uncertain? Unconvinced?
Let's face it, Protestantism happened a long time after the age of the apostles. Two of the big names of the Protestant Reformation are Martin Luther and John Calvin. Both spoke of salvation by faith alone, but in different ways. How do I know Luther wasn't wrong? How do I know Calvin wasn't also wrong? What if sola fide is a man-made doctrine - one which excludes us from eternal salvation?
Eternal salvation is really all I care about. But Christians can't seem to agree who is saved. Many Protestants will say the Catholics aren't saved. Official Catholic doctrine seems to both say that Protestants are disconnected from Jesus thus unsaved, yet also says Protestants are able to be saved. Which side is right?
This desire to find religious, doctrinal truth is part of what led me from the Pentecostal church to the Lutheran church. (Don't mistake such statements for hating against Pentecostals; they have just as much faith in God, perhaps more, as other types of Christians. But I don't think a lot of their doctrine is what was historically believed by the church.) Yet part of me feels... uncertain? Unconvinced?
Let's face it, Protestantism happened a long time after the age of the apostles. Two of the big names of the Protestant Reformation are Martin Luther and John Calvin. Both spoke of salvation by faith alone, but in different ways. How do I know Luther wasn't wrong? How do I know Calvin wasn't also wrong? What if sola fide is a man-made doctrine - one which excludes us from eternal salvation?
Eternal salvation is really all I care about. But Christians can't seem to agree who is saved. Many Protestants will say the Catholics aren't saved. Official Catholic doctrine seems to both say that Protestants are disconnected from Jesus thus unsaved, yet also says Protestants are able to be saved. Which side is right?
- Either the Catholics are right, and Protestants aren't saved.
- Either the Protestants are right, and the Catholics aren't saved.
- Either both are wrong, and both sides are saved.
- Either both are right, and non are saved.
My main concern, as a Protestant, is whether or not Protestants - despite our comparatively young theology - are saved. If I could be given an intellectual, theological confirmation that yes Protestants despite are varying theologies are saved, I would be satisfied. Right now I have not come across anything convincing, though.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Baptism, Communion & Forgiveness
My mind is perplexed again at the notion of the Sacraments and the fact they forgive sins. I wish to understand this, but right now I only have questions and speculation floating in my brain.
The understanding I have is that at baptism, our sins are forgiven. Whether or not that is called baptismal regeneration, I do not know. I would assume that baptism removes our sins past, present, and future. Yet Communion is also said to forgive our sins.
When I asked about this, I was told that even though our sins are forgiven at baptism, we still continue to sin - it's in our nature. Therefore we need to be continually forgiven of these additional sins we commit, and that's what Communion does.
I find that to be kind of redundant. So if before my baptism I committed a sin, then I got baptized, and I've had Communion 50 times, does that mean that sin has been forgiven 51 times? At first glance, that kind of doctrine seems like something Luther might have made in order to try and put some logic into the theology he was forming - remember, Luther was trying to implement sola fide. I wonder if this "re-forgiving" is also part of Catholic theology?
On the other hand, God is well known for doing stuff that doesn't make sense to us finite humans. And I suppose that if God wants to re-forgive a sin hundreds of times over the course of a lifetime, that is his prerogative. God can - and indeed will - do whatever he darn well pleases. Even if it strikes me as a bit... redundant.
The understanding I have is that at baptism, our sins are forgiven. Whether or not that is called baptismal regeneration, I do not know. I would assume that baptism removes our sins past, present, and future. Yet Communion is also said to forgive our sins.
When I asked about this, I was told that even though our sins are forgiven at baptism, we still continue to sin - it's in our nature. Therefore we need to be continually forgiven of these additional sins we commit, and that's what Communion does.
I find that to be kind of redundant. So if before my baptism I committed a sin, then I got baptized, and I've had Communion 50 times, does that mean that sin has been forgiven 51 times? At first glance, that kind of doctrine seems like something Luther might have made in order to try and put some logic into the theology he was forming - remember, Luther was trying to implement sola fide. I wonder if this "re-forgiving" is also part of Catholic theology?
On the other hand, God is well known for doing stuff that doesn't make sense to us finite humans. And I suppose that if God wants to re-forgive a sin hundreds of times over the course of a lifetime, that is his prerogative. God can - and indeed will - do whatever he darn well pleases. Even if it strikes me as a bit... redundant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)