Most Magisterial Tulips

[AngCath]

Have any of y'all seen this video? It's a Lutheran perspective on the differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism.

Most Magisterial Tulips

 

[Tangible]

Great stuff, Dunstan! Who knew traditional, hard hitting, unabashedly Confessional Lutheranism could be so cool?

 

[Nova Scotian Boy]

I really liked this. His comments on Paradox really got me thinking and cant seem to shake them. Along with the idea that Calvinism is a by product of much of the philosophy of the time of the reformation.

 

[AngCath]

I found this video on cyberbrethren.com by the way.

 

[RadMan]

I found this video on cyberbrethren.com by the way.

Don't argue or disagree with the owner of the blog. He will block you or delete your comments. He makes it look like everyone agrees with him that way.

 

[Tangible]

This is originally from Pr. Jonathan Fisk's regular video blog at worldvieweverlasting.blogspot.com

 

[jonathan1971]

The problem you lutherans have in your translation of John3:16 is that you look at the verse out of it's context. When God says world there he doesn't mean the entire world he means all tribes of the world. The signficance isn't in the fact that all are saved but in the fact that now the covenant has been modified to include all tribes of the earth not just the jews.

Another issue that you lutherans have is obviously in your doctrine of the Lords Supper. The bread and wine are just that, nothing more but that doesn't mean that there isn't a spiritual conection between the elements and the body and blood of Christ. Christ doesn't enter into the elements physically. When we eat of the elements we partake of it spiritually. Christ doesn't leave heaven to inhabit bread or wine. When Christ instituted communion the clear indication is that the bread and wine are representative of a spiritual reality, like baptism is.

As far as paradox is concerned, God is a God of order.

 

[filosofer]

The problem you lutherans have in your translation of John3:16 is that you look at the verse out of it's context. When God says world there he doesn't mean the entire world he means all tribes of the world. The signficance isn't in the fact that all are saved but in the fact that now the covenant has been modified to include all tribes of the earth not just the jews.

Another issue that you lutherans have is obviously in your doctrine of the Lords Supper. The bread and wine are just that, nothing more but that doesn't mean that there isn't a spiritual conection between the elements and the body and blood of Christ. Christ doesn't enter into the elements physically. When we eat of the elements we partake of it spiritually. Christ doesn't leave heaven to inhabit bread or wine. When Christ instituted communion the clear indication is that the bread and wine are representative of a spiritual reality, like baptism is.

As far as paradox is concerned, God is a God of order.

A little confusion here. Are these your comments? Or are you taking the side of the Calvinists in this dialog For the sake of emphasizing what Fisk is presenting?

 

[Tangible]

Confusion here too. jonathan1971, do I not see a Luther rose under your name?

 

[jonathan1971]

Sorry, I should've put a DA in front of my statement.

Those are the arguments I was taught in response to those presented by Pr. Fisk.

I think they are interesting becuase the beg the question that calvinist can't answer.

"If communion is only spiritual how do you know that you are partaking of it correctly?"

"Does the word cosmos mean all creation or all kinds of creation?"

"If the old covenant only included jews then why were non jews allowed to convert?"

The calvinist in the end has to admit to paradox in his own theology. Look at their doctrine of double predestination. They present God as a just god. In order to do that they have to completely disregard the meaning of justice. How can a just God predestine some to heaven and some for hell and at the same time remain a just god? It's a paradox.

Or they stumble into further trouble, like Vantill, and say that since God is infinite and we are finite we will never completly understand the mind of God. So we will never really completely understand what it means to be just. So in the end justice to us means something different that justice to God. So there is an appearance of paradox but that is only because of our limited understanding.

 

[AngCath]

Don't argue or disagree with the owner of the blog. He will block you or delete your comments. He makes it look like everyone agrees with him that way.

Yes, I have seen (and experienced) this first hand. I wish he would be more open in his comments policy, but he does tread the line between personal blog and official CPH publisher blog so I guess I can understand.

 

[JohnKnox87]

Found it interesting! I'm reformed through and through though I find Lutheranism fascinating and strangely attractive!

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Found it interesting! I'm reformed through and through though I find Lutheranism fascinating and strangely attractive!

We do look good-especially in albs!

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I think they are interesting becuase the beg the question that calvinist can't answer.

"If communion is only spiritual how do you know that you are partaking of it correctly?"

The serious issue I think one is faced with in a spiritual communion is that Christ's words are ONLY true if you have faith. Thus YOU make the sacrament efficacious by your faith, because without faith there is no spiritual communion. Faith is the process in which Christ is present, not the guest celebrating the gift of Christ's presence.

In Lutheranism, the body and blood is not contingent on your faith, it is there because Christ said it would be. It makes the promise firmer and easier to grasp (Luther highly emphasized the connection of the internal faith and the external element). For otherwise, similar to the question "have I done enough to get saved" one would have to question "do I believe enough for Christ's promises to be true?" Rather, Christ's promises to be true because they already are, thus faith's role is not to make them true but merely trust in that reality. You will always receive the body and blood, faith celebrates, receives, and engages that gift rather than create it. We are not the host but rather the guest.

Hope that was not confusing. I rewrote it once already because I can ramble in a confusing way that only seems to make sense to my internal conversations sometimes.

 

[jonathan1971]

doulos,

I agree with you on that. The reformed end up with no comfort in communion because in the end it's all conditioned on how they feel.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

doulos,

I agree with you on that. The reformed end up with no comfort in communion because in the end it's all conditioned on how they feel.

I don't think Reformed people cannot find comfort, I just think it easier to doubt and struggle to find comfort.

My in-laws are Reformed and I think they would say they feel very comforted. But what about those who are struggling in faith (the ones who need nourishment the most perhaps)?

 

[Tangible]

Growing up Baptist, communion for me was more about confession than anything else. You were not really supposed to take communion if you had any unconfessed sin or sin that you had not yet repented of. To do so would be to partake in an unworthy manner. (Note the rewriting of scripture here.)

They would use the story about how when you bring your offering to the temple and remember that you have something unresolved with your neighbor that you should leave your offering there and resolve the issue before returning to offer your sacrifice.

Honestly, I don't know how anyone could actually ever partake of communion with that kind of requirement in place. It just shows how much they downplay and ignore our totally sinful state while instead focusing on a few outwardly visible sins.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Growing up Baptist, communion for me was more about confession than anything else. You were not really supposed to take communion if you had any unconfessed sin or sin that you had not yet repented of. To do so would be to partake in an unworthy manner. (Note the rewriting of scripture here.)

They would use the story about how when you bring your offering to the temple and remember that you have something unresolved with your neighbor that you should leave your offering there and resolve the issue before returning to offer your sacrifice.

Honestly, I don't know how anyone could actually ever partake of communion with that kind of requirement in place. It just shows how much they downplay and ignore our totally sinful state while instead focusing on a few outwardly visible sins.

While what they wanted (reconciliation with others) was a good and proper thing, when you make communion about anything other than God's reconciliation with us it is a great disservice. Rather the grace of communion can move us to love with the neighbor.

That said, repentance is still an important part of our communion. It historically-and even today in some churches was seen as improper to come to communion if you did not partake in individual or corporate confession. One of the liturgical functions of the passing of the peace was the final opportunity for reconciliation prior to coming together in communion. However, we realize that confession in the Lutheran church is never an emphasis on our repentance so much as it is God's forgiveness.

 

[joyfulthanks]

Okay, I really liked the video - even shared it with one of my Baptist pastor employers who was asking about the difference about Calvinism and Lutheranism.

However, was Fisk just using hyperbole when he talked about us worshipping bread and wine? Because for the life of me that's what it sounded like he said.

Did I read the BoC wrong? One of the arguments in the BoC against the RCC was that they were reserving the Eucharist for the purpose of Eucharistic adoration - which is not proper. My understanding is that we receive Christ's body and blood in Holy Communion, but we do not worship the sacrament. Am I missing something?

 

[DaRev]

Growing up Baptist, communion for me was more about confession than anything else. You were not really supposed to take communion if you had any unconfessed sin or sin that you had not yet repented of. To do so would be to partake in an unworthy manner. (Note the rewriting of scripture here.)

Actually, this part is correct. If one receives the Sacrament with unrepentant sin, they are indeed unworthy and receiving to their spiritual detriment (A man ought to examine himself...). It's not a matter of rewriting Scripture, rather it's a failure to keep reading Scripture where it says that one must discern the body of Christ, lest they eat and drink to their judgement.