Pastor Douthwaite had another killer sermon yesterday. See what he does with the “camel through the eye of the needle” text (Mark 10:23-31). An excerpt (with a reference to a woman who had just been baptized earlier in the service):
God did something much more difficult than put a camel through the eye of a needle. That sounds incredible to us, and so many commentators and teachers have tried to soften this teaching of Jesus by claiming that there was a gate into the city of Jerusalem that was named “the eye of the needle” and if your camel had too much stuff on it, you would have to take some off to get through. But it was possible! But let us move past such nonsense to the real point: Jesus meant what He said. Unless and until you can put your big, fat, sinful, camel-self through the eye of a needle, you will never get yourself into the kingdom of heaven. The disciples understood that, that’s why they immediately asked: “Then who can be saved?”
And Jesus says: “All things are possible with God.” Because what had God done? He didn’t put a camel through the eye of a needle, He did something much, much greater: in love, He put His almighty and infinite Son through a virgin’s womb. That His Son, clothed in our flesh and blood, love us to death. That we who are dead in our trespasses and sins and clinging to our false gods, be loved to life. And so Jesus comes to give us what no one and no thing else can: love. True love. Eternal love.
And so in love He is born, and in love He lives. In love He ascends the cross, and in love He dies. In love He takes our sins, and in love He gives us forgiveness and life. For as it was said of the rich young man, so it is true for you: And Jesus, looking at you, loves you. Not because you deserve it, but because that is who your God and Saviour is and what He does: love.
Today you got to see that love in action yet again, as the almighty and infinite Son of God came through the waters of Holy Baptism, and again did something much greater than put a camel through the eye of a needle – He put YuRim through His death and resurrection and gave her the promise of eternal life. He washed away her sins and gave her a new birth and made her His child forever. Not because water can do such great things, but because He can.
And in just a few moments, you get to see this love in action again, as the almighty and infinite Son of God come to you in the bread and wine of His Supper, doing something much greater than putting a camel through the eye of a needle – putting His body into your mouth and pouring His blood over your sin-parched lips, thus giving life to the dead, forgiveness to the sinful, and salvation to the needy. Not because bread and wine can do such great things, but because He can.
{ 54 comments… read them below or add one }
I’ve been crying through sermons lately. Our pastor expressed this in a slightly different, but still beautiful way.
wow. outta the ball park! it is really encouraging to read sermons that are so truly and actually about Christ and not just a collection of ideas that are baptized and made “christ-centered” by tacking on a “and none of this would be possible without Jesus” that doesn´t really fit at the end ….
Wow is right. What an amazing comfort truly Christ-centered sermons are every time. This is so well done and such a powerful picture of the saving work God has done through such simple means. Thank you for sharing.
Reading your blog reminded me of our sermon hymn preceeding a wonderful sermon by our own Pastor. “Oh, How Great is Your Compassion”
Oh, how great is Your compassion,
Faithful Father, God of grace,
That with all our fallen race
In our depth of degradation
You had mercy so that we
Might be saved eternally! LSB 559
I am so thankful that my Father sent Christ to me; I was truly hopeless and didn’t even know to be desperate.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Lutherans believe that YuRim would be justified by faith alone right? That is to say, as far as we can tell, she had her sins forgiven and was declared righteous before partaking of either sacrament… right?
#5 MikeD
Mike how do you suppose that she had her sins forgiven and was declared righteous?
just curious for your thoughts and your point here.
fws,
I’m glad for the discussion and I’ll answer, but a simple yes or no would be great. I’m not particularly questioning Lutheran sacramentology, but a clarification only as to the means of justification. As for me, I consider faith alone, believing the gospel, the sole instrument of justification. So whether one is on a drought parched land with no water, in famine plagued economy with no bread or wine, or hanging next to Christ on a cross, it has no affect on justification. As for YuRim, I don’t suppose anything in her case, but if she believes the gospel, she is fully justified and who could forbid water? More to the point I suppose, I do not believe that the church dispenses forgiveness in any way, but rather to the best of our ability, teaches the way of salvation and acknowledges those as justified who are willing disciples of the gospel and the Word of God. For full disclosure here, I do not pretend to be Lutheran and so differ on the sacraments, but I’m under the impression that I was in agreement with Lutheran dogmatics and the material principle of the Reformation when I say that the sole instrument of one recieving the imputed righteousness of Christ was faith alone, period. To me it seemed that the sermon said something other than this, namely, that YuRim was justified at her baptism even though she obviously had faith before that time.
And here I imagined that the baptismal candidate was, um, an infant. Hard to say if she had faith beforehand, but I believe that in baptism the HS imparts faith just the same to an infant as He does in an grown up candidate. Faith is not something one can produce on his/her own being that we are spiritually blind, dead, and enemies of God. Faith is a gift that comes though the means of grace, here being baptism– i.e. the Gospel in liquid form. See Luther’s Small Catechism, Apostles Creed Article 3 explanation.
As an adult convert, she was thoroughly catechized for many months before she was baptized. She attended church during all of this time and heard the gospel in sermons like this one and believed them. The Holy Spirit creates faith through the Word, so I suppose that was what happened to make her want to be baptized. In baptism, though, Christ marked her for His own. We Lutherans just do not separate justification by faith in Christ from the sacraments as other Protestants keep doing, and so devalue what the sacraments do. As Luther explains in the catechism, it isn’t water that does such great things, but the Word that is with the water and faith, “which trusts such word of God in the water.”
By the way, she was also anointed with oil after her baptism, which signified her confirmation. Our pastor explained that with adults being baptized, the catechesis happens beforehand, whereas with children it happens afterwards. So she also received Holy Communion after her baptism at the end of the service, which was also amazingly meaningful both for her and for everyone there.
Jonathan,
I’m not sure if you saw Veith’s comment in first sentence, but he clearly stated that YuRim was a woman. But by your comment that baptism is the same with infants or adults I suppose that wouldn’t matter. As to the comment itself that faith is imparted at baptism, and for adults no less, I’m flabbergasted (sp?)! Perhaps if the Lord had not made a covenant with Noah, he could send another flood but just before the prophet could announce the good news that the entire world’s sins are about to be washed away. Praise Constantine for making Christians by marching them through the waters? I know you’d say that it’s the Spirit himself that is working through these means and so he’s the agent of regeneration, grace alone. But are you saying that regardless of personal volition and intellect, the liquid Gospel (as you put it) saves? BTW, I did not state nor believe that one can conjure up faith in our depraved state, but I do assert that the Holy Spirit regenerates independently from the waters of baptism, and upon that regeneration, one repents and believes unto salvation. As for the citations, thank you and I’ll look at them since I did ask about Lutheranism, but if they assert what you’ve said I’m chagrined at such an interprestation of Scripture and will leave it at that unless asked otherwise.
Ok, ok so I fibbed about being silent… sorry.
As to Veith’s comments I find much more agreement and hopefully all y’all out there can see that Veith’s comments do not reconcile with Jonathan’s. She was exercising faith for a while before her baptism, fully justified in the sight of God, and baptism marks her, so to speak, by the church as a member… no big quarrel.
As for Veith’s comment “We Lutherans just do not separate justification by faith in Christ from the sacraments as other Protestants keep doing, and so devalue what the sacraments do,” I’ll have to clarify a bit. This Protestant does not separate justification by faith alone and baptism either, but I certainly distinguish the two. For me, one leads to the other, (justified, therefore sanctified) and as Jonathan put it, according to Lutheran theology, it’s reversed… a pretty big deal. So perhaps you two interpret Lutheran dogmatics differently, but as I see it, Veith agrees with my problem with Jonathan’s comment. But let me add this, as one does not properly distinguish justifying faith and what then follows, one runs the risk of making too much of what the sacraments do. Technically I’d say they do nothing, and that God does something, but this is probably what Veith meant.
Glad to read a correction of the “Eye of the Needle was a gate” nonsense. I had a person tell me that once and they refused to believe otherwise even after archaeological reports were provided.
MikeD: If I may contribute to this discussion… This Lutheran would say that YuRim was justified by faith that was worked by the Spirit through the gospel she heard and/or read. In addition, I would say that she was blessed with God’s gifts of forgiveness and salvation also through her Baptism. For Lutherans, the preached gospel and Baptism are in the same category, so to speak. God works through them to impart justifying faith and/or to strengthen that faith.
I sometimes compare the roles of the Word and of the Sacraments to the different ways a husband and wife express love to one another: through words, through gifts, through hugs, etc. Each form expresses essentially the same love, but conveys it in a different way. And each form both gives love and strengthens the love that’s already there. Perhaps in that sense we could say that YuRim was justified by grace through faith both by the Word she heard and by Baptism.
M @13: I agree. Contextually, you don’t need to make it any easier to get through the eye of a needle, since Jesus’ whole point is, “You cannot do this! But God can, and does. Get over yourself and look to Him.”
Isn’t the point about the impossibility of a camel getting through a needle’s eye is that a rich man can’t get into the kingdom of heaven? Not just any man, but a rich man. Christ here was saying that the kingdom of heaven is for the poor, whom He called blessed in the Sermon on the Mount. The rich can get to heaven as easily as a camel can pass through the needle’s eye. See Paul to Timothy (the love of the money is the root of all evil); see James (howl and weep, you rich).
We in America, where greed rules our economy, water this down by claiming that Christ surely isn’t referring to relative wealth when He describes ‘rich’ and ‘poor,’ but He can mean nothing else.
Yet, after saying that a rich man can enter as a camel through the eye of a needle, he also says “nothing is impossible with God!” So, a rich man CAN enter the kingdom, but only by the grace of God. Yet, a poor man can only enter by the grace of God. Point being: we need Jesus to enter into the Kingdom, rich or poor.
No, no, no, MikeD, that is not what Veith meant! See how you are devaluing the sacrament, saying it does nothing! God does something indeed. He does it, creates faith, through the Word and the Sacraments. First of all, you seem to be focusing on the question of when a person first became a Christian. Justification by faith is not just a one-time occurrence. The Holy Spirit continues to create faith in us. Do you think we only need to hear the gospel once, and that’s it, now that we are saved? We need to keep hearing it to stay in the faith and to grow in our faith. God does it, objectively, through His Word, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, all of which create that saving faith. The sacraments, by the way, are not human “works.” In the introduction to Luther’s baptism rite that we used Sunday, the Reformer stressed that Christ is the one doing the baptizing, though through the hands of the pastor (the doctrine of vocation).
#7 Mike D
I would like to know more please before I respond. What you say is actually pretty profound and weighty. I can´t see how a simple yes or no would suffice in view of what you say actually. Thanks for your patience with me in advance!
(1)… The church does not dispense forgiveness in any way.” The “any” in this makes this a pretty absolute statement. This feels utterly disorienting to me, in that I understand that this is the sole purpose of the church, namely to dispense forgiveness. Question: what is the purpose of the church then?
(2)”The sole instrument of one receiving the imputed righteousness of Christ was faith alone, period” Question: How does God impart faith? Would you mind sharing how you personally know you have faith and so are saved?
(3) “…but rather to the best of our ability, teaches the way of salvation and acknowledges those as justified who are willing disciples of the gospel and the Word of God.” Questions: “willing disciples” is it our faith that saves us Mike? “willing disciple” is not a form of speech I am aware of anywhere in scripture, so I am not sure what the context of that idea or phrase. Can you tell us more?
Thanks!
“…I’m under the impression that I was in agreement with Lutheran dogmatics and the MATERIAL principle of the Reformation when I say that the sole instrument of one recieving the imputed righteousness of Christ was faith alone, period.” (emphasis mine)
“Formal principle”=source of theological authority and “material principle”= central/essence-ial/core teaching.
Faith is not the “material principle” of The Conservative Reformation and her theology.
That would be only and radically Jesus, specifically: who Jesus is, what Jesus did, why Jesus did it, and how Jesus delivers his very Person (not a teaching or a faith or a moral example) to us personally and today.
There is not a single truly Lutheran doctrine at all that is not completely and organically deliberately designed soley to deliver simply and only this Jesus to us.
Wherever Jesus is, THERE is life and salvation.
Mike: Where does Jesus and the apostles he sent tell us to seek him and promise that He will be found where they point to with all his gifts?
Do they point to your faith?
How do you know you are saved?
“Justification by faith is not just a one-time occurrence.”? I may be wrong, and please someone correct me if I am, but I thought justification by faith was a one time thing and sanctification was a process. I don’ think MikeD is saying that we only need to hear the gospel once and that’s it, but if he means that unbelievers can hear the gospel once and believe, then they are justified. Reading your posts it sounds like you are ascribing the same value to the Word of God and the sacraments, am I correct?
CORRECTION: My last sentence should’ve read, ” …. ascribing the same value to the gospel and the sacraments…”
Apologies
Wow, lot’s to say and so little time…
Veith @ #17: “No, no, no, MikeD, that is not what Veith meant! See how you are devaluing the sacrament, saying it does nothing! God does something indeed” With all due respect, see you are overvaluing the sacrament. It’s name calling, in a way, and then you assert my very position with the next sentence, “God does something.” My point exactly. It’s God doing, yes through the sacrament, not the sacrament itself nor the operation. Furthermore, without faith it’s impossible to please him, and so there must volitional assent.
Again Veith, “Justification by faith is not just a one-time occurrence.” I can’t believe my eyes my Lutheran friend! Justification is one-time, it is not a process, but a forensic legal declaration of pardon as the gavel slams, NOT GUILTY, in fact RIGHTEOUS. We are adopted and now legitimate sons growing in maturity after the manner of their brother and savior, Christ, through Word and, sure, sacrament. Perhaps you are referring to, what I understand to be the Lutheran idea, that you can lose your salvation tomorrow and get it back the day after that, but I’ll just have to disagree. Perhaps we are talking past each other in that when you say saving faith, I’m saying justifying faith. Belief of the gospel proper justifies but as we are transformed to the image of Christ we learn the deeper things of God, growing in faith, and being saved all the more.
JonSLC @ #14, “For Lutherans, the preached gospel and Baptism are in the same category, so to speak. God works through them to impart justifying faith and/or to strengthen that faith.” No big disagreement, but add, “respectively,” to the end of the sentence and I’m there with you 100%. The sacraments strengthen our faith, but it does not add an iota to our justification.
fws @ #18, As to the church dispensing forgiveness, I’m reminded of a painting I heard of showing popes, cardinals, etc. throwing ropes over the side of a ship to the poor souls drowning without the grace of Ma Kirk… this was the context that gave birth to Sola Cristus. We proclaim the gospel, administer the sacraments, edify our brethren with a peculiar love above that of our love for the lost, teach the whole council of God, and so on, but all the while trusting God in his sovereign choice of where his effectual grace finds its way. I could go on, but non of these things dispense grace, for only God can do that.
fws again, “How does God impart faith? Would you mind sharing how you personally know you have faith and so are saved?” God imparts faith by the washing of regeneration, the creation of a new heart, which, sure, is typified and symbolized by H20 in baptism. If you are getting at the objectivity of the covenant or something like that, watch out now. How do I know I have faith? Write the propositions of the gospel on a chalk board and I’d say Amen to them. If you’d rather I look to my baptism, there’s going to be many people in hell who have received a Trinitarian baptism who, for example, anathemetize the gospel in Trent or in personal self-righteousness (See Matt 7). Nobody in hell will say I trusted in the merits of Christ as my sole hope before a holy Father.
from fws, “Questions: “willing disciples” is it our faith that saves us Mike? “willing disciple” is not a form of speech I am aware of anywhere in scripture, so I am not sure what the context of that idea or phrase.” Christ alone saves and yet I say again, we are justified through faith alone. Yes it is the individual that believes unto salvation, it is their belief in the gospel, not Christ’s belief nor the Father’s and certainly not that of the baptizer’s faith (i.e. “implicit” faith). Call sacraments means of grace, but not means of justification… sola fide. As for “willing disciple” what could be objectionable about that? It’s a contradiction in terms to say and “unwilling disciple”. I do not claim to know Luther better than anybody here, but surely he taught that our will is in bondage and remains so until the Holy Spirit changes our will to be softened toward our God in heaven.
fws @ #19, As to the Material principle of the reformation he says, “That would be only and radically Jesus, specifically: who Jesus is, what Jesus did, why Jesus did it, and how Jesus delivers his very Person (not a teaching or a faith or a moral example) to us personally and today.” I do not mean to be crass, but this is practically unintelligible and borders on neo-orthodoxy a la Barth and Brunner… a personal encounter. The material principle was that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness was through faith alone and it was given birth to by a complex of heresies including Rome’s teaching that justification was at the end of a life long process of the infusion of grace via the sacraments.
fws again, “Wherever Jesus is, THERE is life and salvation.” Look, I’m down with hyperbole and metaphor, but it’s just not helpful when getting to the nitty gritty. Christ was in Jerusalem, and yet it corresponds to Arabia. Jesus was in Egypt, and yet he was called out of it. Jesus was the Rock that followed them and yet the gospel was not mixed with faith, so they died in the wilderness not entering his rest.
Lastly for fws said “Mike: Where does Jesus and the apostles he sent tell us to seek him and promise that He will be found where they point to with all his gifts?” Perhaps you can clarify this seeing that I don’t get the question. I think you’re getting at the idea that you think the Bible teaches that Christ is found in the sacraments, not our faith. If this is it let me know or clear up my misconception and I’d love to reply.
Daniel @ #20, Amen we need to hear the gospel regularly, and like you said, but not to be justified again, for there is no such possibility. Our reading, learning, teaching, preaching, etc. should be filled with the faithful saying that Christ died for sinners of which I am chief. So I’m with Veith, we need the gospel to stay in the gospel, but this is not contrary to what I’ve said at all. The same gospel and Christ that justifies also sanctifies, but to me it’s a category mistake to say that we are continually justified.
Truly grateful for the edifying and sharpening discussion.
WOW,
I cant believe I am seeing Lutherans say that “Justification by faith is not just a one-time occurrence”. How sad when we hear Justification confused with Sanctification. Yes we need the Gospel EVERYDAY, not to justify us again and again after every sin. We need the Gospel declared once to justify us, and daily for our sanctification!!! Veith, I have to agree with MikeD on this one, that the sacraments are NOTHING without God. It is HE that does the work, not the water, not the crackers and wine and I think you falsely accused MikeD of saying otherwise.
Sarah in Exile, good point, you hit it right on the head. Sam, you should be more careful when reading the scriptures to not seek out your personal vendetta against capitalism. you can find a verse in scripture to condemn or approve of many things that are not the point of why Christ came for, our what his word says.
Does this mean that all rich people will be in hell? what about Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, the list goes on, what about Zacchaeus? He gave only half of what he had to the poor (and by all means was still a rich man) yet Christ himself said that salvation had come to him. I am not a “die hard american” by any means but are rich non-americans saved? from every other country in the world. Are YOU saved? you own (or at least can use a computer) I assume you have food everyday, a place to live (even if it is communal living) possibly a car to drive or maybe a bike, clean water, clean air, electricity. This makes you relatively wealthy!!! please take the bible as a whole, not a bully tactic to push your ideologies.
#22 mike d
“Write the propositions of the gospel on a chalk board and I’d say Amen to them.”
congratulations, you are in good company. so would satan. satan knows and believes that everything in the bible is propositionally true.
again how do you know that you possess a faith that will save you?
#22 mike d:
“Call sacraments means of grace, but not means of justification… sola fide.”
in what sense can sacraments be called MEANS of grace if they are not means of justification? do you say this also about the words of scripture? that they are means of grace but NOT means of justification?
mike #22
“fws @ #19, As to the Material principle of the reformation he says, “That would be only and radically Jesus,”
I stand by this statement in speaking of the Conservative Reformation.
The material/core teaching for you as a son of the radical reformation of course is different.
Feel free to show me, from the official public confessions of the Lutheran Church where faith is is important in ANY way other than connecting us to Jesus. For Lutherans, it is about Jesus.
Dear brother Mike: you talk of faith as though it is an end and not merely a means to an end.
My faith is pathetic and laced with sin and would damn me to hell apart from what Christ did for me in his life and on the cross.
#27 mike
Let´s try this approach:
Mike, for you what is the difference between saying that someone is saved “by” faith and saying someone is saved “through” faith?
Mike, the forensic declaration of “not guilty” that, yes, justifies us, took place on the Cross, where all of the sins of the world were placed. We receive that in faith. Faith is created in our hearts by the Word and Sacraments. I guess since the Reformed don’t believe that Christ bore the sins of the whole world, that He only atoned for the elect, another way must be found, so the focus shifts to a moment of conversion as the justification.
Let me ask another question. I understand what you are saying about the sacraments being unnecessary in terms of your theology. Do you think the Word is necessary? Must a person hear about Christ in order to be justified, or does God sometimes change people’s heart in an act of grace and then maybe later studies the Bible?
#29 Veith.
I am in the same spot Dr Veith. we are assuming Mike´s theological position but we don´t really know do we?
I, for my part seem to be seeing faith, as presented by Mike, uncoupled from both it´s object and what creates it in favor of faith being an intellectual willing assent to a set of intellectual/theological propositions.
fws, can you show us where it says that Satan know the gospel (or all of the bible) to be propositionally true? did he not think he could be like God? Isn’t that already a lie? doesn’t that mean he believes the propositions of holy scripture to be a lie? So if one does not assent to the gospel, what must he DO to be saved?
sorry last line should have said:
“if it is not enough that one assents to the gospel, what must he DO to be saved?”
benb, MikeD (and others), Good reminders that justification is not a progressive thing. God changes our status in his sight instantaneously. It’s vital to remember that, especially in light of different definitions — some, sadly, unscriptural — that are floating around.
Sam: Yes – the context here is about riches. But as Sarah points out, nobody can. In context, Christ was denying the perhaps unspoken belief that the rich was somehow favoured. They were (and are, obviously), in the same boat as the rest of humanity. Every condition has its own set of temptations, of besetting sins. Wealth has its set, poverty has its own. Health has its sins, disease has its temptations.
But by Grace, we are saved, through faith… not that we can boast. In wealth or poverty.
I’d definitely like to hear a response to comment #31.
Mike D and benb:
You have both indicated that you believe that justification is a one time event, whereas sanctification is a process. You both experess surprise that Lutherans might believe otherwise about justification. I onfess that I have not really studied the distinction between justification and sanctification, at least not for a long time. So I did some preliminary research in the Lutheran Confessions, and I have some questions (not just for Mike D and benb, but for any Lutheran Pastors out there who have studied this in depth).
The first thing I gathered is that justification is the process by which God makes you just, whereas sanctification is the process by which God makes you holy. It occurs to me that there may be considerable overlap between those two processes in pracical terms.
I understand the position that justification has a definite point of beginning, as when one crosses from one state of being to another, but I am not sure why there this change ha to be seen as an instantaneous event.
We all agree that I am justified by faith. But even if my faith has a starting point, my faith continues thereafter. My sinful behavior continues thereafter too. So, why should the maintenance of my faith in the face of my sinful behavior not be a continuing process that is still justification?
#32
benb said:
sorry last line should have said:
“if it is not enough that one assents to the gospel, what must he DO to be saved?”
You asked what someone must DO to be saved. This is the only correct answer to the question exactly as you have framed it:
In Mt. 19:16 Jesus is asked that question and in Mt. 19:17 Jesus responds as below:
16 And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I DO, to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”
Jesus was again asked, in Luke 10:25-28:
25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I DO to inherit eternal life?” 26He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered right; DO this, and you will live.”
Ask the question in a different way, and I would have an entirely different answer for you.
#31 ben
belief that a set of historical facts or theological propositions are objectively true and the truth and are facts is not the same thing as saving faith.
I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ or come to him.
So where does that leave us?
I don’t believe that we, by our own reason or strength can believe in Jesus Christ or come to him either. It is the Father who draws us. That leaves me to ask this question. Do not genuine believers believe in the propositions of the Gospel?
Hmm… all this initially sparked by my question that if one believes the gospel, are they justified even though they have not been baptized or taken communion yet. Is it really all that complicated?
fws, you still have not said yes or no, and Veith has intimated a yes. But now to the more recent comments…
fws @ #25, “congratulations, you are in good company. so would satan. satan knows and believes that everything in the bible is propositionally true.” Ah, the real matter comes out. In a way what we have here is a despising of faith. If faith is not believing propositional revelation, what more is it? Is it a deed, a feeling, and encounter… all heresies. To trust God means to take him at his word, to beleive what has been declared by the prophets regarding the Person and work of his Son. And what text could possibly be used to determine that Satan beleives the truth of Scripture? James 2 perhaps? Not even close, for all they are said to believe there is monotheism, miles short of the gospel. Does Satan believe in the vicarious atonement of Christ? No, for it is impossible! Christ could not be substitute for Satan, or any other angel/demon, for He was made a little lower than the angels. Hence, he could not be their representative. Satan could not correctly beleive that Christ was his substitute. Furthermore, our High Priest has to be a man chosen from among the people he calls bretheren. And so on… The notion that Satan, demons, (heck why not throw UNBELIEVERS in there too) believe the gospel is ludicrous and, even worse, logically implies that we are not justified by believing God, but something other than faith (you know, the bad stuff in the book of Galatians)
fws @ #26, “in what sense can sacraments be called MEANS of grace if they are not means of justification? do you say this also about the words of scripture? that they are means of grace but NOT means of justification?” Simple, grace comes in many related, but distinct, categories. The sacraments are means of sanctification (and therefore, gracious) as they are administered and partaken in truth (sanctify them by your truth). The words of scripture are exactly what needs to be believed in order to be justified, and so saving faith presupposes the wrods of scripture, not the sacraments.
fws @ #27, “Dear brother Mike: you talk of faith as though it is an end and not merely a means to an end. My faith is pathetic and laced with sin and would damn me to hell apart from what Christ did for me in his life and on the cross.” How can you think I believe that faith is an end when over and over I’ve said it is the means or instrument how we recieve the merit of Christ. My last post, Christ alone saves, but how do we receive… by faith alone. Yes our faith is weak, and so we pray to God to strengthen it, grow in knowledge, but any biblical faith we have is given by him and therefore adequate.
Finally Veith @ #29, “Mike, the forensic declaration of “not guilty” that, yes, justifies us, took place on the Cross.” Interesting point and I’ll need to chew on it seeing that I’m not sure I can say we were justified before Christ’s righteousness was applied to us through faith alone. That is, we must say redemption was completely accomplished on the cross, but not yet applied in the lives of the elect. But the above quote from you seems to contradict an earlier statement of yours about how justification is not a one-time occurrence. As to your comment about the sacraments being unnecessary, let me calrify. My son may ask me if he needs to study his chess puzzles. The answer, Yes if you wish to improve in chess, No if you want to be justified before God. My point is that we all think the sacraments are need for one thing, but not another. IMO, they are necessary in my theology (for the scripture teaches about them), my fellowship (when you come together), but not my justification. An anology may be helpful, although they break down at some point (and this will help fws understand my position as the nature of faith and the merits of Christ). If one is thirsty, it is as if he lacks objective righteousness according to God’s law. He’ll die in this condition unless something changes. Christ passive and active righteousness can quench any thirst and give life. How do we get this living water? By using the appointed means, a straw, which corresponds to faith. In no way does faith justify, but it is the appointed instrument of this justification. Hypothetically, in another universe God could have said you are imputed the alien righteousness of Christ via mystic trances, moralism, the rosary, kissing a man’s golden ring, or Christian sacraments, but for now it’s faith alone. I’m not equating moralism and the sacraments, the former procures great reward in hell, the later (if properly administered and understood) is a way in which the Lord strengthens his already legally adopted children.
Finally, “Must a person hear about Christ in order to be justified, or does God sometimes change people’s heart in an act of grace and then maybe later studies the Bible?” I think the Bible teaches that one must hear, understand, and believe the good news in order to be justified. As per the second part of the question, I feel it is not necessarily in opposition to the first part. Some believe that one could be regenerated (have a changed heart) and there could be a period of time (who knows how long?) before there is trust in Christ (they’ve heard and believed the gospel). I’m kinda up in the air on that but I see no necessary dichotomy as you put it. Is the Word necessary? Well, all things that pertain to life and godliness come through the knowledge of Christ. In other words, we must needs knowledge!
I’m down for more talk if we’re not too pooped.
fws @ #37, What about asking the question the same way and getting a different answer? Acts 16 “Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.” The difference between the cases is not the wording of the question, but the perception of the one being asked. When one is self-righteous law dog, give them the law. When one is broken and humbled by the law, give them gospel.
k
sorry, just trying to email updates
#36 Kerner
Neither justification or sanctification are processes. You are justified or you are not. You are sanctified or you are not. You have faith or you do not.
But faith must be constantly fed. This is what looks like process: Through The Holy Gospel, God feeds our faith and sanctifies us. In faith we can enjoy the justification/forgiveness and so also our sanctification which was won completely quite apart from our faith and delivered daily and richly (a process!) through word and sacrament.
Sometimes Lutherans talk like sanctification is something we can work at doing better, a process. This is really law or mortification of the flesh and not sanctification they are talking about. “do”, “encourage” “exhort” “remind” all are law words. Sanctification is a direct result of the preaching of the Gospel. This sanctification results in the automatic production of the SAME good works that the law produces by force and threat.
sanctification and the law are two means God uses to produce the same thing: right-eousness. The difference is in the heart of the doer/tree not in the acts/fruit.
sanctification, looked at in another way, is where christians have the start of inwardly keeping the first table of the law.
Here is a passage that shows that forgiveness/justification is independent of faith and is not a process, but the delivery of it is:
“All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave
us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the
world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting
to us the message of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5:18-19)”
“not counting their trespasses”=justification/forgiveness (cf rom 4:1-8). Justification happened independent of faith is exactly what St Paul says here.
Luther is helpful here:
“We treat of the forgiveness of sins in two ways. First, how it is achieved
and won. Second, how it is distributed and given to us. Christ has achieved
it on the cross, it is true.
But he has not distributed or given it on the cross.
He has not won it in the supper or sacrament. There he has distributed and
given it through the Word, as also in the gospel, where it is preached.
He has won it once for all on the cross.”
I am dead certain that Dr Veith means by saying that “Justification by faith is not just a one-time occurrence.” is clear by what he immediately says thereafter, which is about the ongoing and constant distribution of justification, aka forgiveness to us sinners exactly as Luther has put it.
Mike seems to make some distinction between justification and forgiveness, and also seems to feel that we can get faith without a means of distribution, and it is something we need to DO for justification/forgiveness to happen. Mike seems to imply that faith saves us somehow. Mike confuses me here.
to kerner @ #36 Justification is in no way a process of being made righteous. That is the Roman Catholic view that led to the anathematizing of the gospel at Trent. We are credited/counted/reckoned as being righteous on the basis of Christ’s righteousness. Even as Jesus was “numbered among the transgressors” and yet still without sin (via imputation), we (in the great exchange) are “counted as righteous” without internal or personal righteousness. IMO, Christ’s righteousness becomes more a part of our person as we are transformed into his image (call it sanctification/maturity), still all by grace, but this righteousness is not in any way the basis of our acceptance before God. If one puts our justification at the end of a process of holiness being poured into us, it is tantamount to a denial of the gospel and the doctrine of justification upon which the church stands or falls. This shows how very important categories and their relationships are. Yes we participate in holiness, but not in order to get anything from him (including an acquital), but because we’ve had all our needs met in Christ.
sorry, Frank, I was unclear. Or, maybe my understanding needed your correction. But I think what I meant by “process” is about what you mean by “distribution”. That God’s means of distributing His grace and forgiveness for our sins is a continuous thing.
What I’m trying to get from Mike and benb is some clarification of their positions. I think they are saying that each Christian receives all the justification/forgiveness he is ever going to receive at the moment he receives faith. Thereafter (I think they are saaying) God’s work in the Christian’s life is sanctification.
What I want to know from them is:
Have I got their position right, and
How do they reach that conclusion?
#40 mike
Ok that helped clear up alot of stuff. Thanks!
For example you call faith “trust”. Satan does NOT have that. He does know the historical/factual truths of the Bible to be historical/factual. Faith is more than assent to something as fact. I see that you know this now. Dear mike. Let´s look for ways to agree and not ways to disagree.
I started to respond to lengthy post in detail and decided, since most of this is taking past one another like the previous example and so not substantial. I would like to home in on one point that I think is the only one that matters. I would like to do this in a form that is not meant to prove a point, but to illustrate how Lutherans connect all the dots. You will probably disagree, but you will maybe be able to distinguish how we view the sacraments as different from what you know about rome´s views.
You say: “Finally Veith @ #29, “Mike, the forensic declaration of “not guilty” that, yes, justifies us, took place on the Cross.” Interesting point and I’ll need to chew on it seeing that I’m not sure I can say we were justified before Christ’s righteousness was applied to us through faith alone. “
Mike this is a hair split. It is a very, very important hairsplit.
The importance of this hairplit can only be known to a terrified conscience. That would be a person who knows his sin and knows that his sin SHOULD send him to hell and who knows there is NO good thing in him at all.
If you think of the terrified conscience as being the context of everything Lutherans have to say about faith and justification and salvation and the bible and the sacraments, things might be a little clearer. Lutherans actually claim that the only purpose and point of the entire Bible is to bring forgiveness to terrified consciences. That is kind of a radical and narrow/limiting position is it not?
So now: If the deciding thing here is faith, then I, being desperate and terrified, will do all I can to find out what “faith” is, what it looks like, how much of it and what kind I need, and most of all, I will spend a lot of time worrying about if I REALLY have faith or if I am just being a hypocrite because I will sense, in view of my life, that my life looks like anything but one who has faith or is a “good Christian”. If someone were to tell me in fact, that I appeared to lack true faith and repentance, I would, if I were honest, have to agree with their observation wouldn´t I?
If on the other hand, the deciding thing is that Christ Justified the entire world on the cross, and that that IS objectively true whether you believe it or not, then things look a lot different. As a Lutheran it would look like this: “Ok, you say you are a believer and you gave your heart to Jesus, but you are wondering now, looking at your broken life, if your faith is real and sincere, and so how can you be sure you are really saved.” Lutheran response: “You were baptized!” God, there, promised you, personally, by name, that you are his. Trust that promise even as you acknowledge that in you, there is nothing to cling to for certain, not faith, not repentance, not a reformed life. It all depends on God and his promise to you in Christ that he has personally applied to you in your baptism. Trust in what God has promised you in your baptism. It is sure and certain and true. God does not lie!
Lutherans believe that God works faith in Baptism in EXACTLY the same way he works faith through the Word, in fact it is the Word that God locates and connects to the water that Lutherans believe does this. Why would one want to separate the water from the faith-creating command and promise christ has attached to it?
Now there are some theological issues that do come before this. Just one example: is faith an act/assent of free will? Lutherans say no to this. We say “I cannot of my own reason or strength believe in Jesus or come to him”. This affects deeply our views on baptism.
Because this is all interconnected, it is doubtful we can resolve this between each other in blog posts and have a meaningful exchange. So this is just an attempt at explanation and illustration and not to convince you of anything really.
fws @ #44, “Mike seems to make some distinction between justification and forgiveness, and also seems to feel that we can get faith without a means of distribution, and it is something we need to DO for justification/forgiveness to happen. Mike seems to imply that faith saves us somehow. Mike confuses me here.” At this point, fws, there seems to be a clear refusal to converse with what I’m saying. As for DOING something to be saved, respond to my post at #41 where Paul and Silas clearly teach that you must believe: it is the jailer and his household that believed, not God nor Christ. It does not strengthen your argument to type “DO” in capitals as if to infer that I say we work to be justified. In fact, quite the contrary as I said faith is a gift, all those that are justified are only so because of his good pleasure to elect them unto salvation in his Son. Not to be nasty but I find it ironic that a Lutheran who denies unconditional election (if indeed that’s the case) would imply that I make faith a work. IMO, God causes my mind to change (repentance) so that now I believe the truth concerning his Son and put my trust in him. This faith is now the instrumental cause of justification, but not the original, efficient, nor meritorious ground of justification.
#45 mike The first part is good mike. We Lutherans agree.
Especially I liked:
“If one puts our justification at the end of a process of holiness being poured into us, it is tantamount to a denial of the gospel and the doctrine of justification upon which the church stands or falls.”
IMO, Christ’s righteousness becomes more a part of our person as we are transformed into his image (call it sanctification/maturity), still all by grace, but this righteousness is not in any way the basis of our acceptance before God.
Yes we participate in holiness, but not in order to get anything from him (including an acquital), but because we’ve had all our needs met in Christ.
I would like to point out Mike that Lutherans and others often try to get this into the back door, not by saying that this is necessary for salvation, but by saying that if there is not visible evidence of our “participation in holiness” then we should question our faith.
The official Lutheran position here is that “sanctification” is really just the weak start of faith in us that is a keeping of the first table of the law. Lutherans believe this happens as a direct result of hearing the Gospel and, that it happens automatically, like breathing as st james says.
therefore sanctification is not something that can be had by “encouraging, exhorting, reminding, or coaching”. It just happens.
tree and fruit. good trees produce good fruit automatically. bad trees produce bad fruit. automatically. we sin automatically because we are sinners. to the extent that we are regenerate, we start, weakly , to produce good fruit, automatically.
The rub here mike is that the Law with it´s threats and promises produces the same outward righteousness as sanctification does. The ONLY difference is in the heart/tree and the weak inward start of keeping the first table of the law. So outwardly, to tell a person to “act like a good christian” is merely to tell him to do all the same things required of a righteous pagan.
The Law kills. It mortifies (kills) the flesh. That produces maturity in pagan and christian alike usually. The difference is that a christian also learns to accept this suffering with patience and thanksgiving as a part of God´s Will (to kill the old Adam).
#49 addition
“maturity” here chiefly consists of the mortification of the flesh and the resulting suffering, resulting in us relying increasingly on the christ outside of us and for us and decreasingly depending or trusting anything inside of us or apart from God. Faith in Christ outside of us and for us. Sanctification is simply that and nothing else.
#48 mike”. Not to be nasty but I find it ironic that a Lutheran who denies unconditional election (if indeed that’s the case) would imply that I make faith a work.”
no need for nasty or ironic.
I am not sure I know what unconditional election is. I could only guess. Maybe we use different terminology?
It´s pretty easy for me to apologize or accept your clarifications as what you actually do believe.
Your choice of wording left room for questions and clarification. This is probably, in fairness, as much a fault of the medium we are using as your choice of words. I have not motive whatsoever to distort your words or offend you. much to the contrary.
i would rather look for where we agree so we can focus fruitfully on where we do not. I am at a certain disadvantage here. You can know exactly what my personal confession is by reading the Lutheran Book of Concord. No guesswork questions seeking clarification is necessary.
In fairness, I can only know what you believe by asking Mike isn´t that so? Seeking clarification is not putting words in your mouth. If you reread my posts you will see this is so. If I crossed that line, I freely ask for your patience and forgiveness.
Great now I feel like I put my foot in my mouth seeing that you were much nicer than me in your post when I typed mine last… darn I hate that! Sorry for any nastiness of tone. Let me say that I dig on so much of Lutheran concepts such as the law/gospel hermeneutic and the theology of the cross. Vocation and the priesthood of all believers. Others too. Like the tyranny of conscience and simul justus et pecator (sp?) doctrine. But honestly, I do not see the fact that I was baptized as being any more objectively consoling than what I believe. In a post a long time ago I noted that there will be many folks, sadly, in hell since they do not believe the gospel although they have had a Trinitarian baptism, but nobody in hell will be a believer. In Mark 16, faith and baptism are said to save, but yet unbelief is condemnatory. Conclusion: belief is necessary and baptism isn’t. In fact, as for the burdened conscience, if one cannot be sure if what they believe, perhaps the memory of their baptism was really a dream or hallucination that should not provide any comfort at all. But I do like that we are on the same page of knowing our horrible sinfulness and that we must look outside of ourselves, to Christ, for our sole hope in this life and the one to come. I see “look” as metaphorical for belief, beleiving in what God has said about his Son in his word. If you have the strength, I’d love to know what the Lutheran definition of saving faith is, or point me to a resource. I can’t fathom how faith could not be volitional, nor entail intellectual assent. Regards.
Lutherans do not believe in “conditional election” I think you must be referencing some midwestern lutherans who taught “intuitu fidei” that God elects us in view of seeing that we would have faith. crazy stuff. NOT in the Lutheran Confessions, so … not Lutheran. We don´t believe in ‘consubstantiation” either. Hope u know that! Best to go directly to the Book of Concord for what Lutherans officially and personally believe, teach and confess. It is what I do!
In the small catechism of Martin Luther, Lutherans, rather oddly confess the following: ” I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ my Lord nor come to him.” to paraphrase : ” I believe that I cannot believe!”
Maybe think of saving faith, Lutheran Style, as “The Faith”, what you would think of when you remember the apostles or nicean creed. THAT is the faith that saves us. Christ is what saved us. We trust in that for our lives Mike. Even if I don´t have faith Mike, I trust and cling to Jesus for everthing. So I don´t worry about having faith, I have better! I have Jesus. But I see my sins and i have doubts so I need to hear over and over and over that I am forgiven.
Mike you said:
“…I noted that there will be many folks, sadly, in hell since they do not believe the gospel although they have had a Trinitarian baptism, but nobody in hell will be a believer. In Mark 16, faith and baptism are said to save, but yet unbelief is condemnatory. Conclusion: belief is necessary and baptism isn’t.”
By your logic then neither is the bible or the gospel necessary, only faith is necessary. Do you see how that confuses me just a little? many will be in hell who have heard the gospel and the bible yes? think gospel message=baptismal message. Baptism is merely the general gospel message applied personally and physically to an individual. “YOU (name) are forgiven/saved!”
” In fact, as for the burdened conscience, if one cannot be sure if what they believe, perhaps the memory of their baptism was really a dream or hallucination that should not provide any comfort at all.”
huh? Is this a serious objection or just somn you are throwing out to see if it sticks? there are witnesses to baptisms Mike. and baptismal certificates… and pastors and churches…
Mike D:
I wish I had more time to participate in this conversation. For a good source on the Lutheran doctrine of justification, which includes a discussion of faith, I recommend the Defense of the Augsburg Confession aricle on Justification, which you can read here:
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php