There are "liberals" who deny the authority of Scripture entirely. However, there are others who claim to uphold the authority of the Scriptures while denying its actual teachings. The Scriptures say that baptism saves you and is for the forgiveness of sins and these people who claim to uphold the authority of the Scriptures will tell you that baptism does not save you and is your act of obedience. If "a" can be interpreted to mean "not a" then the Scriptures have no real authority. At least the liberal is honest about his denial of the authority of the Scriptures. To claim that "a" means "not a" can only be the result of demonic influence. The Holy Spirit would never lead someone to believe that "a" means "not a." There is no point in trying to stand in unity with those who merely claim to uphold the authority of the Scriptures while denying its actual teachings. There can be no assurance or comfort when the words of Christ and the Apostles are interpreted to mean the opposite of what they say. If "this is my body" means "this bread is not my body" then "Christ died for our sins" could mean "Christ did not die for our sins." Without the ability to cling to the Words of Christ as they actually come to us in the Scriptures we have nothing to hold on to. If a teacher cannot simply repeat what the Scriptures say about a topic but substitutes his own words, then the Scriptures do not have authority for that teacher. Such a teacher should not be lauded as a great Bible-teacher but should be looked upon as a tool of the devil, pelted with dung, and driven out of town. The same holds true for teachers who know the truth but fail to proclaim it. If the pastor does not proclaim Christ-crucified as the central message of the Scriptures, he does not hold to the authority of the Scriptures.
3 comments:
It has been my experience as a pastor that those who deny this stuff are rationalists whose "logic" and "belief" trumps anything a Lutheran would present directly and clearly from God's Word.
I'm currently an Anglican but have been exploring Lutheran theology. I have found what I've read very compelling. I might even be on the cusp of saying that I hold to an essentially Lutheran theology.
There is a major sticking point for me. When Jesus pronounced the words "This is my Body" at the last supper, the words on which Lutherans and others hinge their insistence that in Holy Communion the Lord's actual Body and Blood are present and received by eating and drinking, he had not yet gone to the cross and died, so his body was locally present but not in the elements. Was he not actually saying then that the bread he was holding at that moment symbolized his body rather than literally was his body. And if this is so, then the argument that he meant that the bread was literally his body and the wine literally his blood is untrue.
If I'm incorrect, please show me where, because I'd like clarity on this point, and I actually want Lutheran theology to be true here as well. I just don't see how it can be.
The Lutheran position and I believe the position of all those who teach that we receive Christ's actual body and blood in the Supper is that the disciples received Christ's body and blood in the institution of the Supper. They received Christ's body and blood because Christ's Word was attached to it regardless of the fact that Christ had not yet gone to the cross. You might be interested in reading "The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology" by C.P. Krauth. It's pretty lengthy and the first half is a bit of a hagiography of Luther but the second deals with every objection against the Lutheran view of the sacraments that anyone has ever thought of. You can read it online for free: http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/cpkcomplete.pdf
Post a Comment