Carnival Entries Due Tomorrow

We’ve a new host in the Lutheran Carnival’s rotation. Please welcome Michael P. O’Connor by submitting some good Lutheran blogging in accord with the guidelines and before the Friday deadline.

The Garden of Eden

Q: Where is the Garden of Eden? Does anyone really know where it is? If so, how do they know it’s the Garden of Eden?

Even though the Bible mentions the rivers it sat among (Genesis 2:10-14), no one knows exactly where it was. The garden itself no longer exists since whatever may have remained of it after the expulsion of Adam and Eve was certainly destroyed in the Flood. Even the rivers that are named may be totally different from those on the earth before the destruction of the flood. They may lie in the same general area, but they do not have a common source, as did those streams named in Genesis.

If you’re looking for Eden — or what has replaced it — you should be looking to Christ as your Savior. For in the resurrection, we will inhabit a new paradise even more excellent than the one from which our first parents were expelled.

The Tree of Life sat in the garden before the Fall, a promise of eternal bliss with the Father. When man sinned, God barred him from the tree, lest he live forever in evil.

However, Revelation notes a similar tree prepared for those who believe in the Lord. Jesus Himself promised, “To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God. (2:7)” Just as a river flowed from Eden, so the “river of the water of life” flows forth in the new kingdom and “on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. (22:1-2)”

Scripture quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: Garden of Eden | Eden | Adam and Eve | tree of life | heaven | paradise | river of the water of life | river of life

Two Wines? Too Much!

Regular readers know that I rarely respond to others’ challenges, even if they’re made public. Doing so prevents trimming my backlog of unanswered questions and also risks generating more heat than light or accidentally allowing my reply to descend to a personal level.

Still, however, several people have asked either me or my wife if I had anything to say about a letter published in the 21 June Concordian (the local newspaper which carries Ask the Pastor) about my column from three weeks ago on Communion Practices. Any typos, including sentence fragments and reference to an incorrect verse from 1 Corinthians are reproduced as published. I don’t know if the errors belong to the paper or to the letter writer.

In response to Pastor Snyder’s article in the June 7 issue of The Concordian where he stated regarding communion “what’s in the cup should be wine, not grape juice. The latter was unknown in Jesus time since no means of preserving unfermented juice existed.”

That statement is not correct. Bible Wines, a book written by William Patton in 1871, mentions two very simple methods, boiling and filtering, which were known and practiced in the first century. Several other practices were also in use to preserve the juice of the grape without producing an intoxicating beverage.

Though the word may be translated “wine” in the Bible, one has to determine the original meaning, not just the modern day usage. The word “wine” is a generic term.... Just because “wine” is interpreted as alcoholic in one place, it does not mean it is in all.

Jesus, in harmony with the Passover, used unleavened bread and unfermented “fruit of the vine” Mt. 26:29. Fermentation requires a leavening agent the use of any leaven would cause one to be cut off from the house of Israel, Exodus 12:15.

Pastor Snyder also uses a wedding as an example of the apparent binding aspect of the Lord’s Supper and it’s not being just a remembrance of Jesus’ crucifixion. But, Jesus himself said it was to be in remembrance of Him, Lk. 22:19. This is a memorial service, not like a wedding that does anything. It should cause one to examine oneself 1 Cor. 11:27 [sic; s.b. 11:28]. One becomes “bound” to the Lord by believing, Jn 8:24; repenting of sin; Lk. 13:3; confessing Christ before men, Mt. 10:32; and then by being baptized for the remission of sins, Acts 2:28; 22:16.

Unfortunately, doing full justice to the letter writer’s challenge would involve many, many pages. Therefore, I’ll only highlight a few things and then leave it up to you, the reader, to decide whose opinions are substantiated.

The gentleman who wrote the challenge is associated with the churches of Christ, which grew out of the American restoration movement of the 1800s. These churches generally deny the Christian creeds, treat Holy Communion as an ordinance but not a means of grace, practice a believers’ baptism for the remission of sins, and have other theological and practical distinctions varying sharply from most of Christendom.

Let’s address the first challenge, my assertion that wine, not grape juice should be used in communion. While I disagree with the writer, I thank him for introducing me to Patton’s Bible Wines, a book holding an exalted status among many abstinence advocates. Unlike many old volumes, Bible Wines is in publication and I quickly found it through online book sellers. Additionally, I discovered countless web sites and internet forums where Patton is regularly and religiously quoted, usually by those wanting to remove all traces of alcohol from our diet.

A reader’s review at Amazon.com notes, “I almost feel that I wasted my money, but at least I have documented proof that the ‘Two Wine Theory’ is completely absurd.... Much of the material for this book (originally published in 1874) came from two articles (‘Bacchus’ and ‘Anti-Bacchus’) which were thoroughly refuted in 1841 by John McLean in the April and October issues of the Princeton Review.” As the aforementioned reviewer notes, Rev. McLean went into considerable depth debunking Patton’s claims — some thirty years before Patton made them!

I also followed the review’s suggestion and searched the web for the “two wine theory.” A staple among many involved in prohibition and temperance circles, it follows the same reasoning as does the letter writer, claiming that the Bible knows of both alcoholic and non-alcoholic “wines.” Since space doesn’t permit a detailed response, you’ll have to take me at my word that I spent much of my day off investigating the claims and counter-claims.

A summary of these sites and other areas I researched reveals, among other things, that the “boiling and filtering” mentioned by Patton actually aid good fermentation. The steps are designed to purify and concentrate ingredients in order to produce a stronger wine with less chance of it deteriorating into vinegar due to bacterial invasion.

Prohibitionists such as the letter writer make much of the different Biblical words translated as “wine.” Most reputable Bible scholars put these down to regional differences, loan words from different cultures, varying time periods, differing methods of preparation and fermentation, and, of course, whether or not the wine had been kept and aged or was being drunk fresh.

The comments about “leaven” and the Passover probably need a bit of clarification, also. The writer mentioned that yeast and any “leaven” — or its final products — had to be removed before Passover. Even if this applied to the beverages and not just the bread — and Exodus 12:15 cautions against anyone who “eats what is leavened (emphasis added)” — grapes normally need no added yeast in order to begin fermentation. A natural yeast grows on their skins and fermentation actually begins even while the grapes are still being crushed. Furthermore, by the time fermentation is complete, the yeast is killed by the very alcohol it creates! Whatever the case, even the most law-bound orthodox Jews use alcoholic wine in Passover celebrations to this very day, so they mustn’t consider it as a “leavened” food.

Readers so inclined will be able to similarly spend hours reading everything from scholarly studies to crackpot claims involving a number of Hebrew and Greek words from Old and New Testaments. You can “test the spirits” of all those who’ve weighed in and see for yourself who sounds like an extremist and who seems to be in line with both the clear word of Scripture and evidence from history, archaeology, and biological science. If you have access to any Bible dictionaries, concordances, or encyclopedias, whether in books or on software, I encourage you to investigate instances where various types of “wine” appear in Scripture. Search any resources not published by extreme sectarian sources and you’ll find that all those words used for wine and strong drink indicate potable alcohol, not juice.

Where will you end up? That depends in part upon your thinking when you start. If you think that the Bible supports a narrow, restrictive Christianity based as much upon moralism as grace, you might find yourself agreeing with Bible Wines. If you view any drinking of alcohol as a great moral evil, even in the context of Holy Communion, Patton’s claims will probably fuel your desire to remove all use of wine in church.

However, if you already believe that Scripture recommends moderation in employing all of God’s gifts, you’ll likely align yourself with the opponents of Patton. If reading the Bible indicates that Jesus made wine (John 2:1-11), drank wine (Matthew 26:29), and imbibed often enough to be called “a drunkard (Luke 7:33-34),” then Bible Wines will certainly reveal itself to be (at best) an amusing curiosity or (at worst) a skewed and wrong-minded interpretation of Holy Scripture.

Of course, I still must meet the more serious challenges of the writer, such as his denial of the Biblical Christian doctrine that the Lord’s Supper is more than just a memorial meal. I agree with the writer that it is “in remembrance of Him,” but fail to see how he ignores that it is also what Jesus says it is: “This is my body ... this is my blood. (Matthew 26:26-28)” The Supper doesn’t only talk about what Jesus did. It is, as Paul wrote, a true communion, “a participation in the blood of Christ [and] ... the body of Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:16)”

I cannot fathom such people completely denying that drinking the blood of Christ in Holy Communion grants “forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:28)” The writer seems only to want us remember that we are forgiven by remembering that Christ died for our forgiveness. Meanwhile, I read Scriptures telling us that we receive what Jesus says we receive — His body, His blood, His forgiveness, His new covenant — “as often as [we] drink it. (1 Corinthians 11:25)” Indeed, making the Lord’s Supper into nothing more than a memorial betrays an ignorance of the full meaning of Greek and Hebrew words usually translated “remember.”

The letter writer concludes by suggesting that we come to Christ and are “bound” to Him by “believing” (John 8:24), “repenting” (Luke 13:3), “confessing Christ” (Matthew 10:32), and “being baptized for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38; 22:16). All of these things are of Scripture. However, we cannot mix or mis-order human responses with God’s forgiving work in us. Whether by spoken Word (only), or the Word active in baptism’s water, what God does to forgive, cleanse, and renew us must precede any God-pleasing and edifying actions on our part.

We cannot “believe” unless the Holy Spirit moves us so to do. We cannot “repent” of (turn away from) sins and turn toward Christ unless He is active in Word and Spirit, moving us in this direction. We cannot “confess” Him unless He lives within us, giving voice to the confession. The gentleman who opposes the position of the Holy Christian Church of using wine in the Sacrament should follow his own advice regarding 1 Corinthians 11:28 and examine himself for signs of moralism, legalism, and attempting to make a new law out of the Supper’s wondrous Gospel.

I further recommend that he and like-minded individuals should carefully study the surrounding verses, as well. Paul never rebuked the Corinthians for what they were eating drinking, but how they ate and drank: “One goes hungry, another gets drunk. (11:21)” How were they getting “drunk” if they weren’t already using alcoholic wine — a beverage that Paul did not condemn?

Continuing the topic of examination, along with clearly seeing ourselves as sinners in need of forgiveness, Paul also noted that we need to examine the content of the Supper, namely the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Anyone eating and drinking without regard of self or the nature of the Supper “will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. (11:27)” That the body and blood are truly present and not merely piously “remembered” is clear from verse 29: “Anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.” This discernment is vital, as verses 30-34 make clear. Life and death — perhaps eternal life and death — are the stakes.

Note: Previous posts mentioning wine and Holy Communion include Alcohol in Holy Communion and Communion Wine.

Scripture quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: Holy Communion | Lord’s Supper | Communion | alcohol | wine | Bible Wines | William Patton | leaven | fermentation | churches of Christ | Campbellites

Getting Saved

Q: What steps do I have to take to be saved? I started going back to church about two months ago. I go every Wednesday and Sunday and I am learning more and more about God. I want to give my self to the Lord and would like to know what I can do to free myself of all past sins and get God’s forgiveness.

A: While only few of instances are recorded in Scripture, Jesus and his disciples likely were regularly asked variations of your question.

We know that after hearing the message at Pentecost, many “were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’ (Acts 2:37)” Likewise, the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas, “What must I do to be saved? (16:30)”

Without exception, the answer was something along the lines of, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, (16:31)” or, “Repent and be baptized. (2:38)” If you are already baptized and if you believe in Jesus as your Savior, you not only are saved, but you also have saving faith and, in Baptism, have God’s holy Name placed on you and His claim staked on you.

The only people upon whom the Lord imposed the doing of works as a condition of salvation were those who truly thought they could save themselves. For example, the rich young man of Matthew 19:16-30 thought he was living a good life, yet valued his possessions more than a full faith relationship. Therefore, Christ added the burden of the full weight of God’s Law: “Jesus said to him, ‘If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.’ (v. 21)” This crushed the young man and “he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. (v. 22)”

Similarly, in Luke 10:25-37, a “lawyer stood up to put [Jesus] to the test, saying, ‘Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ (v. 25)” The Lord asked him what Scripture said and the man replied that wholehearted love for God and loving neighbor as self were what the Law demanded. Interestingly, Jesus said, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live. (v. 28)”

However, Christ knew that perfect obedience was impossible and obviously anticipated the lawyer’s next move: The man, “desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbor?’ (v. 29)” Jesus replied with the Parable of the Good Samaritan, stretching the lawyer’s concept of love for neighbor far beyond anything he’d ever imagined and concluding by telling him, “You, go and do likewise. (v. 37)” So it is for us — whenever we think we can justify ourselves or earn an inheritance, we discover God’s perfect Law always demanding more than we can do in order to achieve the perfection necessary for eternal life.

Therefore, I hesitate saying that you “must” believe or even that you “must” be baptized, since Baptism and saving faith are both gifts from God. Your very desire to be more completely in harmony with the will of God testifies to the faith the Holy Spirit has created in you through the Gospel of forgiveness. Wanting to “give” yourself to Christ indicates that He has already “taken” you through His Word and Spirit.

Likewise, you are already free of past sins which you’ve confessed to God, for all sins which He forgives He also forgets. If your sins are already placed upon Jesus, they no longer exist. Often, Christians prove themselves much better at forgetting the good and remembering the bad much better than is God. We recall sins that God has completely forgotten.

However, if you’re not sure whether your sinful past is forgiven, one simple task remains. Give God all your sins and trust in His word of forgiveness for Christ’s sake.

This is where those churches and pastors who practice and encourage individual confession might benefit the Christian. Instead of merely voicing our sins and trusting God to answer, we hear His words of forgiveness spoken by the pastor He has called to feed His flock and to forgive their sins. As Jesus said to His disciples, “If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld. (John 20:23)” He also told those called to preach the Gospel, “The one who hears you hears Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me, and the one who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me. (Luke 10:16)”

The rest, as they say, is mere detail. As you realize more fully that you are saved and (re-)discover the magnitude of God’s love for you in Christ, you will be moved even more to reply in worship and in life. This is not you “doing” your salvation, but is the heartfelt response of a formerly lost sheep whom the Shepherd has already found and saved.

So let’s return to your initial question: “What steps do I have to take to be saved?” The simple answer is, “Not one.” Christ has taken all the steps, coming down from heaven, assuming human flesh, living a perfect life, dying a sacrificial death, rising again from the grave, forgiving all your sins, and calling you to be His own. As you remain God’s redeemed child, He will create and sustain in you the desire to “confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead.... For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. (Romans 10:9-10)”

This confession doesn’t save us in and of itself but rather testifies that we possess saving faith So worry not that you haven’t done enough or said enough. The apostle continues his encouragement by reminding us that “Scripture says, ‘Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.’ ... For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ (vv. 11, 13)”

Scripture quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: salvation | justification | Law | Gospel | forgiveness

The Presentation of the Augsburg Confession

As a Lutheran pastor and theologian, especially since I began writing Ask the Pastor, I continually receive questions about my church: Who are we, where do we come from, what do we believe? Since we Lutherans have a very special remembrance this Sunday, I thought this a good time to share a bit of our history and teaching.

In 1530, our Lutheran forefathers made public proclamation of a new summary of the ancient Scripture truth: Mankind is justified by God’s grace through faith in Christ Jesus. They set forth this notion in a religious document affirmed by secular rulers. Written by Philipp Melanchthon, approved by Martin Luther, and signed by princes, dukes, and other civil leaders, the Augsburg Confession was presented to Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, on 25 June AD 1530.

Some thirteen years of activity preceded this gathering. Many Lutherans (and a considerable number of non-Lutherans) date the beginning of the Lutheran Church to Martin Luther’s posting of the Ninety-five Theses on the Wittenberg church doors on 31 October 1517. However, when he did this, he considered himself a faithful son of the Roman Catholic Church. When ecclesiastical leaders resisted debate and discussion, defending doctrines and practices Luther considered Biblically indefensible, his efforts for reform increased and others began following his lead.

By the time the Charles declared a diet (an imperial assembly) in Augsburg and summoned German princes and free territories to explain themselves and their “new” religious convictions, almost ten years had passed since Luther had been excommunicated by Rome and subsequently declared an “outlaw” by the empire. His theological understanding had grown, his differences with Rome and its papacy sharpened, and few of his followers believed that the possibility of reconciliation existed.

Still, they came to Augsburg — or at least some of them did. Luther’s ruler, John “the Steadfast” of Saxony, forbad Luther to attend, fearing he would be arrested or killed outright. When Melanchthon sat down to compose a statement of belief for the Evangelicals (evangelical means “of the Gospel”), he based the document on the Torgau Articles, written by Luther with input from a number of other theologians.

After completing an early draft, he sent it to Luther, who made a few suggestions but approved of its overall content. Some of the other religious leaders added their ideas and “Master Philipp” put it all together into a statement of Evangelical belief, citing supporting Scriptures and quoting the Church fathers to show that what was written was no novelty but was fully supported and attested by Holy Writ and the orthodox theology of the ancient Church.

This wasn’t what the emperor wanted. He desired peace, unity, and an organized resistance against Islamic Turks who were invading Europe. Instead, a group of the empire’s foremost leaders, including some responsible for the election of emperors, affixed their names to a document claiming that much of what the emperor believed was wrong and stating that his church misunderstood, obscured, and misapplied much of the Gospel.

When the German leaders wanted to make a public reading of their articles of faith, Charles first denied them. He then shifted the venue into a small chapel where no spectators would hear. On 25 June 1530, Saxon chancellors Bruck and Beyer brought German and Latin copies of the document into the room. Although Charles objected, the German copy was read aloud, then both copies were given to him. He kept the Latin, giving the German to his chancellor, probably because he barely understood the language spoken by a large number of his subjects.

From this time forward, the Evangelicals (later to be known as Protestants and Lutherans) were clearly distinguishable. The leaders had made a confession — not that they had done wrong, but rather of what they believed to be right. Perhaps the 95 Theses had announced the beginning of the end for the medieval Church but it wasn’t until Augsburg, when rulers and theologians and rulers publically clarified their ongoing and irreconcilable differences with Rome, that we see what we might term a distinct Lutheran Church.

As the Evangelical movement spread, the Augsburg Confession became a test of Evangelical fidelity and a sort of “constitution” for Lutheranism. In some ways, we might draw a parallel from American history, where the Declaration of Independence set in motion events which culminated in the United States Constitution and the federal republic it established.

After Holy Scripture, the Augsburg Confession is the “heart” of the Lutheran Church. Based on Luther’s writings and in accord with his teaching, it also bears the mark of the gentler, more refined Philipp Melanchthon. It never seeks to be combative but in simple language states exactly what the Evangelicals believed, which Scriptures supported their faith, what beliefs and practices of Rome they thought contrary to the Gospel, and in what areas there was already agreement.

This “heart of Lutheranism” itself has a “heart” — the unmerited but full forgiveness of our sins won by Christ on the cross. The first three articles tell who God is, declare His wrath at sin, and proclaim the incarnation, suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ. In Article IV, we then learn how God fixes all that is wrong in us: “[We] teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Romans 3 and 4.”

How does this salvation come to us? Article V says, “That we may obtain this faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ’s sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ’s sake.”

The Confession continues by defining the Church in terms of the Gospel, condemning anything that obscures the Gospel or devalues Christ and detailing changes implemented by the Evangelicals to correct doctrinal abuses. It invites the reader (particularly Charles V) to see for himself that the Evangelicals had not tossed out any babies with the dirty bath water, but had kept any and all practices, ceremonies, and teachings that were not contrary to the Gospel.

Other statements of belief, ranging from the ecumenical Christian creeds of earlier centuries to other Lutheran documents of the 1500s, joined the Augsburg Confession in Concordia, the Lutheran Book of Concord (Agreement), in 1580. Just as a handful of thoroughly convinced public leaders signed the Augsburg Confession, so a large number of rulers and town council members joined in the initial subscription to Concordia. Meanwhile, over 8000 pastors and theologians had already become subscribers to the Formula of Concord, the summary confessional document in Concordia.

To this day, in The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod, every pastor, teacher, and congregation pledges wholehearted agreement with Holy Scripture and with the entire Book of Concord, including the Augsburg Confession. This follows the practice of solidly Lutheran bodies around the world.

Of course, some always find disagreement with Biblical dogma and may try to weaken the force of a doctrinal statement in order to include a wider confessional range within its teaching. This happened with the Augsburg Confession. Philipp Melanchthon, as previously noted, was gentler and more conciliatory in nature than many of his contemporaries and wanted to expand Evangelicalism to include the followers of John Calvin and others and, perhaps, also extend olive branches to Rome. Furthermore, since he’d written the Augsburg Confession, he seemed to think of it as his own, a document he could change to suit circumstances rather than a fixed exposition of Lutheran theology.

Melanchthon developed several alternate texts, the most noted being the Variata of 1540. It so weakened communion theology that John Calvin could accept it in good conscience. Therefore, later confessional Lutherans learned to specify that their subscription was to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession (UAC), not to the Variata. That is why many Lutheran cornerstones here in the United States include the initials UAC, as an expression agreement with the document presented on 25 June 1530.

Those who call themselves “confessional Lutherans” continue subscribing (signing on) to its theology because they believe that the creeds and confessions of Concordia are true expositions of Holy Scripture. These do not supplant nor supplement God’s Word; they merely focus on particular teachings in an orderly fashion.

We sometimes speak of Scripture as the norma normans (ruling rule) — it defines and establishes all doctrine. The Augsburg Confession, as are the other creedal statements, is norma normata (ruled rule) — it draws its entire content from Scripture. In other words, Concordia “rules” in confessional Lutheranism because Holy Scripture “rules” the creeds and confessions.

Because of this, confessional Lutherans practice quia (because) and not quatenus (insofar as) subscription: We agree with the Lutheran Confessions because they agree with Scripture, not insofar as they agree. In other words, we don’t pick and choose which of Concordia’s doctrines we will uphold and which we will deny. Instead, we believe that since all of the theology of the Book of Concord is the theology of God’s Word, all of Concordia is suitable for the tasks of teaching the Church, reproving false doctrine, correcting behavior, and encouraging the saints.

Augsburg Confession quotes public domain from the Triglot Concordia of 1921 as found at The Book of Concord Online Edition.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: Augsburg Confession | UAC | Unaltered Augsburg Confession | Formula of Concord | Philipp Melanchthon | Diet of Augsburg | Lutheran | Reformation | Lutheran Reformation | Martin Luther | Book of Concord

Love, Law, Flesh, and Spirit

Q: How do you love your brother? Do we commit sin? Are we in the flesh or in the spirit? Are we under the Law? What is the Law?

A: To love your brother is to be your “brother’s keeper, (Genesis 4:9)” loving him by doing what is best for him in all circumstances, even if it puts you at a disadvantage. You speak well of him, stop any gossip, and take an active concern in his physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being. Since “love covers a multitude of sins, (1 Peter 4:8)” you don’t dwell on any of your brother’s sinful behavior — you confront it (face to face whenever possible) as you are able but never talk about it with others or bring it up again after it has been forgiven.

The Law itself is all that God commands or forbids in human thought and behavior. To think, speak, or act otherwise is sin. We all sin, even if it’s “only” not loving God with every fiber of our being and trusting absolutely in Him for everything.

Sinners are under the Law. Redeemed Christians are free from its power. Since we are both sinner and saint, the Law corrects and reminds us when we are wrong and guides our decision-making and actions as we respond to God’s love for us.

The Law always accuses us, the Gospel always forgives us. Paul writes in Romans 10:6-10 about both parts of this relationship we have with God: “To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.”

Therefore, as we give in to temptation and indulge in sin, we are of the flesh. As we acknowledge and confess our sins, receive God’s forgiveness for the sake of Christ, and desire to love Him wholeheartedly and love our neighbor as ourselves, we are of the Spirit.

Pietro Novelli painting Cain and Abel from the Web Gallery of Art.

Scripture quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: love | brotherly love | Law | Gospel | flesh | Spirit | Holy Spirit | Law and Gospel | love covers a multitude of sins

A Beggar’s Carnival

Pastor Alex Klages of A Beggar at the Table hosts Lutheran Carnival 26. As is our carnival custom, he also introduces an un(der)known Lutheran, Robert Barnes of England, martyred under Henry VIII.

Father’s Day Reminiscences

Last Father’s Day was too soon — Dad had just died the previous month and his death was too close for me to celebrate his life and my place as his first-born. After a year and change (and encouraged by The Terrible Swede’s celebration of his dad) I decided to spend a few moments and write a few words in my father’s memory.

Dad was “old school” in a number of ways. He loved his kids but it took him a few years of practice to learn to show the affection he had. For much of his life, it seems that he was underappreciated (and probably under-compensated) as a parish pastor. Yet he went about preaching the Gospel and loving his congregations as long as the Lord allowed him to live.

My Grandpa Snyder was a cabinetmaker; from him, Dad learned a fair bit of carpentry and woodworking. He also knew plumbing, truck driving, and any number of other manual skills. We kids helped him add a bedroom, a bathroom, and a carport to the parsonage in Gallup, New Mexico. He and I bought a couple wrecked pickup trucks for $50 each — we combined them, did some cutting, drilling, welding, and scrounging of parts, and I had college transportation for under $200.

He ran cattle off and on for years, breeding his cows to help feed his kids. He put food on the table by hunting and fishing — including a spell where he shot coyotes for the bounty money. Yet as “rough and tumble” as he could appear when doing these things, he always was cleaned-up and slicked-back when preaching or visiting the sick.

He could be tender, too. He brought a goose home one fall, to fatten it up for our Christmas feast. However, my brother Paul and I developed an inordinate fondness for that hissing, biting, obnoxious creature and would have been horrified to eat it. The goose “disappeared” late that December and we ate “turkey.” When we were older, he told us the story and we could scarcely forgive him — because we were laughing so hard.

I thank him and mom for continuing to introduce new foods into our diet. Sauerkraut, chili, and curry all rotated through our menu. Whenever a local grocery store had a special on some exotic fruit, Dad brought some home. While others may have been stuck only with apples, bananas, and oranges, we discovered mangos, papayas, guava, et al.

Dad was sort of the Will Rogers of the dining table: He never met a food he didn’t like. Because we learned such catholic dining habits, even foods I didn’t experience as a child, I’ve been willing to sample as an adult. From kimchi to escargot and calamari to raw oysters — even if I didn’t like it (e.g., escargot in cream sauce), now I know, I didn’t just refuse to try.

During it all, Dad continued to learn, study, and grow intellectually and theologically. He left the parish in 1980 to complete his Masters in Sacred Theology and then earned a Doctor of Theology from Concordia Seminary, Saint Louis. He spoke fluent German, good Spanish, passable Navajo, and could muddle his way through Italian, French, Russian, and several other languages.

Was he a polymath — a Renaissance man? I’m not quite sure how deep and broad one’s accomplishments must be in order to earn the title. He was a man of God, a faithful pastor, and a mission-minded Christian who could “do evangelism” better in a supermarket checkout line than most specially trained “experts” could manage with prepared home visits.

In Michigan, he planted demonstration gardens so urban kids could see where their food came from, then welded prize-winning sculptures for the county fair. He could sew by hand or machine. His reading ranged from Cicero, Homer, and Scripture (in the original languages) to Louis L’Amour.

He modeled honesty, dedication to the task at hand, and hard work. He never figured that he deserved any of God’s blessing but he thanked the Lord for the gifts he received, then invested that treasure in his life, his family, and his church. Firmly convinced that confessional Lutheranism provided the clearest and best exposition of Scripture and the Christian Faith, Dad wrote instruction materials for adults and young people, including a Christ-teaching Navajo coloring book for which he provided both words and pictures.

I thank God for Dad. Through my earthly father, I learned of my heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ. He and Mom catechized us from infancy onward. We knew our prayers before we knew what most of the words meant and could quote Scripture and Catechism before we could read. I miss him as much this Father’s Day as I did the last, but I’m more at peace with his passing.

Perhaps his congregations and his synod sometimes underappreciated him — I know I was guilty of that, especially in my youth. He would have told you himself that he was but an unworthy servant. But he forgave me my underestimating (and under-esteeming) him and I grew to know, understand, and cherish Dad.

The next time I see my father, he won’t be suffering the effects of age and emphysema, looking like he was “rode hard and put up wet.” He’ll be completely remade in the image of the Savior he struggled to serve. Now, thanks in part to his faithful witness, I’ll a day will come when I also will be able to leave behind my flaws and failures and join him in perfection of body, mind, and spirit forevermore.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: dad | father | Father’s Day | Walter W. Snyder

Supporting Your Pastor

Q: Can you give Bible verses to our church on taking care of our pastor’s physical and financial needs? He doesn’t have a job other than being a full time pastor — there when we need him, teaching and preaching very well, faithful to the church and the Lord.

A: The Small Catechism includes a “Table of Duties,” — a series of Bible references gathered by Martin Luther on various subjects touching on the Christian life. I’ll list the verses he cites on pastoral and congregational responsibilities and offer a few comments.

In the section called, “To Bishops, Pastors, and Preachers,” Luther used the following verses:

“An overseer [bishop] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive. (1 Timothy 3:2-4)” Just because your pastor is not to be a “lover of money,” there is no reason to deprive or short-change his income and ability to support and protect his family.

“He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:6)” This doesn’t only protect the pastor from “condemnation.” It also serves to keep out of the ministry to the congregation one who hasn’t grasped the fullness of God’s Word and matured in doctrine and practice.

“He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:9)” The second part of this may trouble us since receiving God’s reproach — in any form, including through His pastors — often is difficult for us to accept. Truly, it may be hard even to “settle” for the “sound doctrine” when churches elsewhere are caught up in felt needs, emotionalism, and doctrinal laxity. The “fun” some other churches may be having makes a solid and faithful pastor (and the Word he preaches) seem dull and boring by comparison.

Luther followed this section with “What the Hearers Owe Their Pastors.” Here we see the view from the pew instead of the pulpit:

“In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the Gospel should get their living by the Gospel. (1 Corinthians 9:14)” Unless there are special circumstances, this makes it clear that God intends congregations to fully support their pastors in all financial areas. And lest one think that Paul is trying to “line his own pockets,” remember that he regularly refused such support for himself so no one would think that he was making converts in order to enrich himself. However, it’s clear from his writing that neither the apostle nor the Holy Spirit intended the practice to be normative for all pastors everywhere.

“One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches. Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. (Galatians 6:6-7)”

“Let the elders [pastors] who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages.’ (1 Timothy 5:17-18)” I thank God that it’s a rare time when the proclamation of the Gospel is drudgery , such as threshing wheat or performing “slave labor.” Still, if one feeds his ox or pays his employees, how much more do we offer the one who feeds us God’s Word, the Bread of Life, who pours the Living Water, and who regularly offers us the body and blood of Christ Jesus in the Lord’s Supper?

In all of these passages dealing with financial support of the Gospel ministry, we don’t see so much the idea of a “salary,” where one is paid to perform certain tasks commanded or requested by a congregation or its members. Instead, a faithful congregation looks to “compensate” its pastors so they do not need to seek outside employment which would take away from their time spend preaching, teaching, praying, and studying God’s Word (cf. Acts 6:1-4).

“We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13)”

“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17)” This reminds us of the awesome responsibilities that sit upon our pastors’ shoulders.

Faithful pastoral leadership is not domination, but lovingly speaking the correct word of God at the proper time, confronting, forgiving, and forgetting sins, and doing everything possible to shepherd each dear lamb from this earth to the heavenly pastures. These last two passages don’t deal specifically with finances, although adequate compensation should be part of the “esteem” and “love” shown as we “submit to them.”

The fullness of these verses is plain: When a pastor preaches and teaches according to God’s will, his congregation is commanded to “obey” him in matters spiritual. These passages don’t demand blind following of tyrants, but open-eyed, rejoicing respect and deference to those who preach the Word in its truth and purity and who faithfully administer the Sacraments.

Scripture quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: pastoral compensation | Lutheran | pastors | congregations | obedience | Small Catechism | Table of Duties

Changing Towns, Changing Churches?

Q: I’ve been Lutheran all my life, raised my family Lutheran, and demonstrate a strong presence in the Lutheran Church and community as a spiritual and religious Lutheran women. My husband was transferred to a small southern town where 90% of the town attend the main Baptist Church. I feel the need to be baptized Baptist and join this church to help me fit into the town and participate in church groups and functions. My husband will not be baptized Baptist but has agreed to attend the church with me but still support the Lutheran Church. Is this a spiritually shallow approach to religion? I know once we get transferred out of this town and return to the North, I will resume Lutheran practices. How does the Lutheran Church feel about this?

A: I probably have a good idea about the place you’re going. My first call from seminary in Saint Louis was as pastor serving two small Lutheran churches in Jasper and Woodville, Texas. During my time there, our family lived outside of the religious “mainstream.” When asked our beliefs, we usually didn’t get technical; most only wanted to make sure we weren’t a cult and were satisfied knowing we believed in the God-man Jesus Christ as our Savior. At work, my wife learned to paraphrase the Apostles’ Creed — its simple words were enough to convince most questioners that we were, indeed, “Bible-believing Christians.”

As we lived in Jasper, we “fit into the town” well enough without attempting to believe or worship contrary to Biblical Lutheran teaching. When we didn’t exactly match others’ ideas, we still firmly believed that the first place we wanted to “fit in” was in practicing what we believed was true to God’s Word. The differences we had didn’t keep us from serving on the local Boys & Girls Club board of directors or prevent me from becoming an officer in the Jasper Lions Club.

You speak of your own feelings, saying, “I feel the need to be baptized Baptist.” You also ask about the Church’s feelings: “How does the Lutheran Church feel about this?” Feelings are certainly a part of our makeup, but they can shift and change so easily that they make fickle guides at best. In matters of faith, we do better to let Scripture (and intellect) lead our emotions rather than following our feelings and then trying to find Biblical, logical justification for our actions.

As a corporate entity, of course, Lutheranism cannot have feelings. However, individual Lutherans — both clergy and laity — probably would have strong feelings about your proposed actions. An active, vital faith often prompts powerful emotions.

Compare your desire to fit in with Paul’s response to Peter: “I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest ... acted hypocritically along with him.... But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile ... how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?’ (Galatians 2:11-14)” Was Peter “spiritually shallow”? He knew and believed one way. Yet when a majority taught differently, he went along with them.

If you grew up a well-instructed, worshiping Lutheran, you’ve long confessed “one Baptism for the remission of sins (Nicene Creed).” You’ve believed that the Lord’s Supper “is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine. (Small Catechism)”. No mere memorial, ordinance, or demand of the Law, Holy Communion is an active participation in Christ’s body and blood and it truly forgives our breaking of the Law’s demands.

You ask about being “baptized Baptist” — how is the Christian Baptism you already received in any way deficient? Wouldn’t being “rebaptized” say that we don’t believe that God accomplished in our “first” Baptism what His Word says He does: “He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things.... (Titus 3:5-9; emphasis added)”

Lutherans teach that in Baptism, God makes us “fit into” His family the Church by forgiveness and adoption. He chooses us — we don’t choose either Him or a particular community of believers. He says, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:2)” Sometimes “this world” includes living among of professed Christians who nevertheless believe and practice differently than we’ve learned from Scripture. Do we “conform” or does His transforming Word compel us to walk a sometimes less-peopled path?

Going through with this change joins you with a body that officially denies baptismal regeneration and Christ’s real presence in Holy Communion. If Baptism is “not because of works” but is God’s action “by His grace,” what does it mean to accept another “baptism” in order to fit in with those who believe that it is primarily human obedience to a divine rule?

If you already have children, what will it mean to tell them that their baptisms were not valid because they received it as infants? If children were to be born while you’re down there, would you withhold this life-giving washing from them until you were back in a church that believed it was the right thing to do? And if Christ is really present in the Supper, will you pretend He isn’t?

Imagine your home congregation receiving a new member who moved from another part of the country and had grown up Baptist. Suppose she went up front after going through instruction class and heard your pastor ask this question from the Rite of Confirmation: “Do you confess the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, drawn from the Scriptures, as you have learned to know it from the Small Catechism, to be faithful and true?” If she didn’t agree with what she’d learned, should she answer, “I do,” in order to fit into your largely Lutheran community?

Can you set aside those things you grew up believing were Scripturally true or allow them to make no difference during your time spent away from the Lutheran heartland? Consider what you were taught, what you believe, and — most of all — what God’s Word says. If you believe like a Baptist, then become a Baptist. If you believe like a Lutheran, then remain a Lutheran.

For further reading, you might also examine Lutheran and Baptist Compared (Briefly).

Scripture quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: Holy Baptism | Lutheran | Baptist | Baptism | infant Baptism | believer’s baptism | Small Catechism | Apostles’ Creed | Nicene Creed | church membership

Communion: Symbolism, Real Presence, and Sacrifice

Q: Do Lutherans believe Communion is a symbolic recreation of the Last Supper or is Christ considered to be truly present? If so, is it considered a re-sacrifice of Christ?

A: Our church confesses belief in Jesus’ words: “This is My body ... this is My blood.” Therefore, we consider Christ to be truly present — not in some vague, spiritual fashion, but in His own body and blood. How He accomplishes this miracle, we leave to Him; we accept that He does. While we don’t treat the service as a “symbolic recreation,” we still eat and drink “in remembrance” of Him. Yet because we believe that we actually receive Christ’s body and blood, our remembering is no mere intellectual exercise, but actual participation in His suffering, death, and resurrection.

We teach that the Lord’s Supper is not a re-sacrifice. Sacrifices are offered in order to receive forgiveness. Scripture tells us that, “He has no need ... to offer sacrifices daily ... since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. (Hebrews 7:27)” Sinners could never offer God a pure and perfect sacrifice — this was accomplished by the sinless Son of God. In Holy Communion, we feast upon that one perfect sacrificial Lamb slain on the altar of Golgotha’s cross.

Scripture quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: Holy Communion | Lord’s Supper | Communion | sacrifice | symbolic | Real Presence | "this is My body" | "this is My blood"

Lo-Ammi, Simony, and Wise Little Things

Q: After our Bible study, we have three weekly questions to answer. Who was Loammi? Who wanted to buy the power of the Holy Spirit? And where does it say there are four things which are little upon the earth, but are exceedingly wise and what are they?

A: Lo-Ammi was one of Hosea’s children by Gomer, the prostitute he married. Hosea 1:2-2:23 tells of Jezreel (“God sows”), Lo-Ruhamah (“She has not received mercy”), and Lo-Ammi (“Not my people”). These were names of judgment pronounced upon God’s rebellious people Israel.

Yet the Lord also promised that He would reclaim His people and would show them mercy in the “great ... day of Jezreel,” when He would sow vengeance upon His enemies and salvation for His own (1:11). As a pledge of His promise, the Lord also said, “I will have mercy on No Mercy, and I will say to Not My People, ‘You are my people’; and he shall say, ‘You are my God.’ (2:23)”

Simon the Magician (Acts 8:9-24) wanted to buy the Spirit’s power. His name remains in the Christian church through the term “simony,” the act of buying religious offices or privileges. Unlike some who persist in such wickedness, Simon repented (v. 24), saying, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.”

Proverbs 30:24-28 provides the answer for your final question: “Four things on earth are small, but they are exceedingly wise: the ants are a people not strong, yet they provide their food in the summer; the rock badgers are a people not mighty, yet they make their homes in the cliffs; the locusts have no king, yet all of them march in rank; the lizard you can take in your hands, yet it is in kings’ palaces.”

Scripture quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: Lo-Ammi | Hosea | Simon Magus | simony | Simon the Magician | four things | small | wise | ants | rock badgers | badgers | locusts | lizards

The Deaths of the Disciples

Q: Can you give me the Scripture for how each of the disciples died? Which one died by stoning?

A: James the Greater (Zebedee’s son and John’s brother) was beheaded at the order of King Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1-3), Herod the Great’s grandson, nephew of Herod Antipas (the killer of John the Baptist), and father of Herod Agrippa II (who heard Paul’s defense before Festus). Saint James was the first of the disciples to suffer martyrdom, and the only one (besides Judas) whose death is recorded in the New Testament. Any accounts other than these belong to tradition, although some appear to be better attested and more likely truthful than others.

For example, tradition says that Saint Peter was crucified upside down because he didn’t want to die facing the same way as his Savior. Saint Andrew is also said to have been crucified, but on a Cross Saltire (an X-shaped cross), thus that is his symbol, white on a blue background. Since he is the patron saint of Scotland, his cross is also the Scottish flag.

Ancient testimony says that John died a natural death in Ephesus at a very old age and after returning from years of exile. Very little is said about the death of James the Lesser while one source claims that Philip died in Hierapolis.

Of the apostles of Christ, the only other one whose death is widely commented upon is Saint Paul, who was not one of the Twelve, but who was called away from persecuting the Church. Tradition claims that he was martyred in Rome under Nero, as Peter also was thought to be. However, since Paul was a Roman citizen, he probably avoided crucifixion and it is widely said that he was beheaded.

The Bible doesn’t record a death by stoning for any of the Twelve. However, Acts 6-7 records the selection of the seven deacons, Stephen’s testimony, and his death by stoning. While Jesus “remained silent (Matthew 26:63)” in order to fulfill prophecies about Himself, Saint Stephen was bold to testify, even though his words sealed his doom. If we make further comparison, we see how closely Stephen’s words as he was being killed mirrored those of Jesus on the cross (compare Acts 7:60 with Luke 23:34 and Acts 7:59 with Luke 23:46).

Scripture quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: Twelve Disciples | Twelve Apostles | The Twelve | death | martyrdom

Without Vision

Q: I think I remember this correctly, that the Bible says, “Without vision people will perish.” Where is this from and exactly what does it mean?

A: The Authorized (King James) Version says, “Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he. (Proverbs 29:18)” The ESV clarifies the translation: “Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law.” This cuts to the heart of the understanding of “vision,” especially when we examine the contrast between the warning in the first and the blessing in the second half of the verse.

Some today take this to mean that the Church and its leaders must be “visionary” and that unless we are dreaming up new and exciting things, we are in danger of harming Christians or of allowing the Church to fall apart. But Solomon wasn’t speaking about such things as “vision statements” or “visionary thinking.” Neither does this passage refer to free-lance dreaming or impromptu reception of alleged messages from God.

Instead, the “prophetic visions” must come to God’s people that they might know His Word and follow His will. Revelations and prophetic utterances from prophets and pastors must be in accord with God’s Word — the existing revelation of His divine will — in order to be considered valid and faithful. Solomon here reminds us that if God doesn’t speak His Word to His people through His called servants, they will forget the Word and will be lost.

Note also that a “prophetic” word is not necessarily predictive, for prophecy involves forthtelling (speaking the truth) more than it does foretelling (predicting the future). This passage also doesn’t mean that new prophesies must continually come to the Church. Rather, we continue to accept those given to others that are now part of Holy Scripture.

Scripture quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles and from the Authorized Version, Public Domain.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: vision | prophecy | vision statement