What is up?

Existence and Evil

2011-02-26T09:46:00.000-06:00

Someone recently posted the following questions to an email list to which I subscribe. I doubt my answer is all that wonderful, yet, I thought perhaps having it published here might allow it to reach someone who needs it. With permission, I repeat the initial questions first (ok, I edited them a bit) and then two of my responses follow.

Initial Questions

Consider someone who regards existence as a curse and an evil. They say we cannot be said to be responsible for our existence. Further, as the cosmological argument for the existence of God concludes there must be a source of all existence which is God, the source of all evil is assigned to God also.

Someone with this perspective might ask why God created anything at all. Having been asked this question, I always ask what kind of answer they would find satisfactory. They admit that there is probably no acceptable answer. After all, what rationale could be offered for the creation of evil? One cannot reply that there is a new creation, a new heaven and earth, for the person can conclude that this is merely the continuation of existence, albeit of a different kind.

One could query such a person as to why they believe that existence is intrinsically evil. But it appears difficult to make much headway here. It seems we make a basic presumption that existence is good, and in particular, that it is better to exist than to not exist. If one does not share that presumption, it is not clear to me what more to say.

It is interesting, too, that this attitude regarding existence offers an unusual response to the promise of eternal life. For the person having such an attitude, what is preferred is not eternal life, but annihiliation. Nonetheless, they will say that heaven is to be preferred to hell.

Their response to the Gospel is not gratitude or relief, but instead a feeling that it was the least that God would do. After all, it is all God's fault that we exist. Since He cannot or chooses to not take back our existence, then it is the least we can expect of Him that He find a way to save us from hell.

In the end, the entire story of God's relationship with man is seen as a cruel game. He forces us into existence and then threatens us with an eternal existence, hell or heaven, the difference being determined by some strange rule imposed by Him.

My initial reply was this:

I'll take the hook on this one (seeing the bigger fish avoiding it). No, I never encountered it. I would imagine it could be held by those who are distraught enough to ponder or act upon suicidal urges while at the same time holding a view that death is the end of the existence of a person.

It is deeply wound up in philosophical thinking, but it is wound around itself. This is the case because one cannot speak of a person outside of their existence. It is a false analysis to compare existence of a person to the non-existence of a person. All we might say is: Is the world a better place with this person existing or not? You cannot speak of what might be better for the person.

As far as the origin of evil question, we Christians simply have to say we do not know. What we do know is what God has told us in His Word. The creation was perfect but it fell into sin. However, God desires for it to be perfect once again. God desires to save all people and bring them to a blessed heavenly home.

I would push the point that for the Christian, the real measure of existence is where you are going to spend eternity. The perhaps 100 years of this earthly life can be very unpleasant, but it cannot be compared to the goodness of heaven. You can reference the original argument and ask would it be better for a person to exist in heaven or not exist. Heaven will be the greatest, most-blessed possible existence. Of course that is better. However, the question is whether one will be in heaven or hell. Hell is the worst possible existence. Any trouble in this life that we might face is incomparable to the existence in hell. God created us for heaven. With that in mind, our creation, our being brought into existence was to have us experience the best possible existence.

Why must we experience this earthly life with its pains? Why not just create us in heaven? Those are questions regarding God's hidden will. We are not meant to know the answers. The only conclusion we can reach right now is that things will be the way they are. There is no sense in pondering some hypothetical case where they are different because that is not going to change things.

Most people today are heavily focused on this life. I don't think that is where our attention is directed as Christians. We are to focus on what is beyond the resurrection. We are to lose this life. Live as citizens of heaven. Pursue eternal life.

It sounds like the person sharing the view you cited is depressed and curved in on himself. Woe is me for my life is so terrible. Why me? Depression has that way of locking one's attention inward. One of the best ways of breaking out is to direct the focus to other people. Help other people so that their earthly lives may be a bit better. Serve those who are in worse condition.

Finally, I will say that this line of thinking suggests rationalism has reigned in this person's thinking and led to one of the conclusions you can reach. It only goes to show the faulty nature of human reason. It can be held in such regard that it is considered the authority. If I can think of something, then it must be so. I would press the fact that our sinful natures and satan have a hold of our rationality. We are led to think things that are destructive and contrary to God's will. Instead, we need to focus on how things are, rather than imagine what else they could possibly be. Just because this person can imagine two states: existence and non-existence, does not mean he can choose between them. The reality must be addressed: heaven or hell? God gives us heaven through Christ. Would you rather choose hell? If you think this life is pitiful, why choose something worse that will last forever?

My additional reply

It is hard for me to think about how to respond to the non-Christian on these topics without just wanting to say: believe on Jesus who will save you from all trial and pain.

I wonder if, for this individual, one might chip away at the attitude of having a cruel existence. Perhaps both by considering how it could be worse but also considering what are some of the blessings of this life. Demonstrate a simple gratitude around this individual.

In addition, the notion that we humans can interpret the big picture is presumptive. Are we really able to look at things and make the judgment that our existence is cruel? With only our limited perspective, is it really accurate? Is a life always and only miserable? It is at best an over-generalization. It is a humanistic assumption that should be brought down to humility and recognition of our limited perspective.

Lastly, there is the "just consider it" approach. Certainly one can hold the attitude that God is cruel to me in all things or God doesn't exist. However, what if you just spend time considering the Christian answer. Can this individual come to a point where he really understands the Christian answer and can see that it is self-consistent? Can he come to understand that if one is a Christian, then there is a completely different answer which holds a pleasant future. In other words, can he say: "I can see the Christian view and if a person holds that view to be true, then I see that he would not have the same view about this life and existence, including eternal life." Now, I wonder if it will work to engage a variant on Pascal's wager: hold the view that existence is cruel and live a life in misery or hold a Christian view and live in hope. Might as well hold the latter.

Can it be suggested, also, that there is an inkling of the existence of something beyond us in most people? Some sense of the transcendent. Some thought that this life may not define all there is. I recall my past period of being an anti-Christian where I had to actively suppress such thinking. I'm not exactly sure where to take this, but perhaps it is the start of a line of discussion.

Of course, I don't think that you will be able to "talk" this person into becoming a Christian. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. However, some of these approaches may be of help in breaking down the rejecting spirit.

Thoughts while writing a sermon

2010-10-16T20:01:00.000-05:00

Today is my typical sermon writing day. It has been taking me longer
and longer to do it, it seems. As an example, last weekend I worked
on it all day Saturday and then Sunday morning for 3 hours (and even
into the service some!).

I start my sermon writing by browsing through the readings assigned in
the revised One-Year Lectionary adopted by our Hymnal (Lutheran
Service Book). A lectionary is simply a list of Scripture lessons
assigned for each Sunday and Holy Days in the Church Year Calendar.
For example, tomorrow is the 20th Sunday After Trinity. The Hymnal
has a One-Year and a Three-Year lectionary. The Three-Year one goes
three years before it is repeated, but a Ony-Year repeats every year.
The One-Year Lectionary is strongly related to what is called the
Historic Lectionary. The roots of the Historic Lectionary go back to
prior to 600 AD. I love being connected to history like that. Just
think, in churches 1400 years ago, they were reading the same
lessons.

The Three Year Lectionary came out of the reform work begun amongst
the Roman Catholics as part of Vatican II in 1962. What they
developed reflected selections that slanted toward Roman Catholic
theology which teaches that our obedience to God's law is a
requirement in order to be saved. Lutherans and other evangelical
church bodies made adjustments in the lectionary of the Roman
Catholics to provide a more balanced selection that did not surpress
the Good News that Jesus Christ is the one who freed us from the
obligations of God's law in order to be saved. The Good News, or in
Greek, evangel, is what Lutherans and other evangelicals restored in
the Reformation. Now, I use the word "evangelical" starting with a
lower case "e" to refer to the historic meaning of that word, coming
out of the time of the Reformation. Only in recent decades has the
word "Evangelical" been co-opted by some groups who are, quite often,
not very evangelical.

The One-Year Lectionary used by Lutheran Service Book is a slight
revision of the Historic Lectionary. It too has a bit more balance
than the Historic Lectionary, but most of the time it is identical.

This Lectionary then determines the lessons for a Sunday: Old
Testament, Psalm, Epistle and Gospel. For this week they are Isaiah
55:1-9, Psalm 27, Ephesians 5:15-21 and Matthew 22:1-14.

Some pastors will submissively preach sermons from the lessons read at
a given service. That is historically what was done but that practice
has diminished over, perhaps, the last century. I choose to submit to
the lectionary. I believe the principle is important: I am not
choosing the sermon text, it is chosen for me. Preaching should be
about God's Word and not about me. So, one way to take me out of the
picture is to have the lessons chosen for me.

You will probably notice that there is still some choice, among the
four lessons. I further discipline myself to choose one of the four
without repetition over a four-year cycle. Since Real Lutheran
Fellowship started in 2007, I am now in the fourth year of my cycle.
I have a choice of four lessons the first year, then three the second
year, then two and this year the lessons are the one remaining. This
Sunday, the lesson left is Psalm 27.

Generally, the Psalms are harder to preach on. In fact, most pastors
will not preach on them. How many sermons have you heard based on the
Psalms? How many can you find on the Internet? One reason that the
Psalms are difficult is that they are almost exclusively examples of
Hebrew Poetry. Like English poetry, Hebrew poetry follows a structure
imposed by the words used. English poetry may rhyme, so the structure
is the words have a similar sound. Also, English poetry may have a
fixed number of syllables or a pattern of them. Shakespeare's Sonnets
have a structure of 14 lines with each line having 10 syllables.
There is, however, even more structure to a sonnet than just what I
mentioned. Here is an example of the opening of Shakespeare's Sonnet
1:

From fairest creatures we desire increase,
That thereby beauty's rose might never die,
But as the riper should by time decease,
His tender heir might bear his memory...

Hebrew poetry is less likely to be about rhyming than English poetry
but it is often about the number of syllables. You will, of course,
notice none of this in an English translation.

One of the consequences of poetry's demands on structure is that the
wording might not be as complete as regular spoken language. There
are words missing. Again, you will never see this in English
translations. That may be considered a flaw in such translations.
The missing words are supplied, making certain assumptions about the
meaning. Perhaps God would rather we appreciate intentional ambiguity
in His Word.

In my sermon preparation, I will read through all the lessons and then
consult my list of those I have recently preached upon so that I might
make a choice on which one to preach on this Sunday. Reading the
other lessons will reveal some common themes or other possible
interactions among the lessons. Once I have a lesson picked out I
will work on translating it. This may take a large part of the day
even with some awesome tools that I use. There are many times I don't
buy so easily into assumptions that the writers of reference works may
make. With 14 verses in this Psalm, I will predict this will take
a longer amount of time and this is even more so to be predicted
because it is a Psalm.

It is a good day of preparation when I can avoid getting distracted
from translation. Obviously I have gotten distracted by writing this
email at this point, but now I think I'll get on to translation.
Perhaps I'll have an example or two to share when I get done. Time
me, it is now 8:03 AM.

Ok, it is 5:27 PM and I've finished translating. Yes I got distracted
by several things. This Psalm was quite a bit less challenging than
others I've worked with. Here is a good example of a poetic statement
with many words not given, verse 13:

Unless I trusted in to see the good things of Yahweh in the land
of the living

I added the extra space where I think words need to go to get specific
meaning out of it. Yahweh, by the way, is the proper name of God. It
often gets translated as "The LORD" where "LORD" is written in small
capital letters. The idea that we should not really use God's name
came from the Jews, specifically the Pharisees, who thought if the
never used God's name then they would never use it in vain. For a
while, the name was translated as Jehovah. Actually, it comes out of
a special code in the manuscripts of the Old Testament where the
consonants of one word (Yahweh) were combined with the vowels of
another word (Lord). That was part of the Pharisees tradition to
change those vowels so that when they read it they would not say the
name of God. When you undo the code, you get Yahweh.

Well, you will have to check http://real-lutheran.org tomorrow for the
sermon to see how it turns out.

Is your cat evil?

2009-12-23T23:47:00.000-06:00

Better check out your cat... http://www.heyquiz.com/quiz/cat_kill

Aspect of Verbs in Koine Greek

2009-10-17T18:46:00.003-05:00

Professor James Voelz was my teacher and author of Fundamental Greek Grammar (Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 1993). Professor Voelz developed an innovative way of understanding aspect in Biblical Greek. This is particularly demonstrated with the imperfect tense. Most textbooks just say that imperfects are ongoing action and leave it at that. Dr. Voelz recognized through his Ph.D. work in Luke that this understanding does not fit all imperfects. He developed the additional term aspect to sort of supplement tense in categorizing verbs.

What is often called present tense he refers to as focus-on-connection, (FoC) that is, it conveys a meaning that emphasizes the link between the subject and the action that is referred to by the verb. Statements like, "I leave the check" are conveying a sense that I is connected to the action (leaving). Focus-on-connection is one type of aspect.

Another major type of aspect is focus-on-action (FoA). This aspect is more worried about the fact that the action is/was done than who did it. An example sentence would be "I see you."

As present tense is FoC, so aorist is FoA. Aorist is past time so it is focusing on the action that has been completed. It is the action that is important. Now, imperfect is FoC and is sort of a past time correspondent to present.

Professor Voelz lists 6 different connections conveyed by an imperfect. Context must help you resolve between these:

Continuous, e.g. "I was loosing."
Habitual, e.g. "I used to loose."
Inceptive (beginning), e.g. "I began to loose."
Conatative (attempting), e.g. "I tried to loose."
Repetitive, e.g. "I repeatedly loosed."
Emphatic, e.g. "I did loose."

I have found this understanding of the imperfect has been very helpful. Since I got no Google hits on this topic, I decided it was time for me to do something. For further information, see Prof. Voelz' textbook and other books and papers by him. You may also find some discussion of this by Professor Jeffrey Gibbs; he refers to it as syntactical sugar.

Another prime example of Lutheranism being misunderstood

2009-10-02T21:12:00.003-05:00

This St. Paul Pioneer Press article covers a Minneapolis congregation voting to split with the ELCA over their gay resolution recently passed. Here is my email to the writer:

David,

I am writing about your recent Pioneer Press article entitled "Minneapolis church splits with ELCA over gays". It appears from the article that you are not fully understanding Lutheranism in contrast to the popular ideas dominant in American Christianity.

You wrote: "...Wells and other opponents...place an emphasis on the law part, saying that their interpretation of Scripture holds that God views homosexuality as a sin. The resolution's proponents believe the emphasis should be on the gospel aspect. They generally believe that all humans have sinned and that 'self-righteousness is no longer possible,' said Johnson. That's a basic idea in theology -- God saves us; we do not." This has created a few false dichotomies. What Lutherans are committed to is the teaching that the things that we do and fail to do in our lives do not determine whether we are saved or not. We are and never were able to make ourselves righteous. The law of God shows us that we fail at that and therefore do not deserve to be saved. On the other hand, the gospel tells us what God has done for us, namely that Jesus died to take away our sins. Surely all people are sinners and for those who do not reject it, they have the free gift of salvation. These issues are not at dispute here. There is another question of how God would like us to live our lives. We know we are saved even though we sin. How can we live our lives in thankfulness for being saved? That is what God also tells us in the law. We cannot ever make ourselves good enough" by trying to live according to God's law and so we still depend on Christ's sacrifice. The law has these two roles of showing us our sins and guiding us in life. The gospel is always there telling us we are saved by Jesus sacrifice on the cross. These things are really not at dispute in this issue over gay acceptance. The primary issue is whether God's Word says that homosexual behavior is sinful. The variation is in which parts of the Bible are considered God's Word. God's Word is unchangable as God is, so, put very simply, one must deny that certain portions of the Bible are God's Word. The proponents of the resolution take the position that there is content of the Bible that consist of human statements that are limited to ancient cultures and do not apply today. They would not consider that to be God's Word.

I hopefully have explained myself well here. I would be happy to clarify further or otherwise reply if you wish. In the best of worlds, I would hope for an article to correct some of these misunderstandings of Lutheranism.

- Kevin Buchs; Pastor, Rochester, MN

What are the teachings of Real Lutheran Fellowship?

2009-09-20T21:49:00.001-05:00

I had someone who is a member or former member of Ascension Lutheran Church ask me about the teachings of Real Lutheran Fellowship, the congregation I have been called to serve. Here is my reply:

I'm sure you are aware that I ended my membership at Ascension a couple of years ago. The most important reason for doing so is that I felt that the teaching and preaching on Law and Gospel, their distinction and application, were impure and harmful. In our congregation, we would have teachings that are very familiar to WELS and Missouri Synod members of decades ago (but may be strange today). As indicated above, we would make these points clear in teaching and preaching:

1) God's law shows that we are sinners who cannot make ourselves better or overcome our sins. We deserve hell.

2) Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is able to save us from all sins and that is the only way to eternal life. Generally our teaching and preaching should end at this point, leaving us in the Gospel.

3) God wants us to live according to His law, but we will always fall short. Our works are as useless as filthy rags without the blood of Christ to cleanse them. Therefore, we, as Christians, do no do "good" works in and of ourselves but Christ must cleanse all we do.

Do feel free to shoot me back other questions you have. I'm happy to talk in person too. I'd also recommend our website, http://real-lutheran.info, but you probably already found that.

Letter to a relative with thoughts from their church newsletter

2009-03-07T09:38:00.002-06:00

I was reading your church newsletter this morning. Your minister's letter I usually pay attention to and this one gave me cause to write to you. He said Christianity ("the faith") has two "words" to speak. One is a moral message, what I would call a Law message. The other message, he said, was one of unintended judgment. This he labels as "Good News" and says it is about the future of eternal life which he indicates is not for "the self-interested rich", but "the simple, hungry folks who want goodness and faithfulness to be the norm of life."

It is at that point that I would disagree. It actually sounds like the second word, the one of judgment is another word of Law. It is a message that you need to live your life in a certain way or you will not attain eternal life. I believe it is totally wrong to call that Good News. To me, the Good News is only good if it says that eternal life does not depend upon our works, how we life our lives. The Good News is never law or judgment. If it were, then it would not be good. Instead it is Gospel, that tells us all about Jesus and what He has done for us. Jesus died on the cross so that we might reach eternal life. Without Him doing that as your substitute all hope would be lost. All the works we might offer in order to obtain eternal life are not really good works. The way we live our life, being simple, hunger, wanting goodness and faithfulness, does nothing to help us gain eternal life. It all depends on Jesus. You will notice that your minister's letter never mentions Jesus, except incidentally, at the start, in the names of the books he is reading.

I hope that you keep your focus on Jesus and not depend on how you live life.

This subject made me think of a newspaper column I just submitted this week. I included it below.

Love, Kevin
--------------------------------------
Suggested Title: "What is the purpose of Christianity?"

What view of Christianity do you have? How do you answer these simple questions: Why does Christianity exist? What purpose does Christianity serve for you?

I regularly hear people say they believe the purpose of Christianity is to teach us how to live a good life. We can learn the rules for proper behavior, to make God happy. I would call this a "moral" purpose. With such a view, some people might read the Bible and see "blessed are the poor in spirit" and think that they should be poor so they can be blessed. Some critics of Christianity hold the view that Christianity should have a moral purpose, but it does poorly at that. They see the Bible is full of accounts of people who did not live good lives. So, if we were to read the Bible for a good moral example, these critics would say it is not a good example.

My view is different. I think that the purpose of Christianity is not to teach good behavior but to deal with the problem of my misbehaviors. I, like all those characters in the Bible, regularly have trouble following God's rules. It is a big problem called sin and it goes so far as to corrupt our very natures, so we have sinful natures. The solution to that problem comes from the one whose name is placed upon the religion, Jesus Christ. He comes not to condemn us but to free us from the burden of our constant failures. He comes to be our substitute, paying the price for our failures that we owe and thereby dying on the cross. Then He rose from death and lives on and that is that. He did what I could not do.

to a friend uncertain about the afterlife

2008-11-30T22:24:00.002-06:00

I've done some thinking about your statements about the afterlife. I'd like to share some thoughts. I'll try not to spew forth great volumes here, but please ask me if you want me to go into anything deeper. I'll number my thoughts because that is what I like to do when I'm creating a list that doesn't fit into a nice paragraph.

1) Our world/culture has programmed us to think in terms of science being the ultimate determinate of certainty. All a journalist has to say these days is write "scientists say ..." and people will ascent to what follows. With this programming, it is natural for us to feel doubt about things that can't be proven to us through "science". (I put science in quotes because I differentiate it from the Scientific Method, but that is another matter.)

2) Pushed on the point above, I would have to say that Satan is working to lead people to doubt eternal life and judgment. We should expect that we will be tempted to doubt. Certainly doubt is not that uncommon, but I would point out that we can be certain.

3) In a theistic orientation, not specifically Christian, it is apparent that nearly all people feel a sense of moral responsibility. This points us to the fact that there is someone outside of us to whom we are responsible for our actions. Yet, it is clear that judgment or justice for those actions does not occur in this life. It is this conflict between a sense of transcendent responsibility and a failure to see the justice effected in this life that leads us toward a future judgment to come beyond this life. We express our frequent sense of injustice when bad people triumph.

4) The Christian message is in its essence that we are morally responsible to the creator of the universe and we are utter failures in keeping our responsibilities toward Him. Our failures and even our orientation in opposition to the creator are wonderfully removed, not by anything we have done, but by the coming of Christ Jesus to suffer our punishment and rise again. He opens the door to eternal life for us. Our problem with our God is solved by our God. This is the gospel.

5) The gospel is communicated to us by the Bible, therefore I believe that the Bible in its entirety is God's word. It is the only source of such wonderful news. The Bible must be taken as a whole. To subtract a portion from being God's word only attempts to elevate ourselves into a position of being the selectors of what is divine and opens the door for Satan to provoke us to continue to subtract. This is where I ended up going starting in college years and was left with total atheism by 1985.

6) The promise of eternal life is an essential element of Christianity. Specific verses such as 1 Corthintians 15:12-19 focus in on this pointing out that without the resurrection we have nothing. In general, however, the teaching of eternal life stretches throughout scripture. We cannot omit it.

7) The very fact that you want to believe eternal life is true is an indication that you have a longing for something beyond this life. You were made for more than just this (Hebrew 13:14).

8) The Bible is the objective word of God that is our source for certainty. It does not depend upon us. The world might be teaching us to trust only in the world's ways but we have a divine way that grounds our confidence.

Overuse of the adjective "spiritual"

2008-10-02T14:00:00.003-05:00

I'm taking an online course titled Dealing With Overload. In reading Lesson 1, this statement made me stop hard:

"These current developments are historically, experientially, mathematically, and spiritually unprecedented on a scale that staggers our thinking."

This may be applying the "spiritual" adjective to strictly an internal world. I suppose one of the things I'm disturbed with in the modern culture is the excessive use of an inward point of reference. So, does the above sentence use spiritual in that sense? The pace of the world is an unprecedented event for my inside spiritual world? Surely we get into personal world views here, but I would wish to state that the spiritual events of importance are all outside of us. Inside our spirituality is corrupt, because it keeps us focused on ourselves and how we feel and what is for me, etc. I'm holding the position that the greatest spritual event occurred about 2000 years ago and nothing can surpass that.

Shame, shame on you

2008-09-13T11:52:00.003-05:00

Are you familar with this gesture: it involves pointing one index finger roughly palm-down and then using the other index finger to rub across it at a right angle, moving down the finger and repeating? Well that gesture was always accompanied by the words "Shame, shame". It was/is often applied from an adult to a young child when they do something wrong. This gesture has an interesting background, e.g. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=373564 .

Well, we all deserve to have this gesture applied to us, because we all fall short of God's standards. Shame and guilt are what we should receive. Think of how you felt if you were the recipient of this gesture. I remember that awful feeling. It is a good thing that God has chosen to give us something other than what we deserve. He sent Jesus Christ to take on our shame and guilt. He took those to the cross and died for us. Praise God that our guilt and shame are truly taken away.

Now, if you take that shame gesture and stop the stroking down the finger half-way you get a cross shape as your two index fingers overlay each other. We can let that cross remind us that we are free due to what Jesus has done for us.

They are already gone!

2008-06-28T07:44:00.004-05:00

I wrote an email response to an individual recently who expressed the thought that we must pray to God to have a sin forgiven. Jesus will then take that sin upon Himself. This person then said that if we accept Jesus we will be forgiven. I had the following to say in response:

I would comment that some of the statements in your second paragraph would be better expressed differently. No doubt, the Lord wants us to pray seeking forgiveness from Him for all prayer is effectively acknowledging the one who is the source of that which we seek. God provides our forgiveness. We seek it from Him. However, the conditional statement: "But if we pray to God in Jesus' name, Jesus will take that sin upon himself and will plead to God on our behalf" is going down a path that can lead to problems. That suggests that Jesus keeps getting new sins piled on Him as time goes on. In fact, when Jesus died on the cross, He took on all sins of all people for all time. His work is already complete. The sins are gone - those in the past and those to come in the future. Jesus doesn't need to do anything further for us in regard to taking our sins away.

I'll take this even further, even though I might light off another firestorm on this list by doing so. Since Jesus has already taken our sins away, then praying for forgiveness is not a requirement for those sins to be forgiven. It is not that praying for such is bad, but we need to come to realization that we cannot do it perfectly. If you think you can pray for the forgiveness of each of your sins, then you deceive yourself and the truth is not in you. We cannot know all of our sins and we will never perfectly confess all our sins. Thus, the fact that Jesus already took care of them is a great comfort to us. It means that forgiveness does not depend upon what we do. That forgiveness is a free gift already given to all people. Many will reject that gift. Then they will be sentenced to eternal punishment for their rejection. Of our own free will we can never "accept" the gift but we are very capable of rejecting it. Only the Holy Spirit can bring us to a position of recognizing the gift we already have. Through the channel of faith, the Holy Spirit brings us to the full knowledge that Jesus has already taken our sins away and we are free! May you be blessed with a certainty of knowing your sins have been removed already nearly 2000 years ago!

Concerns for a friend

2008-05-30T10:12:00.004-05:00

Following is a correspondence to a friend describing some of my concerns about her local congregation while documenting the true Christian faith. I though you might find this helpful.

Specific to the Trinity Sunday sermon was the explanation of the last part of the Athanasian Creed which talks about being judged for our works. Apparently the explanation was given that being Christians our works are good works because we have been changed and so God judges our works as good because they are good. This is false, because in this life we are both saint and sinner. We have current possession of the forgiveness of sins which means all our sinful works are seen or declared by God to be good. We also still retain our sinful nature that leads all our works to be evil. So, our works are evil but God declares them to be good. The sermon was suggesting that as Christians we are saints in the sense that we do works which are good apart from God's declaration. So, the false idea is: God changes us as Christians so that what we do are good works that do not need to be forgiven or cleansed. The true idea is: We are sinners in this life who keep on sinning by doing evil works but at Judgment Day God will declare that our works are good as a result of Jesus Christ's sacrifice.

The false idea above is called Semi-Pelagianism and that is exactly where the Roman Catholic church has been for a long time. That false idea is one small step away from another false idea that those good works we do qualify us for heaven. It is the thinking that God gets us started and then we do the rest in order to save ourselves. In fact, these ideas are so close, that I think that many might naturally jump to the second one when presented the first. Our sinful nature is always looking for ways we can contribute to our salvation so it is natural to make the jump.

This is all a part of a wider problem of confusion of justification and sanctification. Justification is the action by which we are granted life in heaven and how we are brought to be in a right relationship with God. Sanctification (in this context) refers to the matter of how we should live our lives, that is, in how we might seek to follow God's directions in this life. When justification and sanctification are confused, the idea of how we live our lives crosses over into being granted life in heaven. This confusion I have seen happen in explicit teaching but it is also a problem when members express this sort confusion in what they say and the spiritual leaders do not correct it. It also happens as a consequence of a second situation of concern: the overemphasis on sanctification. People see where the attention is directed in teaching, preaching, publications, etc. and they naturally assume that the subject upon which most of the time is spent is the most important.

The overemphasis on sanctification means constantly speaking about the works we should be doing, and speaking in such a way as to lead people to believe that they can do what they should in a perfect fashion. The primary message of your congregation and all Christian churches ought to be the law and gospel. The law showing us how we are sinful and the gospel show us how Christ saves us. I've heard more than a hundred sermons at your congregation which highly diminished the law and gospel and instead focused on sanctification. It is deadly to faith. Our faith needs to be built up by seeing that we do fail to keep God's law and thereby deserve punishment but then also seeing that Christ paid the price to take away our punishment. If there is one member or visitor who leaves your congregation without being reminded of that and understanding that on a Sunday morning, then the work of your congregation is a failure. If the teaching and preaching leads people to reach some of the false ideas above, then your congregation is not just a failure but it is a source of spiritual damage.

When sanctification is taught, God's law is being taught in a way that encourages us to go out and try harder to follow that law. However, whenever the law is preached it always shows us our sin. If I am encouraged to stop telling lies, then at the same time I am being told that I am guilty of lying. This fact about the preaching of sanctification was summarized by Martin Luther by saying "the law always accuses." In the numerous sermons I heard in which sanctification dominated, I also noted that the sermon ended with the sanctification part. It never came back to the gospel part. So, the law with sanctification always accuses me of sin but the gospel as the solution to that situation was not then presented. I actually found myself preaching gospel to myself after each sermon because the burden of the law is heavy. I wondered how many other folks did this for themselves. I wonder how many leave with the idea that Christianity is mainly about how I live my life and that I better just focus all my efforts to try to be good enough to be saved. In fact, the idea that Christianity is mainly about sanctification is very widespread among Christians, in media and in many other ways by which people are regularly influenced outside of your congregation. The overemphasis on sanctification at your congregation does nothing to combat this false idea that people get from the outside and in fact, it tends to confirm that false idea. It is really bad. In fact, your pastor believes that the Bible is mainly teaching us about sanctificiation. He thinks you can find sanctification on every page (in a strange twist of Martin Luther's statement that you can find Christ on every page). So, your pastor is doing something that he acknowledges and it is something he believes is right because it "follows the Bible." The consequence is that the message of Jesus Christ and the Gospel is being surpressed at your congregation.

Thought for Ascension Day

2008-05-01T00:01:00.000-05:00

Today is the celebration of the day Jesus ascended into the sky and disappeared from his disciples sight. Here is a question for you to ponder:

If Jesus primarily came to be an example to us,
why didn't he stay with us and continue to be an example?

The answer is that Jesus did not come primarily to be our example, but instead to be our substitute. He took our place on the cross. He then promised that the Holy Spirit would come to guide His followers "into all truth".

"However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide
you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority,
but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you
things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is
Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are
Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it
to you. A little while, and you will not see Me; and again a
little while, and you will see Me, because I go to the Father."
-- John 16:13-16

The Holy Spirit guides us into the truth that Jesus was our substitute. He confirms in us a faith that trusts that Jesus has done all that was needed to pay for our transgressions.

Even the disciples of Jesus needed to be guided into truth. Just prior to Jesus' ascension, they asked Him:
"Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" -- Acts 1:6. They were still quite confused. However, the Holy Spirit came to them, inspired them to write down the books of the New Testament and now the Holy Spirit works through the written word of the Bible to bring us into all truth.

This is It! A Sermon on Isaiah 45:20-25

2008-02-17T15:51:00.003-06:00

Audio mp3

My translation (ok it is rough! that is the point):
20)
Gather and come together
Approach together, refugees of the nations.
They did not know, the ones lifting up wood of idols and praying,
this god will not deliver.
21)
Tell and approach.
They will counsel together: Who has heard from the beginning:
He told him what ever exists is nothing without me.
22)
Turn toward Me and be saved
all the ends of the earth.
For I - God and not another.
(this is an imperative: You be saved)
23)
With myself I took an oath -
it came out of my mouth - righteousness - a word
and not it will return
for to Me every knee will bend; every tongue will confess.
(He speaks righteousness. It is not an adverb, but the noun that came out of His mouth. His
authority is signaled. The deal is done.)
24)
Only in Yahweh, (to me He said), righteousness and strength forever -
it will come to pass,
and they will be ashamed, all the ones being angry at Him.
25)
In Yahweh they will be righteous (justified)
and they will make their boast (glory)
all the seed of Israel.

A mind map of the sermon follows:

Did Walther really say this?

2008-02-16T10:59:00.002-06:00

I need some help. I could be entirely wrong in what follows, so please direct me to my errors.

I've been using the book God Grant It (Gerhard Grabenhofer, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 2006) for a my devotions for a few months. These devotions are based on sermons by the prominent theologian C. F. W. Walther, translated from the German by Grabenhofer and compiled by August Crull. Many of the devotions have been great, but I have to admit that I have felt that there are statements here and there that disagreed with Christian teachings. However, they were all superceded by what I read this morning. On page 259, I read this:

The Spirit of God continually drives the converted children of God forward to pursue sanctification, without which no one will see the Lord.

As I read this statement, it seems to be saying that sanctification is a requirement for salvation (i.e. seeing the Lord). In other words, unless one improves himself, lives a better life, he will not be saved. This understanding would be opposed to the teaching that we are saved by Christ's sacrifice on the cross alone. It dramatically opposes it!

Note, you will get a better feel of the context by reading this devotion as a whole. This sentence is not an erratic one by itself but fits into the whole.

Now I am left wondering if Walther really made such a statement in his original? These devotions were translations from his sermons. Is the translation accurate? Did it start from Walther's manuscripts or from notes taken by a parishioner listening to the sermon being preached?

So, the question is: Did Walther really say this?

Psalm 32 - A Sermon from the Poetical Approach

2008-02-10T17:06:00.001-06:00

Psalm 32 A Poetical/Literal/Wooden Translation

Here is an Audio Sermon based on this text. Sermon notes follow each verse in Courier font.

Pay attention to who the speaker is and who is being addressed. These switch several times without warning. Initially it begins with no clear speaker or hearer, but rather two verses of proverbial statements.

1. For David--a poem.
Happiness: transgression being forgiven,
sin being covered.

The definition of happiness. Parallel constructs. Not having this is a curse.

2. Happiness: a man whose guilt is not counted to him by Yahweh,
and not in his spirit slack.

Also defines happiness. Imputed guilt - not; imputed righteousness - yes: Romans 4:21-24. Note the three terms: transgression, sins and guilt are repeated in verse 5. The spirit not being slack is perhaps a reference to confident trust in Yahweh.

Now we will switch from the state of happiness to the opposite. The Psalmist begins talking about himself to no one in particular.

3. When I was silent
they wore out my bones (body)
because of my distressed cry all the day

Consequences of not having that forgiveness and (per verse 5) confessing one's sins (and hence need for a savior. Perhaps deals with earthly life, but more strongly applies to the eternal punishment of hell.

4. For by day and night your hand will be heavy on me
my juice changed to droughts of Summer.

More description of hell. My essence, described as a fluid (“my juice”) will be dried up. The just will be nothing.

Next, strong punctuation mark (selah) and we switch back to describing what it is that defines happiness. Now the Psalmist addresses Yahweh.

SELAH.

5. My sin I made known to you,
my guilt I did not cover
I spoke: I will confess according to my transgressions to Yahweh
and therefore, you lifted the guilt of my sin.

The Psalmist only states his intentions to confess his sins and the sins are instantly forgiven. No work is done. It does not require confessing all your sins, trying harder, doing better, paying the penalty. No, this is not as the commentaries say. There is no description of the path to righteousness here. Rather, it is the declaration of righteousness with forgiveness.

With the punctuation mark, we switch to Yahweh being the speaker and the prototypical person being addressed, though it switches to the category of the saved individual in the same verse.

SELAH.

6. Upon this, all-kind (all-grace) will intercede toward you
in the specific time for finding
great flood waters will not reach him.

A new name for God! Rather a title: all-kind. You've heard the title “all-knowing” and “all-powerful.” The new one is “all-kind” or “all-grace”. The middle phrase is hard to translate, but I don't think it is what many translations state. Instead it is talking about the time when Yahweh intercedes for us. To particular times are special: when Jesus is on the cross and the Judgement Day. The threated punishment for sins will not touch the one who has grace from Christ.

Next the speaker switches back to the Psalmist who is again addressing God.

7. You a covering to me from a { tight place | an oppressor }
You will keep me
Shouts of “deliver!” You will change me.

Emphasis on the You = Yahweh. He saves us, where being covered is equal to being forgiven. All we do is shout: (you) deliver (us Lord)! and we are changed. See 1 Corinthians 15:52. Next God speaks to the one who is saved.

SELAH.

8. I will look upon you and I will show you in the way which you will go,
My eye {mental faculties} will advise you

Note carefully the tenses. God will show us the way we will go, not the way we should/ought to go. No, that would be the law. This instead is the promise, the Gospel. He is going to show us the eternal life in heaven that awaits us. He will take us there. He will guide us.

9. You will not be as a horse, as a mule, not understanding,
in bridle and jaw-restraint his trappings
to restrain not to approach to you

With God's guidance, we will understand. Now the speaker changes back to the way it began, with no specific speaker but more of proverbial statements directed at both saved and unsaved sinners.

10. Many sorrows to the wicked
but the one trusting in Yahweh
kindness {grace} will transform him.

Same grace as above. All-grace, God is the definition of “grace”. When Grace transforms us, it is just a synonym for God. Lastly the Psalmist speaks to those who are saved.

11. Rejoice in Yahweh and be glad righteous ones.
and sing out all the upright people.

Rejoice over the happiness! Sing about it.

2007-10-28T12:53:00.000-05:00

Sermon Oct. 28, 2007

John 4:46-54 Jesus remotely heals the nobleman's son in Cana.

Cana

Water into wine in John 2 - first of the miracles He did there (2:11)
Nathanael was from Cana

Between the wedding and the nobleman's son Jesus travels to Jerusalem for the Passover. He cleanses the temple and speaks with Nicodemus. He returns to Galilee from Jerusalem, Judah. Along the way, he stops to teach the woman at the Samaritan well. Verse 44 curiously reviews Jesus' statement, not otherwise cited in John, that a prophet is not honored in his home town. He used that in Nazareth. This is tied to the statement that Jesus left Samaria after two days. This must have been an indication that Jesus needed to move on to eventually reach Nazareth, so that He might be rejected there.

The nobleman was from Capernaum, at least that was where his son was sick. Capernaum was Jesus' home base after being rejected in Nazareth.

In v 54, is the first sign after coming back to Galilee unreported or is something different meant? Probably the best way to understand this is that Jesus returned from Jerusalem before He went to Cana and turned water into wine. Then He returned from Jerusalem (Judah) to Cana a second time and this is the time where He healed the nobleman's son.

Two main points to be observed are:

1- Instant remote miracle - proves Jesus is God.

2- Jesus statement that you won't believe unless you see signs.

Jesus performed a miraculous healing at at distance in an instant by just speaking the word.

What else about signs?

John 2:11 This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him.

John 2:23 Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did.

John 3:2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."

Then in our text: John 4:48 Then Jesus said to him, "Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will by no means believe."

Note the theme that is developed here. Signs do prove that Jesus is God. Yet, the statement in our text is addressed to the nobleman. "Jesus said to HIM, unlesss YOU people..." Was he commenting on the people from His home town? Was He speaking of the stubbornness of the Galileans in general? Was it a comment on the way the nobleman asked? Was there some doubt in his voice. Example Mark 9:22-23.

Note 4:50 - the nobleman believed "the word" that Jesus spoke, that is, that his son lives. Note the present tense, that the NIV distorts to a future. He now lives. It is done, with a word. Later, 4:53, it says the nobleman believed and his whole household. Thus, the first occurrence of belief was probably limited just to the word that the son lives. The later occurrence is then left for believing the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ. In the end, the signs did cause him to believe.

Towards the end of John, at the end of Chapter 20, he says: John 30-31 "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name."

Sermon - Sept 9, 2007

2007-09-08T22:00:00.000-05:00

Sermon: Galatians 5:16-24, Trinity 14 September 9, 2007

Title: Is This Really a Sanctification Text?

We have all heard the statement made by some that the Bible is mostly about sanctification, that is, it's main subject is teaching us how we should live our life in this world. That is also called the Third Use of the Law, serving as a guide for our lives. The First use of God's Law is to restrain the unbelievers, as a curb, through the application of government laws, such as one forbidding murder. The Second use is to show us our sins. As Christians who are in need of forgiveness and tend to wander from the truth, this use of the law is most important. It prepares us to hear the Good News of Jesus Christ, who died to take away all our trespasses against the law.

Certainly the Bible contains passages that involve the third use of the law. God does desire us to seek to live lives more and more in line with His will and He expresses His Will in His Word. However, some folks believe this third use is the main topic of the Bible. Some have even said that every page of the Bible is about sanctification, twisting Martin Luther's statement that you can find Jesus Christ on every page of Scripture. Often the epistles written by Paul are held up as primary examples of passages that have a Sanctification focus. Galatians may be one pointed to by some. Here, in our text, it may appear we have a selection that is primarily about sanctification. However, lets take a closer look.

First, lets set our standards for a sanctification text. What should it look like? It should be primarily communicating how we should live life in an encouraging, non-critical fashion. It should not be pointing out that perfection is required in following God's law and that any failure is enough to condemn us to hell. A sanctification text will not set up abolute, rigid boundaries. The purpose of a sanctification text should be to inform us, not persaude. Recall that only the Gospel can modivate us to live our lives more and more according to God's will. The law cannot motivate us; it can only set our goals. In contrast, a text that is primarily second use of the law will drive us to despair of our own efforts to keep the law. It will point out an absolute standard that we cannot satisfy the law's requirements. It will point to our repeated failures.

Now let's work through the text, beginning with verse 17 (cite). It tells us that the spirit, that is God's spirit, is opposed to our sin corrupted flesh and vice versa. The result is we do not do the things we desire. Doesn't this leave you feeling discouraged? This points out our constant failures. It points to the futility of our sanctification efforts. How can we succeed if our flesh keeps opposing the spirit? This verse doesn't sound like sanctification but more like second use of the law.

Moving on to verse 18, we read that being led by the spirit we are not under the law (cite). We are told that being “led by the spirit” is something different than trying to keep the law. This doesn't seem to be discussing the third use of the law either, since in this special state of being led by the spirit we are no longer under the law. The process of sanctification is necessarily being under the law.

Considering next verses 19-21 we see a list of works of the flesh (cite). We are told that if we do these we will not inherit kingdom of God. That's no problem, because these only apply to other people, right? It is a good thing we are not a sinner like them. But, wait a minute! Consider these more closely. They are listed using some extreme words, but you really see on that list common behaviors like anger, envy, jealousy, hatred and impurity. Have any trouble with those? Well, if we are honest with ourselves we would say we all all all have trouble with them. In fact, remember how Jesus expanded adultery to include even lustful looking at another? And hating another is the same as murder. So too with these extreme sounding sins here. We cannot escape finding ourselves as one of those that does these works of the flesh. The necessary conclusion is then that we will not inherit the kingdom of God. This has to be 2nd use of law. It is condemning, exhaustive, conclusive. It pummels us to a worthless heap. Our works count for nothing. We fail at keeping this law.

When we continue on to verses 22-23 we see a list of the fruits of the spirit (cite). Notice these are not works but fruits. They are not really parallel to the list of the works of the flesh. Fruits are more of something that comes naturally as opposed to works that involve expending some effort. Perhaps these “fruits of the spirit” are something special like being “led by the spirit” back in verse 18. Notice further how verse 23 comments that there is no law against such fruits. What an odd way to put it. It doesn't say there is a law commanding such fruits, only that there is none forbidding them. When looking at the list of these fruits you also see something different that the works of the flesh. The works of the flesh are personal offenses, often directed toward another person or they are emotional extremes. The fruits have a different characteristic and even include faithfulness, joy and peace.

Perhaps you can see something completely different in these fruits of the spirit as I can. Faith is something that is a gift to us from the Holy Spirit. The faith we have causes us to trust in Jesus Christ as our savior from sin. He sacrificed His life on the cross to pay for our sins. He did that out of love and in essence gives us that salvation He earned as a gift of love. We have joy because are works of the flesh are erased. We have peace with God, who has been gracious with us by not judging us according to our sins, but in His longsuffering He bore our sins. He showed us His kindness and goodness. He was gentle and self-controlled with us, not enacting His wrath which we deserve. Against this Gospel there can be no law, for God's actions are necessarily just.

Hopefully you agree with me at this point that our text is not a sanctification text. Instead of the third use of the law, this is primarily a second use of the law showing us our sins and, indeed, providing us the Gospel relief to our conviction under that law.

Lastly, we can look at verse 24 (cite). Notice that this is citing a completed thing for those who are Christ's. That is, if you belong to Christ, then you have already crucified the flesh. It isn't a thing in progress like our sanctification. We are not being told here that we should go and crucify our flesh more and more in our lives. It is a done deal. The Holy Spirit creates faith in us and our flesh is crucified because our sins are erased. The works of the flesh that we perform are elimated from the perspective of God's eyes. When God no longer sees them, they do not count against us.

From our perspective we still see our works of the flesh. We still struggle because we do not do the things we want to do. We look forward to the day of Christ's revealing, however. Then we will see God face-to-face and observe from His eternal perspective. Then it will all be clear what a wonderful blessing we have in Jesus Christ. Amen.

Parable of the Good Samaritan

2007-09-01T22:09:00.000-05:00

I'm sick of the constant derision the Gospel message undergoes. I went to the Wikipedia tonight to see what it said about the Parable of the Good Samaritan. It was as I expected. I added the Minority View to the page. I didn't think my editing would survive the editorial staff at Wikipedia if I gutted the page and claimed I was presenting the majority view. The Gospel really is the minority view - the narrow way that leads to life.

For now my edits stand on the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan

but in case they delete them, here is what I said:

Minority View

According to the minority view, understanding this parable requires recognizing the importance of the Lawyer's perspective. He began to test Jesus in Luke 10:25. His particular goal of questioning was to determine what he might do himself to obtain eternal life. Jesus answers with the tall, unreachable standard of loving the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind as well as loving your neighbor as yourself. He says do this and you will live, that is, you will have eternal life. Now the key comes in Luke 10:29 where it is revealed that the lawyer wanted to justify himself. In other words, he wanted to be able to claim he had accomplished what was required by the standard Jesus cited. He wanted to feel like he was good enough to qualify for eternal life. In order to do this, this man wanted a definition of neighbor that was not too challenging for him to say that he loved that person. Now, in presenting the Parable, Jesus provides an answer that is intended to set the standard high. The one you should consider your neighbor is the person you believe is the most undesirable. You have to love that person as yourself if you want to qualify yourself for eternal life. The point of Jesus' statements was to drive this lawyer to despair of his own efforts to qualify for eternal life. This conclusion is applied to all people. None can be that good or meet God's standard. Instead, the good news points us to another source for our righteousness and goodness that qualifies us for eternal life once we give up on finding it in ourselves. See also: Divine grace.

Is it really up to you?

2007-07-04T08:30:00.000-05:00

I was reading the webpages from Zumbro Community Church http://www.zumbrocc.com/salvation.html on the subject of salvation. The front-page banner link to this page was labeled Directions to Heaven. Here is what it says:

Eternal life in heaven is a free gift... You must trust Christ alone as your only way to heaven. The moment you do, He extends eternal life as a free gift and you are His forever.

Does that really sound like a free gift? It sounds like I must do something for it. Now, for sure there is no waiting for the delivery. I can be assured in satisfaction of Microwave Generation needs that I have instant delivery but that is after I do my part.

My part is further developed later in the article where it says:

You can settle the matter right now. You don't have to get on your knees or pray out loud. You probably won't have a so called religious experience or feel anything at all. But if you earnestly in faith say the following prayer, God will save you for eternity.

That certainly settles it. It is about me and what I do. What should I do if I am not sure if my prayer was earnest enough? How earnest must it be? What if I think I was earnest but I was actually deceiving myself? Wow, it seems like a lot depends upon me.

This congregation, which simply points to the Bible as their doctrine, won't find the answers to these questions there. Nor will they find the prayer they cite in the Bible.

What you do find in the Bible is an account of what Christ did. You find His living of a perfect life and a perfectly innocent sacrifice of Himself on the cross. You find Him rising again. These are all works accomplished for you. In reality, your sins are already forgiven and you have the gift of eternal life. You don't need to DO anything for it. It is yours.

Men of Integrity - most important thing about Christianity?

2007-06-10T14:28:00.002-05:00

Consider the following congregational announcement:

Dear Men of Congregation X:

Have you considered what following Jesus would have been like, being around him and hearing him talk about men and their money, their careers, their families. Thankfully we have God’s Word so we can hear these things in our generation.

On date we will hold a seminar for men at Congregation X, an inspiring study called “A man of His Word: Calling Men to Integrity and Leadership.” We will be studying principles concerning eight aspects of most men’s lives: your relationship to Christ, your wife, children, church, career, money, the marketplace and your mission.

How sad for the men of this congregation. The do not understand the Gospel any more because they are constantly served such sanctification teaching. The purpose of this study is to teach you to behave and give you 8 rules for happy living. That sort of analysis was so typical of the sermons of the Rationalistic period (1800s). There is no focus on Christ here. It is all a focus on self. How can you be like Jesus? Well, do we have to ask whether Jesus, if present in the same way now, would be teaching us about money, careers and families? No, instead, it would be focused on salvation. Most of the Biblical examples that might be cited to support teaching on these subjects is really teaching us about salvation. Someone once told me that teaching about sanctification is on every page in the Bible so we have to be constantly teaching that (and consequently not teaching justification) but I don't buy it. Salvation and Jesus Christ is on every page. What are we doing, however, when we take those weak in the faith (whoever is not perfect) and teach them as above instead of about their sin and the salvation that Christ delivers? It is a very, very bad thing.

----

For more on this organization, see http://www.menofintegrity.org/articles.html

What is needed instead of sanctification preaching...

2007-06-07T17:04:00.001-05:00

A quote from J. Gresham Machen, What is Faith?, pp. 141-142, 1925

A new and more powerful proclamation of law is perhaps the most pressing need of the hour; men would have little difficulty with the gospel if they had only learned the lesson of the law. As it is, they are turning aside from the Christian pathway; they are turning to the village of Morality, and to the house of Mr. Legality, who is reported to be very skillful in relieving men of their burdens.
... 'Making Christ Master' in the life, putting into practice 'the principles of Christ' by one's own efforts...these are merely new ways of earning salvation by one's obedience to God's commands. And they are undertaken because of a lack view of what those commands actually are. So it always is: a low view of the law always brings legalism; a high view of the law makes a man a seeker after grace. Pray God that the high view may again prevail.

----
As heard on an old recording of the White Horse Inn radio show I was listening to today on the way to the Free Lutheran Conference.

New Congregation and Website

2007-05-07T21:05:00.000-05:00

On April 15, 2007 a new Lutheran congregation was born and I was called to serve as a pastor of a new congregation which we are calling Real-Lutheran Fellowship. It is meeting in Rochester, Minnesota at this time. Last night I put up the website for that new congregation: http://real-lutheran.info . We are not currently affiliated with any church body.

Postbulletin.com: Faith grows stronger for some soldiers, is lost for others - Tue, Apr 3, 2007

2007-04-14T08:14:00.000-05:00

I read this article: Postbulletin.com: Faith grows stronger for some soldiers, is lost for others - Tue, Apr 3, 2007 in the Rochester Post Bulletin yesterday (was in 4/12/07 paper). It really stuck with me. I've been spending time trying to locate Peter Moeller so I might write him. Should I pay for people search engine results in order get an address to send this following note to him?

Dear Peter,

You were mentioned in an article in the Rochester Post-Bulletin on April 12 that dealt with challenges to faith for soldiers.

I would first off like to thank you for your service to our country and to protecting our citizens. I appreciate your efforts and I don't believe that is expressed often enought. I am sorry to hear of the challenges of facing death and serious injury. That has to influence a person for the rest of their life. You have made a sacrifice for your country. I wish for you that you might be able to return to a normal life and work.

I think it was very compelling to read of your challenges to your faith. I had a few thoughts that I really wanted to share in that regard.

I don't know if your training as a Lutheran included clear and direct teaching about the Gospel: the good news that Jesus died for your sins and the sins of all people and that he offers that forgiveness as a free gift. I believe that with the Gospel clearly in mind, that pure Christian religion gets separated out from all other religions of the world and even many that call themselves Christian religions. The separation is that for pure Christianity, the forgiveness comes as a FREE gift. With Islam and all other religions, favor with God (forgiveness) is something that must be earned by the individual. In fact, the muslim terrorists who are fighting against the U.S. are believing that by fighting and dying, they are going to gain God's praise. Pure Christianity, however, says that all our attempts to make God happy are really not going to accomplish that. Instead of our failed attempts to make things right with God, God comes to us and gives us that as a free gift when He gave His Son to be a man in Jesus, to suffer and die on the cross and to rise again.

For me, there is a great difference between the Muslim trying to earn God's favor and the Christian getting the free gift of God's favor. So, it isn't a minor difference that could go either way.

How do we decide which is right? For me, I know my shortcomings. I know that what I do is not ever very good in God's eyes. I know that if I would attempt to please God by what I do, I would always come up short. I know I need the free gift. Therefore, I am glad to have the free gift, because I could not do it myself. I need it to come completely from God for He IS able to do it and He did do it when Jesus died on the cross. If I were a Muslim, I'd always be asking myself, did I do enough? Did I do it well enough? How can I really be sure God is happy with me? How can I ever know I am right with Him. Only pure Christianity provides the answers and they are all answered in Jesus.

It was also a bit surprising to see that you thought of the Iraq war as Christians fighting against Muslims. I would have thought of it more like the U.S. fighting against Muslim terrorists and fundamentalists. It is true that Islam was founded on the principle of violence and war used to convert people. Now there are many liberal Muslims today who don't follow those principles. The conservative and fundamentalist Muslims are the ones we are really concerned about. They are the terrorists who are trying to attack and destroy the U.S. Again, I appreciate your sacrifice to help protect us from them.

I would be happy to speak with you about these topics further. You can call, write or email me at: xxx --- xxx

Sincerely,
<me>

Teacher Removal Response

2007-04-09T19:38:00.000-05:00

My last entry here was my letter of resignation as an elder of my congregation as a result of unresolved theological concerns I hold. A few days after I posted that letter here with my name present as well as the name of my church and pastor, I was removed from my position as a Bible Study and Sunday School teacher. That hurt.

Below is a letter from my in-laws, in response to my removal as teacher.

Elders of <X> Lutheran Church <addressed>
Subject: Removal of <me> as a teacher at <X> Lutheran Church

Gentlemen:

This letter was written to express our concerns about the recent action to remove <me> as a teacher at <X>. This has nothing to do with the fact that <me> is related to us, but it does have to do with his being our Bible class teacher and a trained, respected theologian.
We have read in the Sunday bulletin that he resigned because of “theological issues”. We have also heard that it was stated “that it was not appropriate for him to continue teaching because of theological concerns and that they were made public”. If this is true, would one of you please tell us the meaning of “not appropriate” and “theological issues or theological concerns”?

Out of consideration for your time we will tell you what we know (and don’t know) about the situation to obviate the need to rehash what is already common knowledge.

1. We have a copy of the letter dated February 21, 2007 in which <me> delivered his resignation as Elder to the committee of Elders.

2. We have a copy of the constitution and by-laws of <X> which describe the duties of an Elder.

3. We have a copy of the publication titled: “THIS WE BELIEVE A Statement of Belief of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod” Revised January 1999.

4. We have searched for a reply or rebuttal to <me's> letter and have found none.

In the absence of a reply or rebuttal, we must conclude that <me’s> concerns stand as true and represent a warning to the members of <X> which must be taken seriously. This then brings us back to the purpose of this letter. Why was <me> banned from teaching? In our opinion, by this action, he has been made out to be a heretic or worse and his reputation has been tarnished.

Arguably the best teacher at <X> has been removed from the Lord’s work, which he has been trained to do, without adequate explanation. We were his students and as a result of this action we feel deprived of his knowledge (in a public Bible class environment) as well as the fellowship and interaction with other <X> members who attended the class.

We don’t know (or care) who is responsible for the decision to ban <me> from teaching, but we do know who can fix the injustice that has occurred. We pray that you as the Elders of <X>, will reconsider this matter and take correcting action with regard to his reputation.

We look forward to someone’s written response to this inquiry in due course.

Respectfully and in His name,
<my in-laws>

Letter of resignation as elder at my church

2007-02-23T10:13:00.001-06:00

February 21, 2007
Dear Elders,

I feel the need to take a stand for what I believe is the chief article of the Christian faith: Gospel/Justification. I believe that humans have have a long-standing history of failing to preserve the Gospel because it is nonsense to our sin-corrupted minds. For me, the Gospel encompasses: the right understanding of justification by grace alone, the proper declaration of both law and gospel, the gospel seen as the only motivator to Godly living and the right attitude toward God, recognizing we are but poor sinners and He is the wonderful giver of gifts. It may perhaps also be summarized with the label "Theology of the Cross."

I probably had the fight taken out of me by past experiences in my life. I stood alone in several situations in the past and fought to the end. Yet there are times when this stone must cry out. I now to believe that there are times it is better to leave in the hopes that the act of leaving will wake-up those left behind to the issue which they are missing. I have concluded that I cannot at this time serve effectively on the Elders Committee and I do hereby resign. Not content to let a few words stand where many more could do the job, I'll expand on my concerns below.

I realize this may not be an ideal time for me to do this in view of the other challenges going on in our congregation and especially in our Pastor's family life. I decided there would really be no good time. For me, things are getting so bad that I feel terrible continuing. So, to reduce stress in my life, I am moving forward with this at this time. Even more important, how can I not take a stand when I have grown to understand that the Gospel is being withheld.

After giving my concerns much consideration, I think at the heart there is an issue of what is believed about humans and their condition before God. I believe that the "Theology of Glory" dominates in the WELS, among pastors and within our congregation instead of the "Theology of the Cross." This is exemplified by the issues and approaches to problems described further below.

1) The approach taken to many issues by the various groups: Pastors, Elders, Sunday School, Adult Spiritual Growth, the Council, the Voters and the Synod is given by the question: "What can we get away with?" What is OK with God? I see that as an approach that views God as only Lawmaker and it is our job to figure out how far we can push His limits. It is not an attitude of sinners recognizing their fallen state before God and humbly receiving His gospel and desiring to do anything we can to keep the focus on the Gospel. Instead of this, if we are asking what can we get away with, we are viewing our relationship with God as merely one of Lawmaker and law-follower.

2) There is an assumption of our ability to do good works behind many things taught and preached. These are viewed as good works as they stand alone, not after Christ's blood purifies them. The strongest example I can point to is the extreme dominance of preaching where the main point is directing how we live our lives (sanctification or third use of the law). Nearly every sermon I hear (both inside Ascension and other WELS congregations) is trying to teach me how I should live. It gives me God's law that says: do it this way. This kind of preaching seems to be a problem with, not only pastors, but also with the people. The people demand such sanctification preaching by their praise of the pastors when they get it. This leads to several further problems:
a) The law is diluted. It no longer crushes us by showing us that it is utterly hopeless for us to try to follow the law and thereby satisfy God's demands. Instead, the law is held up as something we can achieve. At least it is something we can do better with and we are left to conclude that maybe that will be good enough.

b) Sanctification is imported into passages where it is not expressed and the Gospel that is there is not preached. A example was a sermon on Luke 10:25-37 (Parable of the Good Samaritan) where it was set up as 3rd use of the law, teaching us that we need to be doing better at serving our neighbor. I cannot understand that to be the main point. The question posed to Jesus was "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus was directing the questioner to the answer that we can do nothing because all our attempts to follow the law are as filthy rags. Instead we must give up on ourselves and depend only upon Christ.

c) The excessive 3rd use of the law can lead people to assign sins to others and thereby feel justified. I have heard people at Ascension respond to sermons this way. They praise sermon because it rebukes those "other people" who are violating God's law. They are happy and smile about this.
3) Worship theology is askew. It emphasizes what we do and what is pleasing to us. It elevates the human elements as something of high value. It dimishes the divine elements and gifts that are given. The attitude behind our worship is that we each are a saint giving his holy praise instead of a humble sinner coming to receive God's grace. Some of the aspects of this theology can be broken down into the following points.
a) Innovation in our worship practices is pursued for its own sake. It has been said that "variety is good." "We need to move from the 14th to the 20th centuries." It does not seem to enter into people's minds as to why they call these things good. I believe there are several attitudes at work here: 1) worship is entertainment for me, 2) worship is my work towards God, 3) church should fit into our culture, 4) worship should make me comfortable, 5) worship should be easy.

b) Worship at Ascension is focused on "me," that is each individual is directed back to themselves. This comes from hymns which have more "I" and "me" pronouns than references to Christ. It was also seen in the "new" liturgy setting which places the highest note by far in the "Create in me" on the word "me." (Compare with the hymnal setting).

c) There is a strong emotional appeal in worship. Again, this is a focus on me. It should make us feel good about our ability to follow God's law. It should just "tickle" us a little bit with the law. The cross gets moved to the side and the screen that displays pictures to make me feel happy replaces it. This emotional appeal has replaced a teaching of objective truth that stands steady despite my current emotional state. Whether I am happy or sad, God's truth still stands. Yet that is not what we are teaching.

d) Worship is seen as a performance. We have the Sunday School "Program" where the children are told not to get nervous for their "performance." We have the choir calling for members for an upcoming performance. Again it is a focus on what we humans have to contribute and entertainment.
4) Doctrinal control has been lost or abandoned. Not only is our Synod publishing books with false teaching ("God's People" series) but our congregation is buying them for our library and even publishing favorable book reviews in our newsletter. This is despite the fact that we recognized the problem with this very book series a year ago and returned a set of these books that were purchased for a Sunday School teacher's gift. We recognized the problem in 2005, but then in 2006 we turn around and buy the books for our church's library. We cannot count on the Synod to provide doctrinal control of its material and if we have no control ourselves, then any wind of false teaching will be free to blow on us.

5) A am concerned with Synodical trends and propaganda. The "Church Growth Movement" seems to have taken over the Synod. That Movement prescribes the use of business and marketing techniques to put warm bodies in the pews and dimishes the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing us to faith. The propaganda comes with a strong appeal to emotions, as was exhibited in the the December WELS video. The Spiritual Growth Workshop we had about two years ago was full of false teaching. I specifically remember discussing the whole point on the so called, "power of prayer." That seemed to come to little avail as nobody else got the point of the concern I was raising.

6) Ascension, like many other Lutheran congregations, has a desire to be like all other churches. The people want to have contemporary music, hymns on the screen, roving pastors, lay involvement and other features because it is what other (often non-Lutheran) churches are doing. It is really a desire to reduce the church to be like the world. Instead of coming to a service and having an "other-worldly" experience because we are dealing with a God who stretches far beyond this world, the people want to have something like their everyday experiences. I wonder if members of Ascension really recognize what separates Lutherans from others. The distinctives of Lutheran teachings and historic practices are not widely understood, I believe, and instead they are viewed as irregularities from the 14th Century that we need to eliminate for something more modern.

Part of my role as an elder seems to be to encourage folks to attend church services. I find myself asking more and more why I should encourage attendance at our services. Is it a good thing? I don't see that people really get to hear the gospel most of the time. In fact, attending worship with the dilution of the law and shortage of the gospel makes we wonder if someone could easily be confirmed in a false belief of self-justification and works righteousness. Is it instead harmful for someone to attend? I really had to consider this on December 20 when Pastor Limpert delivered a message that told us we need to persuade others to come to church to hear the Gospel. The entire message was law, telling us what we should be doing. I thought that it would have been a shame to have those we persuaded come to our service that night because the message they would have heard would be essentially Law, not Gospel. We might have persuaded them to come and hear the Gospel, but that wouldn't be what they got.

What really is the goal of Christianity? What is the goal of the Church? What is the goal for the Christian, overall? What is the goal for the Christian in this life? I believe that sanctification is not any of these goals, but justification is. Sanctification is a response to the Gospel. It is a response that is directed by the Holy Spirit. If we believe we see a "problem" that our members don't seem to be progressing in their sanctification, then we don't need more law to try to motivate them, but instead we need a better understanding of the Gospel, which comes through a proper understanding of justification. It is not a Lutheran but a Reformed practice to emphasize sanctification as the primary goal. Reformed teach that we are to pursue to goal of perfection and maybe by the end of our lives we will be ready for heaven. The Reformed emphasize the Theology of Glory.

I know that I long for the Gospel to again dominate. I am feeling pummeled by the Law coming at me every Sunday and no Gospel relief. I provide my own Gospel. But more important than me are others. If there is one member, or even more critical, one one-time visitor who does not hear the pure 2nd use of the Law and Gospel without more law following it, on a given Sunday, then we have failed miserably. We have let that lost sheep wander away. I believe we have lots of members at Ascension who don't understand justification. They are lost sheep too. Preaching and teaching Theology of Glory and sanctification only drives them further into their false thinking. God wants us to shelter those lost sheep in their Savior's arms.

- me

I believe

2007-01-27T11:18:00.000-06:00

I believe in Jesus Christ. What do you mean by that statement. The English is ambiguous. It could mean:

1) I have brought myself from a state of unbelief to belief in Jesus Christ.
2) I am now in a state of belief in Jesus Christ.
3) I am now in a state of having been given faith in Jesus Christ.

1 seems to easily lead to Decision Theology. 3 is the most strict in the direction of acknowledging that the Holy Spirit is the source of our faith entirely and that we remain passive. 2 seems to be between the two, only describing the state we are currently in and not how we got to that state.

This phrase was recently used by another in a discussion about a different phrase, "I do good works." They were stated to be equivalent. Do you state: "I do good works"? Or "I did a good work"? Do you express the "cooperation" mentioned in FC SD IV:65 ? How do you express that?

2007-01-26T07:05:00.000-06:00

I just learned that my childhood pastor, mentioned in this post died suddenly. When Christians die it should be a happy thing, but for the non-Christian that is truly sad. I do not have divine power to determine the state of this pastor's belief, but I would be very concerned.

I had a week long business trip where I was part of a team that sat and listened to presentations by four companys, one per day. One of these companies had a speaker introduce some of their top leaders who were present. One he described as their spiritual guide. There was not as much of a sense joking as I would have wished to see. It was really an example of "secular spirituality." I am not sure if I have heard that term previously. People push God out of their lives and try to fill the void with themselves and with worldly ambitions.

Did Jesus allow his brothers to be unbelievers?

2007-01-09T06:25:00.000-06:00

I was thinking about the Biblical book of Jude and its probably human authorship by Judas the brother of Jesus Christ. We know that Jesus' brothers did not believe in him early on in His earthly ministry as John reports in John 7:3-5. It also seems possible that His brothers were absent at His resurrection, as Jesus gives to Mary the Apostle John as a son (John 19:26). That point may be questioned as no others seem to be present at the crucifixion and we know that most ran away. Certainly following His ascension, there were His brothers, James and Judas, with the Apostles (Acts 1:14).

So, now the theory: The Lord did not bring His brothers to faith during the time He walked the earth because they would have led people to speculate that He was just a sham who had recruited His brothers to act like disciples.

What I am not saying:
- Jesus brothers were at risk of being lost, for Jesus knew they would live to the point where they came to faith.
- Jesus was being deceptive.

When I presented it to my Bible Study class the above objections were raised. Also it was suggested that Jesus would be taking away their free will. That can be dismissed with the proper understanding that, though we have free will, our sinful nature will only choose to disbelieve in Jesus unless the Holy Spirit acts upon us.

Why would Jesus behave according to my theory?

As stated above, He would have a more believable group of disciples if they didn't include the easy-to-recruit brothers.
Have nay-sayers in His own family kept Him from being an "easy sell" to believe in. Stated in an extreme case, if nearly all people believed in Jesus, wouldn't you find yourself compelled? That would be belief via the law - being forced to believe. Instead, Jesus comes to us through the Gospel.
There was able to be a more dramatic reversal for His brothers, from unbelief to belief. James became a pillar of the Church in Jerusalem and wrote the book of James. Judas wrote Jude.

Weeds among the wheat

2007-01-07T16:56:00.000-06:00

Today in Sunday School (7-8th grade) we discussed Matthew 13, including the Parable of the Weeds. I asked the students if they thought there were any unbelievers in our congregation. They seemed quite shocked to consider that concept. I told them one of the reasons I think there are unbelievers is this parable. There are such a large number of folks who don't get justification, that we are saved by Christ alone and they hold that they do their works to get saved. I don't expect those people have saving faith.

Cool new resource and God's antimaterialism

2007-01-03T21:39:00.000-06:00

I just discovered the BibleWiki http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/ a short time ago. I am going to put in my stuff from Jude as I prepare for a Bible study tomorrow night.

I think God may have something in for me. I think he doesn't want me to buy new things. He has this antimaterialism bent.

It started about two and half years ago when we bought our new car, a Toyota Camry. We have had all sorts of trouble with it. The dealer and manufacturer would not resolve the problems. I took it to arbitration and we lost. The problems keep getting worse. That was the first new car we bought in 19 years. That other one was just not long for this world. Our other two used cars are quite old too.
I just decided to get a new bicycle in November as mine was about 13 years old, had a cracking frame from a couple of crashes and had about 10,000 miles on it. So I waited to get a new one and then I spent, what I consider big bucks and got a 2006 Trek 4600. The chain broke (sheared) the first time I rode it about a mile down the road. The chainwheel slipped. The shifting is defective.
I could go on with other items which I have bought and with which I had dramatic disappointments.

The conclusion I considered today is that God was perhaps chastising me for buying these things. Perhaps the actual chastisement we receive is proportional to what measures we might take to avoid it. You buy a new car/bike to avoid having to do work to maintain the old ones and figuring how to get by with your old stuff. The chastisement received with the new things in hand is more severe than if one had not bought the new stuff.

Receptionism revisited

2007-01-01T14:58:00.000-06:00

I got an email reply to my very first post http://buchsblog2.blogspot.com/2005/05/getting-started-what-about.html and I wanted to share this response.

I received a response to my posting on the Receptionist position regarding the Lord's Supper. I raised a question in light of the Augsburg Confession article X. The respondent referred to the Triglotta translation of the same sentence I quoted from the Tappert translation.

Tappert says that the body and blood are "distributed" as well as received. Triglotta says: "the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord."

It was suggested that this Triglotta translation may support the Consecrationist position as well as the Receptionist. The Receptionist understanding would be that the presence is determined only upon and at the time of eating and drinking.

I find myself stumbling on this argument, however. The Triglotta is no different than Tappert, except that it seems to direct one towards a Consecrationist position even more strongly. Note that there is a comma inserted between the clause stating the Body and Blood are present and the clause stating that they are distributed. To my understanding, this comma would push even further in suggesting that the presence is effective apart from the distribution.

In addition, I am still hung up on the plain meaning of the words. A thing must be present to be distributed. If I were to phrase AC X to support a Receptionist understanding, I think I would word it something like this: "the Body and Blood of Christ are truly received by those who eat the Supper of the Lord."

In fact, I can't seem to get over the notion that the whole of the argument for the real presence would have been altered if a Receptionist position were true. We would no longer have an argument for the real presence, because the Body and Blood are not present until the bread and wine are eaten. Instead, we should have an argument for the real reception. This the AC and Apology do not argue for.

Keeping Christ in Christmas?

2006-12-30T22:28:00.000-06:00

I got to read a Christmas letter from a childhood pastor, now retired, which he sent to my mother when I went to visit her yesterday. It was really sad for me. He is a pastor who never, to my recollection, taught or proclaimed the gospel to me. His letter seemed to fit that. It had no sort of Christmas greeting and almost no religious content. The best he could muster was an expression of hope for the new year with the politicians changed out to his preferred party. He hoped that it would be a better year for the world. That was his hope for the future. Life on earth would get better and it would come through human effort and change. How wrong of him not to focus on the fact that our hope should only be placed on God and the new life to come that He secured for us through the innocent life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I hold no hope for things to get better in this world. They will be indescribably better in the world to come. It won't happen by human effort but is an assured thing based on God's promise.

While on that 2-day trip to my mother's I saw a few yard signs in that town that read "Keep Christ in Christmas." That struck me as odd. Christ is already long gone from Christmas. Maybe you could put Him back, but that doesn't seem likely for a world that thinks it has no use for Him. Maybe it is better to put Christ somewhere else besides Christmas. He gets associated with all the sentimentality of the holiday season when put in Christmas. Perhaps we should bring back Epiphany which was the Eastern Orthodox Church's original date for Christmas. It used to be that congregations had a special worship service on Epiphany. Now it is often transported to the Sunday following. Folks don't even remember on what day Epiphany occurs. Epiphany: the mysteriously incarnate Lord of the universe comes to all people in addition to the Jews. The light has dawned upon a people who were lost in darkness.

Christmas, the Church Year and animals

2006-12-26T08:54:00.000-06:00

Well, it is about time for random theological stream-of-consciousness emission.

Yesterday was the celebration of Christmas. I watched the geese flying over and the birds at my feeder and I thought for a moment: do the animals know it is Christmas? Well, you can say no pretty easily, it seems. My wife said they probably celebrate the real day of Christmas, which is something different. Then the thoughts turn to the Church Year and to the rhythm of the week. Are these human inventions. It doesn't seem to be the case. Yahweh was directing the Israelites during the Exodus to these ideas. The Sabbath was introduced first in Exodus 16:23-29. It also links back to the account of Creation (Exodus 20:8-11 back to Genesis 1:31-2:3). The annual celebrations of Passover, Atonement, Tabernacles, etc. also tie to a yearly cycle. The months are tied to the year (Exodus 12:1-3, 13:4-6). So the calendar has divine origins.

What must surely be a human corruption, we don't maintain the 28 day months in our Roman calendar. Perhaps we should go back to the Hebrew calendar. Wouldn't that be nice to have every month except one end on the same day of the week and have exactly four weeks in it. It would be like the advantages of the Metric System.

My thoughts turned to this whole stream as I pondered the emotionalism that is almost inexorably tied to the celebration of Christmas. Things are done at Christmas to make people feel good. My pastor works hard to involve children and others in the services so that people smile and be happy. Isn't it all a false happiness, however. Feeling a "warm fuzzy" does not solve our problems. Our real happiness ought to come from Christ having come to us, taken on human form, died and rose for us. That is the real solution to our problems.

An article in the paper noted that many churches are now offering "blue" services, acknowledging that people get depressed over Christmas. Why do they get depressed? Well, is it because there is so much pressure to feel good? How about that in combination with the fact that they haven't solved their real problem. Many people don't ever feel good coming to church because they do not know the Gospel. They come out of obligation to try to do another work to make God happy with them. That is hard to do and people get bored so we add entertainment and sentimentality to bring the warm bodies into the pews.

Sermon for June 26, 2005

2005-06-25T08:15:00.000-05:00

Sermon - June 23 and 26, 2005 Ascension Lutheran Church Psalm 89

Title: Where are you?

Introduction
Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

The text for our consideration today is Psalm 89. The Psalms are often overlooked, but today we will let this Psalm take us on a journey under the question: Where are you?

We just sang some excerpts from Psalm 89. Only portions of 6 verses of the Psalm were included, yet there are actually 52 verses in this Psalm. We will move on to consider the Psalm as a whole.

Answering The Question
Since the title of this sermon is a question, I am sure you are waiting for me to pose the question. So, here we go. Where are you? Perhaps you suspect a trick question. You may think I am asking what state of mind you are in. No, I am asking about your location. You could give a number of answers, such as Ascension Lutheran Church, Rochester, Minnesota, United States, Earth and so forth. Those are all correct. Now I will do what teachers do and ask you to give the best answer. If I ask you "where are you?," what is the best, most important answer you could give? The answer I am looking for is "I am in God’s house."

You don’t hear that phrase "God’s house" too often any more. If we went back a generation or two, it would be much more common to hear it. We see it used regularly in the Bible. The patriarch Jacob in Gen 28:17 said: "‘How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven.’" Jacob named that place Bethel, which means "house of God" in Hebrew. In Exodus 23:19, God commanded that offerings were to be brought, saying: "Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God." Late in Israel’s history, in Ezra 5:2 the phrase is still used: "Then Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Jeshua son of Jozadak set to work to rebuild the house of God in Jerusalem."

Psalm 84:10 explains the value we ought to place in the house of God. It says: "Better is one day in your courts than a thousand elsewhere; I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of the wicked." The care we should exercise in coming to God’s house is explained in Ecclesiastes 5:1 "Guard your steps when you go to the house of God. Go near to listen rather than to offer the sacrifice of fools, who do not know that they do wrong."

Application to You
Now consider this thought: you are in the house of God. Did you think about that when you walked into the building this eveningmorning? How about when you took your seat?

This is a special place. What sort of attitude should you have about coming into the house of God? That attitude will reflect what you think about God himself. The text from Psalm 89 helps us think about this attitude toward God. In Verses 7-13 we hear of the might and power of God. He should be respected and feared:

In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him. O LORD God Almighty, who is like you? You are mighty, O LORD, and your faithfulness surrounds you. You rule over the surging sea; when its waves mount up, you still them. You crushed Rahab like one of the slain; with your strong arm you scattered your enemies. The heavens are yours, and yours also the earth; you founded the world and all that is in it. You created the north and the south; Tabor and Hermon sing for joy at your name. Your arm is endued with power; your hand is strong, your right hand exalted.

These verses help us see the attitude we ought to have – of fearing the power of God. He is to be feared above all things. He is more powerful than any other. He has a strong arm, which is a figure of speech, putting the concept of God’s power into human terms. He crushed Rahab, another name for Egypt, in the ten plagues and the Exodus of Israel.

God is the powerful founder and creator of the whole world - everything we see. The heavens and the earth. He created the directions North and South. He created everything from one end to the other end and He even created the ends.

The attitude of fear and respect of God is not a very popular attitude today. It isn’t often discussed that God is a awesome, mighty, powerful god who is ruler of the universe. Instead, God is turned into only a kind, gentle god. He is made to be like a little teddy bear. If we do that, we have missed an important aspect of God and our relationship to Him. He created us and He rules over us. We are obligated to obey Him in all that he commands and wishes. We are responsible to Him.

Check on Your Attitude
What is it like to come into the house of the ruler of the universe? What is it like to come into the presence of the most powerful being who exists?

What was your attitude when you came into this house of God this morning? Did you think about the fact that you were approaching the house of the highest, most important being in the world?

Unfortunately, each of us probably didn’t approach God’s house with an appropriate fear and reverence toward God. This is a sin. It is a violation of God’s will for us to not approach with the right attitude.

There are consequences for this sin. God requires justice be enforced. The sin demands a penalty. In Psalm 89, verse 14 it says "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne." God requires punishment for sin. He requires righteousness of we who are His creation. We are facing the penalty of the eternal punishment due for our sins. In verses 31 and 32, Psalm 89 says: "if they violate my decrees and fail to keep my commands, I will punish their sin with the rod, their iniquity with flogging." We are facing a hopeless situation on account of our sin. Verse 48: "What man can live and not see death, or save himself from the power of the grave?" Eternal death is what awaits us.

Here Comes the Good Gospel
Where are you?

You are in the house of God. This God has not left us without hope. The hope is expressed in Psalm 89. Verses 14-17 say:

Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; love and faithfulness go before you. Blessed are those who have learned to acclaim you, who walk in the light of your presence, O LORD. They rejoice in your name all day long; they exult in your righteousness. For you are their glory and strength, and by your favor you exalt our horn.

These verses tell us that God requires righteousness and justice. Yet, it is the righteousness of God for which we praise Him, not our righteousness. "They exult in your righteousness." It is righteousness that is given to us. It is God’s faithfulness to us that provides His righteousness to us. Because of this righteousness we have the added benefit of being blessed. As we are taught of this righteousness that is given to us we learn to walk in the light of the presence of God. We are blessed. We thereby rejoice in the name of God because of the wonderful gift He gives us.

Now, how does this righteousness come to us? Psalm 89 teaches us about the answer to this question also. It talks about the promises made to the king in the line of king David of Israel. Verses 3 and 4 say:

You said, ‘I have made a covenant with my chosen one, I have sworn to David my servant, I will establish your line forever and make your throne firm through all generations.'

Later, Psalm 89 in verses 19-29 continues to discuss this promise and show how the promise is fulfilled in the descendant of king David whom we call Jesus Christ.

Once you spoke in a vision, to your faithful people you said: "I have bestowed strength on a warrior; I have exalted a young man from among the people. I have found David my servant; with my sacred oil I have anointed him. My hand will sustain him; surely my arm will strengthen him. No enemy will subject him to tribute; no wicked man will oppress him. I will crush his foes before him and strike down his adversaries. My faithful love will be with him, and through my name his horn will be exalted. I will set his hand over the sea, his right hand over the rivers. He will call out to me, 'You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.' I will also appoint him my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth. I will maintain my love to him forever, and my covenant with him will never fail. I will establish his line forever, his throne as long as the heavens endure.

Although these words could be seen to partly apply to king David, they are only fulfilled completely in Jesus Christ. His throne is the one that endures forever. All His foes are crushed. Only He can be understood as the firstborn of God, that is, the Son of God.

Suffering Son
Now Psalm 89 goes on to explain what needed to happen for Jesus to bring us God’s righteousness. The Father needed to reject or turn away from the Son on the cross. Starting at verse 38, the psalm says:

But you have rejected, you have spurned, you have been very angry with your anointed one. You have renounced the covenant with your servant and have defiled his crown in the dust. You have broken through all his walls and reduced his strongholds to ruins. All who pass by have plundered him; he has become the scorn of his neighbors. You have exalted the right hand of his foes; you have made all his enemies rejoice. You have turned back the edge of his sword and have not supported him in battle. You have put an end to his splendor and cast his throne to the ground. You have cut short the days of his youth; you have covered him with a mantle of shame.

Our almighty God came to us and humbled Himself to the point of dying on a cross for our sins. He took our punishment on Himself and delivered His righteousness to us. Our sins have been forgiven.

He didn’t stop there. The psalm posed the question mentioned earlier: "What man can live and not see death, or save himself from the power of the grave?" The answer is: Jesus Christ can live and not see death. He did die, temporarily. He came alive again after dying on the cross. He saved Himself from the power of the grave. This is great news, because He can then pass this blessing on to us and grant us eternal life. We, too, are saved from the power of the grave. Death has been conquered.

Conclusion
We have journeyed through Psalm 89, starting with the appropriate fear of God in recognition of: His almighty status, our sins and our responsibility to Him for those sins. We then saw that God took care of our sins, our lack of righteousness, by giving us His righteousness. The plan to carry this out was through the descendant of king David, Jesus Christ. Jesus needed to suffer for us, to be rejected by the Father on the cross, as He took on our sins and died. He then gave us His righteousness and victory over the grave.

Where are you?

Hebrews 12 provides the appropriate conclusion to answer this question when it journeys from Mt. Sinai where the Law was given to Mt. Zion where forgiveness is given. Where are you?
You have not come to Mt. Sinai, a place to remain fearful. Hebrews 12 says (in verses 18-24):

You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, because they could not bear what was commanded: "If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned." ... But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

May being here, where you are, in the house of God, cause you to rejoice all day long in the name and the righteousness of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.

In the name of Jesus. Kevin Buchs.

Getting started - what about receptionism and AC X?

2005-05-21T16:01:00.000-05:00

I am going to jump into a theological topic because I am interested in other's opinions on this. My question has to do with the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) holding a open question position on the issue of when the real presence in the Lord's Supper is effected. Is it when the elements are consecrated (consecrationist) or when they are received (receptionist)? In practice, it seems most WELS pastors and laity practice receptionism, but the official position of the Synod is that it is an open question. When I read the Augsburg Confession, article X, I see a strong position taken that the consecrationalist position is consistent with the Lutheran Confessions.

I sent my question into the WELS Q & A (quite a resource) and I encourage you to read it for yourself.

http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=&cuItem_itemID=8848

I am left feeling like the reply was not very solid. I understand that we cannot extrapolate from what is written in the Confessions and that there is not a lot written in this article X, however, what I see there does answer the question.

What do you think?