Two Kinds of Election

On today's program I answered listener questions about the Lutheran doctrine of election as a follow up to the discussion about Arminianism last week. I spent time looking the Formula of Concord's discussion of the topic, the relevant Scripture texts, and Pieper's Christian Dogmatics. 

Here is the program.

Reformed and Lutheran views of Infant Baptism

I discussed a number of topics on today's program. I spent the first half hour talking about the Reformed covenantal argument for infant baptism, and how we should approach this subject. I then answered a listener question about people who are called "righteous," and "blameless" in the Old Covenant. Finally, I addressed the Church of Christ's view of baptism.

Here is the program.

Dialogue with Reformed Baptist Pastor Jeffrey Johnson

I recently was interviewed on the Confessing Baptist podcast alongside of Reformed Baptist pastor Jeffrey Johnson. We discussed the nature of baptism, its relationship to regeneration, and the assurance of salvation. It's worth your time to listen if you would like to hear a respectful and informative dialogue between these two theological and pastoral approaches.

Listen here

.

The Regulative Principle of Worship

On today's program, I discussed the Reformed regulative principle of worship. I went through some of the basic arguments for this position and demonstrated why I believe them to be flawed.

Here is the program.

A Discussion of Theonomy

On today's program I answered two listener questions. The first was about the Reformed movement known as "Theonomy" which seeks to implement Old Testament civil laws in contemporary society. I discussed the problems with this manner of thinking. The second question was about the distinction between predestination and election. I clarified a Lutheran approach to predestination in view of the Calvinistic perspective.

Here is the program.

Interview With Pastor Douglas Wilson

On today's program I interviewed Pastor Douglas Wilson about the Federal Vision movement within Reformed theology. Wilson is pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho and professor at New Saint Andrews College. He is a prolific speaker and debater on Reformed theology and various issues related to Christianity and culture. We talked about baptism, law and gospel, liturgy, and various other issues associated with the Federal Vision.

Here is the program.



Pastor Wilson's website can be found here, and his blog is here.

The Federal Vision Movement

Listen Here.

On today's program I discussed the "Federal Vision" movement within Presbyterianism. I gave a brief history of the movement, and then explained some of their distinctive ideas. I showed where Lutherans can agree and disagree with various aspects of this theological school.

A Critique of the Theology of Paul Washer

Here's the program.

On today's program I reviewed clips from sermons by Calvinistic baptist preacher Paul Washer. I discussed why I believe his theology to be dangerous.



Here is the message of his that I referenced which I referred to as preparationist.

Why are some saved and others not?

Here's the program.

Today's program was spent discussing issues in Reformed Theology. I briefly addressed Steve from Triablogue's comments, and then went into a discussion from the program Christ the Center. The Reformed podcast Christ the Center had Dr. Lane Tipton of Westminster Seminary Philadephia to discuss an essay of B.B. Warfield titled the Plan of Salvation.

In this discussion, Tipton made claims about Lutheranism that are inaccurate; he argued that Lutherans believe in conditional election to salvation based on non-resistance to God's grace. I spent the majority of the program demonstrating why this is not true and addressing the question "Why are some saved and others not?"

The essays of Walther I referenced can be found here.

You can listen to the program I responded to here.

Limited Atonement in Hebrews: A Continued Response to James White

On today's program, I continued the discussion of limited atonement by finishing my review of a lecture by Dr. James White on the subject. The discussion centered on the book of Hebrews, and the high priestly prayer of John 17.

Here is the program.



James White is director of Alpha and Omega ministries and elder at Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. His website can be found here.

Why Interacting with Reformed Christians Can Sometimes be Frustrating

Because they say things like this.

Important Note for those Involved in the Lutheran/Reformed Debates

A lot of my time on this blog has been spent on dialoguing with Reformed theology, describing the differences between Lutheran and Reformed theology, and explaining why I believe Lutheranism to be the right side of the Reformation to be on. This has been of interest to me because of my Reformed background, and because several of my closest friends are still Reformed. I have talked to several readers, close to two dozen, who have become Lutheran partially through reading this blog and my articles. For that, I am extremely grateful.

I want to say that I will be stepping back from this discussion in the near future. I have written a book on the subject, which I am now editing and waiting to hear back from a publisher. Once this work is done, it will likely be my final word on the subject for some time.

I wanted to make this public so that I would give my readers and listeners time to ask me questions on this subject before I move on to other things. There are likely many questions that I have left unanswered at this point. Some people have tried to organize debates with Reformed scholars on these subjects, but nothing has worked out yet. Perhaps something will in the future. Now would be the time to do this.

I won't ever completely abandon this aspect of my studies, but there are others areas which are much more interesting to me; primarily in Patristic theology and the doctrine of justification. At some point this will become the focus of what I do my writing and podcasting on.

And to be perfectly honest, much of the reason that I am ready to move on is that, quite frankly, I'm tired. It's no secret that the Reformed internet community can be quite vicious. (This is the case of course with any internet community) I can only have these arguments for so long before I need a serious break. I simply can't deal with people telling me that Lutherans are Arminians, that I deny sola fide by being sacramental, or that I must be a heretic because I can't say with absolute certainty that the Pope is going to hell. Perhaps I will come back to this later in life, but one can only take so much of these types of hostile discussions.

For all who have been such a huge support as I have written on these topics, I want to say thank you.

Response to James White on Limited Atonement

Response to James White

On today's program, I continued my refutation of Limited Atonement by responding to a lecture on the issue by Dr. James White. James White is a Reformed baptist theologian, apologist, and elder and the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries.


There were some issues with the sound, and my voice was sped up in some places. For someone who does Podcasting and blogging, I am not very technologically savvy, so I apologize for that.

Refutation of Limited Atonement Part 2

On today's program I got back to the discussion of limited atonement. I primarily dealt with 1 John 2:2 and discussed John MacArthur's comments on the text which are used to support limited atonement. Here's the program.

I am still looking for financial contributions if you are able.

Some Problems with Covenant Theology

If you have done any study of covenant theology, you are probably aware that the Hebrew term berith and the Greek term διαθηκη are translated as "covenant." In Reformed theology, covenant is the primary hermeneutical grid whereby all of Scripture is understood. Thus, the relationship between Adam and God is a covenant (though never stated with the possible exception of Hosea 6:7), the relationships with Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David are covenantal, as well as the New Covenant. It is even argued that the persons of the Holy Trinity have an eternal covenant among themselves (the covenant of redemption).

As a Lutheran, I have often been asked how we understand the concept of covenant. Is it an overriding theme of Scripture? It of course can't be denied that it is a concept used in Scripture. Yes, God makes covenants. I think that Meredith Kline's work in demonstrating to continuity between ancient Suzerainty/vassal treaties and the structure of the Mosaic covenant is helpful. But this leads me to an important question. Is covenant the overriding concept of Scripture, or is it God's way of interacting with people in a culture that had a prominent emphasis on covenants? Is God accommodating himself so as to interact within the current cultural milieu? I think the latter may be the case.

Look for example at how the New Testament speaks of covenant, using the term διαθηκη. There isn't a lot of talk about the New Covenant, at least not in those terms. Yes, we are people of the New Covenant in fulfillment of the prophecy of Jeremiah 31. Yet, the concept of covenant is not used within the same suzerainty/vassal context that it is in the Old Testament. Look at how the concept is used in Hebrews 9,

"Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." (Hebrews 9:15-22)

The theme of this text is not covenant in the Old Testament context, but a testament or will. Because of the context in which the term is placed, it really is better translated as testament than covenant. The argument he makes is not in relation to any type of suzerainty/vassal or royal grant Hittite treaty, but the concept of a will and testament. In a will, one assigns all that they have to certain people. This only takes effect once one dies. In this way, Jesus willed us to have his righteousness, life, and eternal inheritance. It is only through death that this will is enacted.

Notice also, what this testament is connected to in the New Testament:

"And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." (Luke 22:20)

The Eucharist is the new covenant. It is through the sacrament that the gifts of Christ are given, where what he has left in his will for us is administered. It is here where the inheritance is given to those who partake in faith. This, I think, is where covenant theology gets it wrong. The New Testament doesn't have much information about the church as a covenant community, or about the sacraments as covenantal ratification, or any of the other language prominent within Reformed federal theology. In the New Testament, the new covenant isn't really a covenant at all (in the sense usually understood), but is a testament. And that testament is the Eucharist.

I was once much more positive about covenant theology than I am now. I do think that there are some valuable insights from many of these covenantal writers (Kline, Horton, Vos, etc.) but ultimately, I think that one theme of the Old Testament becomes the overriding theme of all of Scripture. The attempt, for example, to place Biblical inspiration in a covenantal context is far fetched and not exegetically tenable.

This Week's Podcast: Why Limited Atonement is Wrong

I spend the entire program discussing limited atonement, primarily dealing with the books of 1 Timothy and 2 Peter. Here's the program.

This Week's Podcast: Covenant Theology and Romans 9

On today's program, I answered a couple of listener questions. First I talked about the use of the term "consubstantiation" and why Lutherans don't use it, and then I answered a question about covenant theology and the Lutheran law/gospel hermeneutic. I then continued our discussion of predestination, looking at Romans 8 and 9. Listen here.

This Week's Podcast: The NPP and Unconditional Election

On the third episode of the Just and Sinner podcast, I discussed the content of my upcoming book, answered a couple of listener questions, and then continued the discussion of Calvinism with the doctrine of unconditional election. Listen here.

Some Thoughts on Mercersburg Theology

I have recently been reading a lot on the "Mercersburg Theology" which arose from conservative Presbyterian theology in Pennsylvania in the mid 19th century. The two primary proponents were John Williamson Nevin, and the noted church historian Philip Schaff. The main thrust of Mercersburg theology was the quest for a reformed Catholicity. This was promoted through the use of historic liturgical practices and a recovery of the sacramental theology of John Calvin.

The most important book written by Nevin titled "the Mystical Presence" defends a view of the Lord's Supper which proposes that their is a real partaking of Christ mystically through faith in the Eucharist. Though negating the Roman Catholic and Lutheran insistence on the local presence of Christ's human nature, Nevin argues against the popular Zwinglian Princeton approach to the sacraments that one partakes of the whole person of Christ through the sacrament. This partaking involves the mediating work of the Holy Spirit, wherein mystically the Christian is raised through faith to partake of Christ's whole person. This act offers and brings forgiveness to the recipient.

Nevin's view of the Eucharist is heavily dependent upon his insistence that salvation is both legal and ontological. Integral to salvation is mystical union with Christ. This goes beyond the legal/covenantal union that many propose, and approaches the real-ontic union idea of Mannermaa. For Nevin, the benefits of Christ cannot be separated from his person. Thus, the benefits of redemption involve mystical union and participation in Christ which is exemplified in the Eucharist.

Another emphasis of the Mercersburg theologians was the insistence that salvation comes through the church. The strict visible/invisible church distinction of Hodge personalizes faith to such an extent that participation in the external church becomes almost a matter of preference, being separated from an individual act of faith which occurs apart from the ecclesiastical community.

There was a lengthy debate between Hodge and the Mercersburg theologians which would ultimately determine the future of the Presbyterian tradition in America. Hodge viewed Christianity as essentially adherence to specific doctrines, thus the purity of the church depended upon its acceptance of correct doctrine. Nevin and Schaff argued for a more organic view of the church, wherein the Christian faith is not centered in doctrine but life. This does not mean life as in moral transformation as in Ritschl, but the life of Christ and the eschatological life that he communicates through his person. Thus the church as an organic institution continually grows and becomes more sanctified. In the minds of the Mercersburg theologians, this would hopefully eventually result in the reunification of the church: Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, and Reformed.

Ultimately, of course, the Mercersburg theologians were on the losing side of the debate. While Nevin's historical work regarding the Eucharist far outweighed Hodge's for a purely symbolic understanding, it was ultimately the Princeton tradition which would define Reformed theology in America.

I find it fascinating that there was (and remains) a movement toward catholicity within the Reformed tradition. I find this encouraging, but ultimately I don't believe that Reformed theology can solve the desire for catholicity. Nevin's emphasis on the incarnation as the paradigm for church life is correct, but ultimately cannot be sustained on Reformed principles. The Zwinglian principle that "the finite is not capable of the infinite" negates the possibility of a true Reformed catholicity. An incarnation-centric theology like that of Nevin and Schaff ultimately cannot stand within the Reformed tradition. To do so is to deny the central principle which divided the Lutheran and Reformed branches against one another. If you deny this principle, can you still be said to remain Reformed? I don't think so. It is not surprising to me that the Puritanical/ Princeton type of Reformed theology has been predominant. Attempts such as the Mercersburg movement and the Federal Vision movement to strike a balance between the two positions is impossible. Consistency ultimately must lean one toward Lutheranism or Princeton & Puritan theology. Either the finite is capable of the infinite or it isn't. There is no middle ground on this essential issue.

The Lutheran Approach to Perseverance and Apostasy

I have finished another article on the Lutheran view of perseverance and apostasy.

Shipwrecked Faith: A Lutheran Approach to Apostasy and Perseverance.