Christian Piatt, father, son, and holy heretic has a list of the top 25 Christian blogs. I had never heard of Mr. Piatt until a couple of the historians I follow mentioned him.
I went to the list, mind you, not expecting to see Old Life since the skepticism and sarcasm here qualifies for the most part as sub-Christian. But I was curious to see what might qualify. This caught my eye (boy did it — see below) at number 13:
13) Sarcastic Lutheran: Nadia Bolz-Weber’s writing convicts me. And I doubt that she’s trying to do that. But that’s what happens. Her humility and love (and occasional sass) challenges my life and faith.
Now if you go to the link, you get here with a big page-not-found message. So I searched for Nadia Bolz-Weber, hoping to see some of that sass for which I so enjoy Lutherans. And what I found was eye-opening (image above).
Bolz-Weber’s home page is all about her, her tatts (apparently), and her next speaking appearances. But alas, no sass. I suspect the ELCA sucked it all out of her.
B-W’s home page does take you to her blog. Any sass there? How’s this?
Today we just got to hear that awesomely weird story of when Jesus casts a legion of demons out of a naked dude and into a herd of pigs – pigs who then throw themselves over a cliff and drown in a lake. It was this story that made my friend heather post the following question on my Facebook Page: “Dear Nadia. How can I get on board with Jesus when so much pork was wasted in the lake?”
– Signed, A bacon-loving ChristianWhich I guess means that the demon possessed pigs diving off a cliff and drowning in a lake story is one that vegans and bacon lovers can unite around.
Perhaps. But she never resolves the question of bacon:
Bottom line: Who cares. I don’t think demons are something human reason can solve. Or that human faith can resolve.
I just know that demons, whether they be addictions or evil spirits, are not what Jesus wants for us. Since basically every time he encountered them he told them to piss off. And here’s the thing: the authority to do just this – the authority to face what tell us lies, to face what keeps us shackled, to face what keeps us out of control, alone and in pain and tell it in the name of Jesus to piss off is an authority that has been given to us all in baptism. Baptism is as radical as exorcism. So remember our reading from Galatians: For as many of you who were baptized in Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female (gay nor straight)
Which means, you dear people of God are clothed with the one whom demons fear. Claim it. And tell those demons to piss off. In the name of Jesus, Amen.
Luther would not have avoided the earthiness of the original question (and he did not even wear tatts).
Old Life 
If you have enough time to read these 25 blogs go pack a bag, kiss the wife and cat goodbye, and drive 9 hours to my place and play golf for a few days. Heck, you can even bring them along.
LikeLike
D.G. – “I went to the list, mind you, not expecting to see Old Life since the skepticism and sarcasm here qualifies for the most part as sub-Christian.”
Erik – Now what kind of all-of-lifers would that make us?
LikeLike
Central Iowa is a microcosm of everything out there in evangelicalism. Meet Father Tattoo:
https://www.facebook.com/FatherTattoo/timeline
LikeLike
“… he told them to piss off….”
The last time I heard that expression (mind you it was almost 50 years ago) was from a Canadian. She must have Canuck roots.
LikeLike
George, “piss off” is also used in the 48 states, or at least the NE and MW. And I vaguely recall a Monty Python character in drag saying it.
LikeLike
MM,
I’ll refrain from bringing up his pedigree. Enough skeletons in my own closet…
LikeLike
Yup, he was a Sunday School student of mine. But he was not involved in The Bear Story so it’s not my fault.
Cue Sean 3, 2, 1…
LikeLike
But this is my kind of Lutheran satire…which is ironic.
LikeLike
That explains a lot. Children deal with fear in different ways, but in a case such as this, they would likely lack the experience to filter such acute trauma, and would probably act out by cutting, self-mutilation(tattoos), engaging imaginary friends(FB), and embody alters(actors-spoken word) and otherwise are forever damaged remedially such that they become children in adult bodies. These symptoms are often visited upon those, who though having not been traumatized actually, will nevertheless experience a similar trauma vicariously due both to the hearing of the incident/incidents and being forced to be in the vicinity and under the care and guidance of the perpetrator. Good job.
LikeLike
Let me confess all to you Father Sean: he’s studying to become a minister in the [dramatic pause] . . . P.C.A. I’m a bad, bad man
LikeLike
Bastage! Better hope I never inhabit the ecumenical committee. “What? The OPC’s in Iowa are struggling with severe inbred greeter ministry problems? What? Visitors fear the polyester and clip ons? What? They’d like to join a church with a pulse that has more than one visitor a year?”
“Tell you what, we’ll do it on one condition…”
“Somebody get me that lifetime ordained RUF minister over at Our Lady Of Lost Causes formerly reformed now Anglo-Catholic making it up as we go along community college. Tell him we got that guy/girl in Iowa who traumatized a bunch of their kids, yeah real DB, anyway, tell Father Potato Head to bring his carrot peeler and a bucket. We’ll lay this cat out, strap him down and start peeling back his skin till he squeals. What? Yeah, he can bring all the children of the ‘bear kids’ who attend over there, hopefully we can break the pattern.”
LikeLike
Q: How many lawyers does it take to roof a house?
A: It depends on how thinly you slice them.
LikeLike
That Lutheran satire is great. Now if we can only get them straightened out on TULIP. I’ll share a foxhole with them most anytime, though.
LikeLike
MM, thank you very little for that. Father Tattoo will probably have his own church planting network and clothing line soon. And a booth at the next PCA GA.
“We are a mostly “Reformed” band of rebels coming from a variety of backgrounds including the PCA, OPC and even Calvary Chapel. We are not pastors and this isn’t your typical Christian Radio. We let our guests do the teaching and we ask questions (and so can you via chat or by calling in). What makes our show unique is that we have an unlikely variety of hosts consisting of a tattooed freak, a video game geek, an Asian that’s chic and a producer that tweaks (the levels on the soundboard).”
http://arebelscause.com/
LikeLike
Erik, the Lutherites have more problems than just a couple points of soteriolology. Worship and sacrament is generally a train wreck with them. I’d like to think we have more in common with them the evanjellyfish, but I can’t forget that Calvin put worship on equal footing with doctrine. And if he was right…
LikeLike
I’ll check that satire tonite, Erik. I bet I could golf with a LCMS..
LikeLike
These elca types really make things awesome for us In the lcms. You have the pcusa, so I imagine you can relate. But back to Roman Catholicism, what’s the deal with them having all their ecumenical dialogue with the Lutherans who don’t believe what Lutherans teach? Not that we could really move past “the power and primacy of the pope” but it does strike me as odd.
LikeLike
“Here in the Midwest, we all have long memories of suffering and pain, because, for one thing, winter is so long, and when finally it gets warm and beautiful as it is now, finally (the last ice went out last week) we try to relieve these painful memories of cold, of neglect, of suspicion, darkness, anger, Bologna sandwiches, stupidity, butterscotch pudding (we try to heal ourselves by subjecting ourselves to intensely pleasurable experiences) mindless pleasure in the sun while wearing as few clothes as possible (sand, air, water, sun, grass, gin) but we were not brought up to experience pleasure. It doesn’t register on us. It’s like trying to write on glass with a pencil. We get into as few clothes as possible and the sight of ourselves depresses us. Sunlight makes us gloomy. We are not Mediterranean people. We’re Lutheran people. Even the Catholics up here are Lutheran. And I don’t like to generalize about Lutherans, but one thing that’s true of every single last one of them without a single exception is that the low point of their year is their summer vacation.”
(Garrison Keillor)
LikeLike
Funny stuff, Zrim. I’d be lucky if a Lutheran would stoop to golf with a Presbyterian. At least, my kind of Lutheran…
LikeLike
DGH —
Funny enough she is arguably a disciple of yours. Nadia Bolz-Weber preaches mainstream Protestantism by explicitly segregating Christianity from Republicanism i,e. mainstream emerging church type doing missional Christianity to the disgruntled. So for example, “my preaching is for people who know the difference between American cheese and cheese”. Or mocking evangelical Christianity’s sectarianism:
Q: Is your new friend Suzy a Christian?
A: No she’s a Methodist.
She is putting into practice the idea of two-kingdoms by making it clear to her audience that Protestant Jesus is for Democrats too. The tattoos, the cursing, the clothes… are all part of the her shtick of trying to separate out the two kingdoms in a context. Presenting the mainline church as an alternative. I’d call her emerging church both theologically and culturally so what she might represent is the emerging church having been rejected by evangelical Christianity aligning itself with mainline denominations.
LikeLike
AB, golf was invented in the land of Presbyterians. The stooping would be all theirs.
LikeLike
Christmas is a holy day that the early church fathers invented because they were in competition with the Roman religion. One thing Christianity lacked was a big feast, and the Romans had one toward the end of December, Saturnalia, so the Christians established Christmas, sort of like one chain putting up a store right near its competitor. It doesn’t have so much to do with Jesus as it does with business, and it’s been a big hit” the number of people celebrating Saturnalia and offering sacrifices to the gods has really diminished.
The Puritans weren’t into Christmas, knowing how shaky it was theologically, and the holiday was brought to America by the Dutch. It was in New York that Christmas became American with the invention of Santa Claus. It was in 1820 that Clement Clark Moore, living down in Chelsea, which was uptown then, coming home in his sleigh with the Christmas turkey, got the idea to write a poem for his children, “A Visit from St. Nicholas,” which a friend of his copied down and sent to a newspaper in Troy, New York, which published it without attribution. Mr. Moore was a professor of Hebrew and Greek at the seminary down on Ninth Avenue and Twentieth Street, and he had no wish to go down in history as the author of light verse, though of course he did.
His poem gave us a picture of Santa Clause that was new and American. The Dutch version was less jolly: Sinterklaas came on Christmas and put cinders in the stockings of bad children. Professor Moore took out the judicial element and made him a sort of jolly uncle who brings you whatever you want no matter what. And the cartoonist Thomas Nast drew the picture of him as a rotund fellow with rosy cheeks and a big grin.
The Norwegians had never seen him as jolly either. They believed in the Christmas elf, the nisse, who was mischievous if not actually malicious and who came around on Christmas Eve. You had to leave him a gift of rice pudding, because it was he who would decide whether you had good luck or not so good. The nisse didn’t bring gifts; he got them. He tasted your rice pudding, and if it wasn’t creamy enough or if it was too creamy or if there weren’t enough almonds in it, he wrinkled up his face and the next week you had a terrible earache, and the week after that a tree fell on your garage, and then your dad went in for prostate surgery. You had to learn to make rice pudding the way the nisse liked it. Otherwise, your life would be rotten. And if you made a great rice pudding, sometimes the nisse out of pure meanness would make your toilets back up and get the IRS to call you in for an audit, and you’d open the door to find Mike Wallace and a cameraman filming. The stock would go down. Your newsboy would sue you because he tripped over the hose. You’d get your water tested; it’s got lead in it. One thing after another. All because of the pudding.
Some of us feel that this is truer to life than the idea of a fat man coming down the chimney and giving you all of your heart’s desires. It’s no wonder Clement Moore didn’t want his name put on his poem—he was embarrassed by it. He was a theologian; he knew he had created a commercial legend that would help sell things and that would cause disappointment, envy, impatience. What made him do it? It was a nisse who wrote the poem, out of sheer meanness.
Garrison Keillor, “Life among the Lutherans”
LikeLike
And what I found was eye-opening (image above).
We went, we saw and we conclude that the demon of emergent worldliness didn’t get exorcised from the pastrix in question.
Not a bad looking gal, even considering the glasses but what kind of self hatred/madness makes one scribble all over oneself in indelible ink.
We know the pagans do it, but Christians?
Sad beyond belief.
LikeLike
Effective corrective, Zrimmmmm……..
Lates.
LikeLike
Maybe not top 25, Darryl. I still think your pretty good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36BvyC_ODRM
LikeLike
MM, sean, et al –
Oh my! You really want to dig on the PCA (tats and all)? Such low hanging fruit! Why not pick on the OPC, and all her many, many deviations?
I mean, at least in the PCA we don’t make graven images of our theologians. What’s next? A plastic, cigar scented DG Hart statue for my car? Probably. Probably.
LikeLike
@CDH
“Funny enough she is arguably a disciple of yours.”
Strange. I had exactly the opposite feeling poking around over there. It struck me as the mirror image of the Christian Reconstructionist types. Only instead of opprobrium poured out on pinko-left wing-feminazi sympathizers, the opprobrium is reserved for the bourgeois. My understanding about 2k wasn’t that churches should be more balanced in how they handle politics, rather churches should eschew intermeddling in civil affairs except in truly extraordinary situations. Having some congregations advocate for the left and the others for the right aren’t the two kingdoms most of us envision.
How about church being a place to simply worship God and escape the cares of the world for a while – a taste of the Saint’s everlasting rest. Hearing the gospel proclaimed, taking communion, singing, and praying may not be edgy, progressive, or even culturally transformative, but it is a nourishing. I really don’t want to hear about how I’m not writing my congressman diligently enough to oppose abortion (racism), gay marriage (war in Iraq), teaching evolution (immigration restriction), etc… I don’t want to hear about the cause du jour from the left or the right. Imagine the church as a place where people set aside their politics in order to worship. I don’t think churches that baptize left-wing politics are anymore helpful than those that baptize rightwing politics.
LikeLike
@sdb —
I don’t see any indication she’s urging political action from the pulpit. She’s starting with the cultural questions already in place. She talking to people for whom calls to political action aren’t necessary, they are naturally repulsed by Republican politics Evangelical Christianity has become identified with the Republican party every bit as much as 50-150 years ago the Catholic church was identified with the Democrats. One of the things the emerging church was doing was trying to break that.
Take a look at Bob S’s comment above: dressing like a Republican is perfectly acceptable, dressing like a liberal is not. Christianity for him is Republican. That’s the normal position. And arguably it runs very much against the spirit of 2K. If the church is going to be apolitical, I would assume that means that people of all political persuasions join on equal terms. Which means someone has to invite the left.
LikeLike
Nick, ding ding.
LikeLike
CDH, not really. A 2k person actually believes in intolerance in the church, tolerance in society. I’d love to see Nadia try the Book of Concord on her ELCA compatriots. I might even be able to live with the tatts.
LikeLike
Pat, surely the PCA does put its “theologians” on posters, as in TKNY, poster boy, 1995-2020.
BTW, Pat. The artist in question belongs to the PCA. So why do PCAers make graven image of OPCers?
LikeLike
CDH, Nadia doesn’t dress like a liberal. Larry David does.
LikeLike
Pat, you need to buy a copy of “Old Life Insider,” after which you would understand these things. See, Sean, who has a customized torture chamber just for me, is PCA. So I hoped against hope that throwing “PCA” out there might take a little edge off his attack. Wrong, of course. Then, I have been both a PCA and OPC elder (different places) and my church was PCA before it became OPC. Technically, Father Tattoo was Teen Tattoless in a PCA Sunday School class I taught.
So, umm, I trust it’s all clear to you now.
Chortles: glad to be of little service.
LikeLike
I see. She believes in tolerance in both. Good point.
She’s got the non-conformist vibe going on. Besides she attacks capitalism so yeah she’s on the left.
LikeLike
CDH, Reformed-Stellman was a better example of non-Republican 2k than current Bolz-Weber.
LikeLike
CW – Erik, the Lutherites have more problems than just a couple points of soteriolology. Worship and sacrament is generally a train wreck with them. I’d like to think we have more in common with them the evanjellyfish, but I can’t forget that Calvin put worship on equal footing with doctrine. And if he was right…
Erik – But I find Katy so appealing…
LikeLike
Nick – These elca types really make things awesome for us In the lcms. You have the pcusa, so I imagine you can relate.
Erik – We’re related to the PCUSA like Willie Mays is related to Willie Mays Aikens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Aikens
LikeLike
Pat,
You get Harvie Conn since he was all about the city.
LikeLike
I was at Willie Mays Aikens’s first game with the Blue Jays after he had his suspension lifted following his sentencing.
Good to see he is getting his life back on track after his setbacks.
LikeLike
@CDH
“Funny enough she is arguably a disciple of yours.”
epic fail
LikeLike
CW, I could not agree with you more, except I would Lutheranize your statement.
Calvinites have more problems than just a couple points of soteriolology. Worship and sacrament is generally Law and Reason with them. I’d like to think we have more in common with them than the evanjellyfish, but I can’t forget that the Lutheran fathers put Divine Service on equal footing with doctrine. And if they were right…
I will not extend the right hand of fellowship, but I will high five you for recognizing the branches of the Reformation as NOT basically two flavors of monergism (although we are of course both monergists). It’s frustrating to talk to Reformed who say we’re Roman, or Reformed who say, “We’re basically the same, what’s the big deal? You’re being sectarian!”
FWIW, (BoC) Lutherans take proper worship very seriously. We just reject RPW as unBiblical (or what do my RB relatives say? “Extra-Biblical.”)
I know y’all do not recognize feast days, but since today is the anniversary of St. Augustine’s birth into blessed eternity, my husband and I plan on raising a glass to him and the beautiful, comforting doctrine of Predestination. I won’t be offended if you wait until the 29th to toast him 🙂
(Wine would be more appropriate than beer to toast a 4th c. North African, right?)
LikeLike
DG,
A metaphorical poster, sure. I’ll grant you that PCA folks tend to fetishize our living people more than the dead ones.
Erik, the OPC is all about the city too.
We’ll share, Harvie.:-)
LikeLike
Take a look at Bob S’s comment above: dressing like a Republican is perfectly acceptable, dressing like a liberal is not. Christianity for him is Republican.
Huh?
In the words of sdb: epic fail.
Tattoos are not clothing. They are generally present among pagan savages who wear no clothing, if not indeed tattoos are inherently pagan regardless of all the Christian tattoo artists in your phone book.
LikeLike
OK. make that Kent.
LikeLike
OK, I can sense a fire fight warming up, but the best thing out there on the difference between Lutheranism and Calvinism on worship is H. Davies The Worship of the English Puritans.
Luther/Anglicanism consider worship and the government of the church to be adiaphora, Calvin and the puritans considered them to be jus divinum/divine rule.
Of course if you divide the Ten Commandments in the same fashion as Rome and the First swallows the Second as the whale Jonah, the RPW is hardly kosher.
Knox termed the remnants of Roman worship as the dregs of AntiChrist and Lutheranism would do well to continue the reformation, not only in doctrine, but worship and government.
After all, Christ is not only the prophet, but also great high priest and king of his church.
LikeLike
Katy, cheers. And maybe beer would work. The Egyptians invented it, after all.
LikeLike
I went to the list, mind you, not expecting to see Old Life since the skepticism and sarcasm here qualifies for the most part as sub-Christian.
As the warrior children say around here, ding ding. But keep trying at least for wit, if you refuse to bear the burden of sincerity.
When you’re neither sincere nor witty, let me assure you that that’s just a total drag. Aim at least for one or the other. When the man says “in the peace of Christ,” I take him at his word. He might be full of it, but reading your exchanges, when you slap him he offers you the other cheek as well.
Still monitoring yr progress occasionally, as promised. Hi, Darryl. Rock on. The rest of your posse, not so much. I think their uncritical support makes you weaker, not stronger.
LikeLike
Wow. Tatts and Sas. She’s so relevant. She almost persuadest me to become a Lutheran. Unfortunately, she was beaten to the punch by Pope Francis who was so relevant that he CAUGHT THE BUS!!!! What a crazy, anti-establishment dude he is. After those antics I was Compelled to Communion.
LikeLike
In Lutheran theology, worship is not adiaphora, although the order of service may be. We expect to be singing God’s Word (Kyrie, Agnes Dei, Nunc Dimittis, Sanctus, Psalms, other Biblical canticles), feasting on the Lamb at the banquet (Holy Sacrament), and proclaiming his Truths (doctrinal hymns, Scripture readings, the proclaimed Gospel of Jesus Christ in the sermon) forever in heaven. Our salvation is already purchased and we are already citizens of the City of God; divine service is already a foretaste of the heavenly service. I think I’ve recommended this before, but Heaven on Earth by Arthur Just is a great book for understanding our liturgy, and why the reformers kept so much of the service.
[As for the first commandment swallowing the second, I’m fine with my children memorizing all eleven (add Ex 20:2 and make it twelve).]
I believe we’re the only tradition that holds church government to be adiaphora, no? I don’t have a personal conviction on that. Do Reformed (as the Romanists) include right government as a true mark of the Church? Are Lutherans “playing” church?
LikeLike
Nick, I wonder if Francis will ever don a suit and tie.
LikeLike
Katy – open your Book of Concord and go to Appendix C, “The Saxon Visitation Articles – 1592”. I hope I’m not going to offend Scott Clark by including the following excerpt from the Heidelblog of a few years ago, but he used these Articles as a reference point to compare Lutheran and Reformed doctrine in response to a blogger’s question. Read through it and then maybe we can dialog a little better about some of your P/R v. Lutheran assumptions:
“….. An English translation, by Charles P. Arand, of the Saxon Visitation Articles of 1592 is published in Kolb, Nestingen, eds Sources and Contexts of the Book of Concord. He writes that they are rooted in the 1574 dismissal by Elector Saxony, August, of theologians (Pezel and Peucer) whom Arand calls heirs of Melanchthon who were false accused of being crypto-Calvinists (crypto = secret). On the accession of Christian I (1586), there were Reformed theologians in the circle of influence. Christian I abolished the authority of the Book of Concord and removed adherents from positions of authority. On his death, the son was too young to rule so the regent, Duke Friedrich Wilhelm, restored Lutheran orthodoxy. (A similar struggle would occur in the Palatinate). The Visitation Articles are part of the reimposition of Lutheran orthodoxy in electoral Saxony.
We might call these the 4 Points of Lutheranism. Each Article has a rejection of errors (like the Canons of Dort).
Art. I is aimed at the high Calvinist doctrine of the supper, which the Article reflects accurately — that, as Calvin held, we eat the true body and blood of Christ, by the mysterious operation of the Holy Spirit, who nevertheless remains ascended and locally present at the right hand. Article 1 insists on his local presence and oral manducation (chewing) of the body and blood by the communicant.
Art II affirms the union, in one person of two distinct natures, denies their mixture and their separation. Nolo contendere.
2.3 is more problematic:
“On account of this personal union, it is correctly said–and it is so infact andin truth–that God is a human being and a human being is God, that Mary gave birth to the Son of God, and that God redeemed us through is own blood.”
I don’t object to anything there except the proposition: “God is a human being.” Certainly God the Son, the Word, became flesh. No one can deny that, but the bald statement “God is a human being” seems unnecessary. I think this is the first I’ve seen this proposition. It wants reflection and research.
2.4 re-states the gnesio-Lutheran doctrine of the genus maiestaticus. See ch. 5 of Caspar Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant for more on this.
Art 3.1 teaches that baptism “washes away our sins.”
3.2 says that baptism “saves us and effects in us righteousness and cleansing from sins, so that whoever perseveres in this covenant and confidence unto the end is not lost but has eternal life.” This strikes me as essential the doctrine of the Federal Vision! They are the “Lutherans” on baptism and covenant. This is not exactly Luther’s doctrine of baptism in the Small Catechism (1529).
4.1 affirms the universal intent of the atonement. This is problematic for Reformed theology and was rejected in the second head of doctrine at Dort.
4.2 teaches a form of the free offer
4.3 Might be taken to affirm resistibility of grace. It’s unclear.
4.4 seems unobjectionable,
“All sinners who repent are received into grace, and none are excluded even though their sins were as scarlet, for God’s mercy is much greater than the sins of the entire world, and God has compassion on all he has made.”
In their rejection of errors (“False and Erroneous Doctrine of the Calvinists” — the adjective “Calvinist” is a gnesio-Lutheran invention; the Reformed called themselves “Reformed”) they do caricature the Reformed view of the supper. They accuse us of reading figuratively what is meant to be taken literally.
2. “In the Supper, there are only bare signs. The body of Christ ias far from the bread as the highest heaven is from the earth.”
That’s not quite accurate. Yes, Jesus body is locally present in heaven, he being consubstantial with us, but we are lifted up by the Spirit and there commune with him and are fed by him on his “proper and natural” body and blood. The local distance is overcome by the Holy Spirit. The supper is not a bare sign unless one says that any denial of Lutheran orthodoxy makes it a “bare sign.” We are not Zwinglians.
3. We do say Christ is present in the Supper with his power and efficacy but not his body. They get that right. They’re close in 4-5. They mock us. It is not “faith” that lifts us up to heaven, but the Spirit who feeds us on Christ. 6. Is accurate. We deny the manducatio infidelium (eating of Christ by unbelievers).
On Christology
They’re account that the Reformed believe that “God is a human being” and “a human being is God” are figurative is mystifying. We certainly confess that a human being is God. That’s not “figurative.” Where they got that I’ve no idea.
Their claim that the communion of the human with the divine is only rhetorical must assume the Lutheran doctrine of the communicatio otherwise it’s nonsense from a Reformed point of view.
They have it that we say “It is impossible for God, with all his omnipotence to cause the natural body of Christ to be simultaneously present in more than one place.”
That’s not quite right. We don’t say that it is impossible, but rather, if that were so, Christ’s humanity would cease to be true humanity. It’s not a matter of the power of God but of the nature of Christ’s true humanity.
4-6 under this head essentially caricature the Reformed Christology. They completely ignore the person and role of the Holy Spirit in our theology. One might accuse them of binitarianism.
They say that we confess that it is idolatry to “place confidence and faith of the hear in christ not only according to his divine nature but also according to his human nature and to direct the honor of adoration toward the human nature.”
Being Chalcedonian, we would direct the honor to the person rather than to the humanity. To divide the humanity from the divinity thus is foreign to our theology. They must assume a sort Nestorian view and impute it to us.
On baptism, they are right in points 1, 2. That baptism is a sign and seal. They are right that, in Reformed theology, only the elect receive the grace of Christ or the gift of faith. We are not federal visionists, but apparently orthodox Lutherans are (on baptismal union with Christ and perseverance).
They’re right, we deny emergency baptism. We accept it as irregular but it is unnecessary since baptism isn’t magic.
They’re right that we baptize infants on the basis of the covenant promises and commands of God and not in order to regenerate (make alive).
On election:
They’re right, we deny a universal intent of the atonement.
They are wrong, however, to impute to all Reformed folk a supralapsarian view or a view that “God created the greater part of humankind for eternal condemnation and he is unwilling to have them converted and saved.” We don’t know, confess, or teach any such thing. There are extremists who call themselves Reformed who say such things but we do not.
They’re right that we confess the perseverance of the saints (which these articles deny).
They deny the doctrine of reprobation but they seem to assume that we think we know who the reprobate are.
Fascinating stuff. Bizarre in places but fascinating …”
LikeLike
Nick,
If we keep watching Francis may even try to plug in an electric car somewhere.
LikeLike
George,
I was responding to Bob S’s “train wreck” comment and addressing our differences in doctrines of worship. I have read BoC several times (we go through it every couple years in Sunday School). The heidelblog analysis is very consistent with my Reformed relatives’ response and my own understandings of our disagreements, although Idon’t get the frequent references to the FVists. They seem irrelevant to the discussion.
I was replying to Bob S’s flippant comment with more of the same, but you do right to go the source. Apologies for using “Calvinist”–but the definition of Reformed is different for every person I talk to (not being snarky). Maybe we can go back to Protestant and Evangelical, respectively (when the current American evangelicals become extinct).
Btw Bob, I’m fine hearing our worship practices are wrong, in error, or even blasphemous. But a lot of folks seem to think the reformers just lost steam, or were sidetracked by Melanchthon (he’s our whipping boy, too), or had sentimental reasons for keeping the old order of service, minus a sacrifice and petitioning the dead. Not saying you think those things, but that’s impression I got and what I was responding to.
LikeLike
Katy, I’ve said none of those things, but as reformed (and also ex RC) I find lutheranism to be lacking in principle when it comes to worship and government. You no like. Well sorry about that, but these are the standard disagreements between the reformed and lutheranism – beyond George’s comments – so what’s the beef?
The RPW is the G&N consequences of the Second Commandment or whatsoever is not commanded – explictly, by approved example or G&N consequences – is forbidden in the worship of God.
Luther seemed to stall when it came to anything past justification by faith alone. Granted Karlsberg was hasty and went about cleansing the church of idolatry in an abrupt and radical fashion, but to spiritualize everything/resist K’s agenda because of his tactics does not strike me as principled. IOW the brunt of the Second commandment is ignored because it is subsumed in the First according to the Roman division of the law.
Likewise the P&R understand jus divinum government to consist of the rule of a multitude of counselors, elders teaching and ruling in a consistory/session and consider bishops unscriptural, though they have been tolerated in times past. As per Luther’s comment, he could put up with the pope if the pope preached the gospel. Beza and Calvin had nothing per se against evangelical bishops, merely that there was a better and more apostolic way, i.e. presbyterianism or rule by many elders. That’s all.
LikeLike
Thanks for your more detailed response, which I can accept (“lacking in principle” is more specific than “train wreck,” although now I can interpret the latter with the former) I know about the ordering of the commandments in our catechism, but I disagree that subsuming = ignoring. We agree to disagree.
“Beza and Calvin had nothing per se against evangelical bishops, merely that there was a better and more apostolic way, i.e. presbyterianism or rule by many elders.”
I have never heard this before. And this sounds pretty Lutheran to me (with a “better and more apostolic way” changing according to how Scripture and history are read—some say episcopal, some say congregational). So the Reformed would NOT say church government is a mark of the Church? Just a mark of being Reformed? (again, not snarky, just inquiring…)
Thanks for the clarification.
LikeLike
Also, Bob, thanks for bringing up Heidelblog. I read a lot of Clark when my (then RB) husband and I were dating, but had forgotten about some of the articles. Good stuff. The comments on this thread are particularly apt
http://heidelblog.net/2009/12/differences-between-lutheran-and-reformed-orthodoxy/
and I appreciate the folks here at Oldlife correcting my assumptions. Have a good weekend all! I have vats and vats of cukes to pickle (or at least gallons).
LikeLike
Thanks for yours Katy, but I must demur and point the accolades/cannons elsewhere.
George brought up the HB and cough, da Chort (aka Chortles Weakly) brought up train wrecks.
(But if you flatter the latter on his hat, of which he is quite proud, he might repent. Emphasis on “might”. I rather think you will be waitng a long time at that train crossing.)
LikeLike
Bob, you need a good hat when you’re a lone voice who wanders the worship wilderness calling on presbys to act like presbys at 11 am on Sunday mornings. Be nice to Lutherans, appreciate them — just don’t worship like them.
LikeLike