***ROUGHLY EDITED TRANSCRIPT***



***ROUGHLY EDITED TRANSCRIPT***

CONCORIDA UNIVERSITY EDUCATION NETWORK

AMERICAN RELIGIOUS SCENE

DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL

No. 1.

>> Hello, Dr. Manteufel. My name is Nick. And I am very interested in this course because of the diversity of religious backgrounds which I encounter on a daily basis. Almost every conceivable faith is expressed here in Los Angeles. Even within the same city block one will find surprising variation of belief and practice.

When I speak with people, I'm frequently asked: Does it really matter to which church or religious body a person belongs? I always say yes. But I would be most interested in hearing your comments.

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: Well, as you know, there's a seemingly end number of different religious bodies with new ones arriving all the time. What's the difference between them many people ask. That question may be a simple request for information. But often it expresses an attitude of indifference about denominational teachings.

For example, that it makes no difference what you believe as long as you are sincere. Or that one church is as good as another. But to the confessional, convinced Lutheran, beliefs do make a difference. He or she is aware of the importance of knowing the truth.

The Lord Jesus said: If you continue in my Word, then you will truly be my disciples and you will know the truth. And the truth shall make you free. That's in John 8:31-32.

Saint Paul called for a firm conviction saying we shouldn't be babies any longer, tossed and driven by every windy thing that's taught, by the trickery of men and their clever scheming and error. Let us speak the truth in love. That's Ephesians 4:14-15.

Saint Peter, too, wants Christians to be able to talk intelligently and helpfully about the truth. Be ready always to answer anyone who asks you to explain the hope that you have. But be gentle and respectful. I Peter 3:15.

In the work of the church, in pulpit and altar, fellowship matters, in coping with the problems of life. In mixed marriages. And in seeking hope at the grave, beliefs do make a difference.

Some years ago I wrote an article on this subject in the "Lutheran Witness." And the letters of response to that article showed that people are disagreed about it. For example, one took me to task saying: If the same kind of time and energy were spent acknowledging what we have in common with other Christian churches and working together to spread the Word of our Lord Jesus Christ, it would do a lot more good. But others were very appreciative commenting, for example, that people who are thinking about joining the church of some denomination need to consider what it teaches.

A Lutheran scholar named ***Casper Nervick once wrote a book about religious bodies called "Christian Truth and Religious Delusion" in which he used categories which refer to the mix of truth and error in their traditional teachings. These were the following: The church of truth. And here he put the Lutheran Church. Then bodies with much truth and much error. Here the Catholic churches, that is to say the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.

Bodies with much truth and some error. Here the Reformed churches. Also there are the bodies who have some truth and much error. Here he put Pentecostalism and Seventh Day Adventism. And then you have the bodies with a shell of truth or the terminology of truth but are almost all error. And here he put the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons. Probably all of the religious denominations in this country, though there are thousands of them, could be divided up into these categories which ***Dr. Nervick uses.

As ***Dr. Curt Marcwitt has put it, people argue officially about which is the car or beer or political party. But when it comes to churches, one is supposed to be as good or as bad as is another. So either cars and beers and parties are some things that matter more than churches or else they've done a better job of convincing their followers.

But what churches teach and what church one belongs to is important. For one thing, these differences are real. They have to do not with trifles and not only with trifles like customs and the vestments that are worn by the clergymen or whether the Lord's Prayer is said one way or another but rather they have to do most importantly with actual basics of New Testament teaching.

Is the Bible or the Pope or human reason and science the supreme authority in the church? Or are we saved strictly and only by the merits of Christ or also partly by our own merits or other peoples' merits? Are the sacraments real gifts of grace or just empty pictures which people may or may not use as they please?

To say that such differences don't matter is to say that Christ and his Word don't matter. The main differences are really not too complicated for the average person to understand. The basic choices really are few in number. And somewhat simple.

First one must make a basic choice between Roman Catholicism and eastern Orthodoxy on one hand and the reformation on the other hand. One can make this decision by making a thorough study of the teachings of the Reformation. Especially in the Lutheran Book of Concord and the Augsburg Confession and other such books.

And then there's another basic choice between the Lutheran and the Reformed. That is to say the Calvinists and the Armenian churches. The Lutherans affirm the Bible teaching of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of the altar. And the Reformed deny it. That's a very important question that certainly must be decided by a person in dealing with these matters. But note this, also. The Lutheran Church does not say like the Roman church does: Believe what we say because our organization has God's authority behind it. We say believe what we say not because we say so but because the Bible clearly teaches it. And there's no way of deciding in advance which church will be right. As if any church was to be regarded from the beginning as infallible.

No, that kind of decision can be made only after a church's teachings have been checked against God's Word. And if the average Christian knew as much about his church as he knows about his favorite sports team or pop group, everything would be crystal clear.

The trouble is not with the Bible nor is it a matter of interpreting this or that little text a bit differently. The problem lies in the attitude towards Scripture. There are liberals who say that the Bible makes mistakes and is not really God's Word and all that it says.

Roman Catholics say that it isn't clear or complete and must be subjected to a spiritual higher court. That is to say to the Pope's rulings and interpretations. Those who deny that the words, "This is my body" means what it says, they force the text to fit into a preconceived human idea. Namely, that a limited thing like a body can't become unlimited so that it is present in more than one place at one time.

Christ only founded one church, which consists of all real Christian believers everywhere. But only God can look into a person's heart to see whether he believes or does not believe. And for us, therefore, the church is really invisible. We can only know about our own faith. We cannot look into the hearts of others to know for sure.

To find that invisible church, we look for its God-given marks or signs. That is to say the words and the sacraments which Christ has given to his church. And by these signs the church is created. Because Christ works through these signs with his mighty power to create faith and to bring about new life.

And Christ wants these signs and marks to be kept not just anyhow or in just any way. But to be kept purely. As he says in the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

And he says in Matthew 15:9 about teachers of his day: In vain do they worship me. Teaching for doctrines the precepts of men.

And we've already heard the passage in John 8:31 and 32, Jesus said to the Jews who had believed on him: If you continue in my Word, you are truly my disciples. And you will know the truth and the truth shall make you free.

Saint Paul said in Romans 16:17: I appeal to you brethren to take note of those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which we have learned. Avoid them.

And Paul also said in Galatians 1:8 and 9: But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach unto you any Gospel contrary to what we have taught, let him be accursed. As we have said before also I say again, if anyone is preaching to you a Gospel contrary to what you received, let him be accursed.

So all outward church bodies must be judged according to those principles. That does not mean that the right teaching church by which we mean the Orthodox church is the only saving church as a visible organization or that Orthodox Christians may hate others who don't teach as they do.

Christians certainly owe love and justice to all. But Christ and his Word must always come first. That's the important point. We recognize that all Christians, if they really are Christians, stand upon the Word of Christ. The Word of God.

Some, it is true, stand more firmly on the Word than others. Some stand more completely on the Word than others. And we also recognize that.

Long ago Dr. C.F.W. Walther, the father of our Synod, made this statement. He said: The name church, and in a certain sense true church, also belongs to those visible groups of men who have united under the confession of a falsified faith. And have, therefore, incurred the guilt of a partial departure from the truth. But they still may be rightly called churches provided that they still possess so much of God's Word and holy sacraments and purity that children of God may still be born thereby.

And so what he was saying was that these groups can certainly be called churches in the sense that the Christian church, believers in Christ, can be found in them. And each of these traditions taken as a whole is impure. But it has pure parts in it, though they are mixed with impurities. And so they can be said to contain the marks of the church. And these are what we call the Christian denominations.

CS Lewis was a very different kind of thinker and they'll low January from C.F.W. Walther. But he made a similar kind of statement. And we can also agree with him in what he said. He said this: When all is said and truly said about the divisions of Christendom, there remains by God's mercy an enormous common ground.

He's referring to the common ground that Christians have and what they agree in with one another. And there certainly is such a common ground. Many things that Christians affirm whatever denominations that they belong to, if they truly are Christians.

Now, we of course have good reason for examining and warning against the teachings of other denominations with which we disagree and for declining to unite with them or to commune with them. Nevertheless, the perspective that's stated here by Walther and by C.S. Lewis is very useful with regard to this common ground. Those who are standing on it can learn from each other's words and writings. And can encourage and support one another in fighting common enemies and dangers.

It's possible to have a profitable and edifying conversation with a traditional and yet friendly Roman Catholic like Professor James Hitchcock of St. Louis University who has written this. It says: There are the negative factors of liberal theology which threaten the common core of Christian faith and cause both Orthodox Catholics and Orthodox Evangelicals to discover between themselves much greater unity even across denominational lines than either group is likely to find with liberal members of their own churches, who either reject tenets of their own churches or interpret them in a way that undermine their traditional meaning.

And we could argue, he says, that the real age of ecumenism is just beginning and that the real ecumenical frontier lies not between liberal Protestantism and liberal Catholicism whose adherence has often reached agreement with each other by proclaiming the equal irrelevance of both of their religious traditions. But rather the real ecumenical frontier lies between Orthodox Catholics and Orthodox Protestants who may differ from each other in many details. But who do take their faith seriously. That is each of them do.

The same kind of thing was said by another Roman Catholic writer, James Fitzpatrick, who said this: The essential point to keep in mind is that Catholics and Protestants of a traditional bent have a common ground that's broader than the breach that divides us even though there are many things that divide us. And they have a common enemy. We share the belief that Christ is the Son of God and in a quite literal way. Thank you.

We share the conviction that the gospels record Christ's words accurately and that those words provide the normative wisdom for guiding and living our lives. We stand together against the moderns who tell us that they have found something better.

No. 2.

>> Hello. I'm Eric and my ministry is among thousands of nominal Catholics and Orthodox. I'm pretty sure that neither of these two groups, which I believe comprise the large majority of the world's Christians, would affirm Luther's position of Scripture alone. But what exactly does Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism identify as normative sources for teaching and practice? And why is this matter so important?

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: Eric, you are, indeed, correct that these two kinds of religious bodies make up the majority of the world's Christians. And you are also correct that neither of them accept the principle of Scripture alone or ***sula scriptura as we call it. Both of them hold that Scripture is not sufficient as the source and the norm for the whole teaching and practice of the church. Although they both recognize the authority of Scripture in their traditional teachings.

For Orthodoxy, the normative sources are Scripture and the tradition of the church. That is the teaching of the church handed down from generation to generation. The tradition does affirm the content of Scripture as understood by Orthodoxy. But also the tradition affirms teachings not found in Scripture. That is their claim.

As the well-known and respected statement of Eastern Orthodox faith, the Confession of Dositheus puts it: The witness of the church is not of inferior authority to that of the divine Scriptures. For since one and the same Holy Spirit is the author of both, it is quite the same thing to be taught by Scripture and by the church. The church is infallible like Scripture. That's in Decree 2 of this Confession of Dositheus.

Orthodoxy says that since the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, according to I Timothy 3:15, therefore, the church has the gift of infallibly preserving and interpreting Scripture and the oral tradition. And Roman Catholics also teach that same thing on the basis of that particular text.

This gift of infallibility belongs to the church as a whole the Orthodox say, being exercised when the bishops of the church speak together. The Orthodox consider it an arrogant presumption for the Pope of Rome or any individual bishop to claim infallibility. And so we can see a difference between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics in the teachings that they both have about the infallibility of the church.

Orthodoxy goes onto say that the church spoke as a whole in the seven ecumenical or worldwide councils of the church. Two of these were held at Nicaea in 325 and 787. Three councils were held at Constantinople in 381, 553 and 681. One was held at Ephesus in 431. And one was held at Chalcedon in 451.

The most esteemed Council decree is the Nicene Creed. Apostolic tradition has also been preserved in the writings of church fathers and regional church councils which are distinguished from ecumenical church councils because these regional councils were only councils made up from bishops of a certain region.

And also the apostolic tradition is preserved in the statements of individual bishops and theologians. But these, which I have been listing just now, do not have a guarantee of infallible freedom from human opinion. And therefore, the Orthodox sometimes differ among themselves over statements that were found in these writings.

The Orthodox use these sources to judge the correctness of teachings and teachers. The most famous example is their opposition to the phrase: And the Son, which western Christendom added to the Nicene Creed in the words I believe in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and in the western version the Son.

The Orthodox assert that this phrase "and the Son," filioque in the Latin, cannot be proved from either Scripture or tradition. Western theologians have always argued that it can be proved from tradition. For example, where Paul calls the Holy Spirit the Spirit of the Son in Galatians 4:6.

God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts.

It would be dangerous and distressing if it were really true that Scripture is not complete or not sufficient for all of our teaching and practice. Or that church teachings must be accepted even if they are not found in Scripture. Holy Scripture indicates to us that this is not the case. And that this is not how we are to use it.

II Timothy 3:16 says: All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction and righteousness that the man of God may be completely equipped for all good works.

And in Acts 17 Verse 11, the Christians at Berea are commended because when Paul and Silas came to them preaching the Gospel of Christ, they searched the Scriptures to see if it these things were so. They compared what Paul and Silas were saying with the Old Testament Scriptures. And the prophesies found there.

I referred to the fact that the Orthodox, like the Roman Catholics, are fond of using the words of I Timothy 3:15 in connection with all of this. That's the passage which calls the church the pillar and the foundation of the truth.

But those words mean simply that the Christian church possesses the truth when it uses the Word of God. And that is where the truth is to be found. And as long as it holds to Scripture, then it is, indeed, supporting the truth. Now, Roman Catholicism also claims that Scripture and tradition are the normative sources of teaching and practice.

It says the Scripture and the oral tradition, tradition handed down by word of mouth, by the apostles and passed on by tradition are the apostolic deposit for all teaching and practice. Having been laid down at the beginning of the church's history.

And then church authority continuing up to the present time, is the normative principle for determining and unfolding what is really included in this apostolic deposit at the beginning. That is to say for determining what is in that deposit either in explicit statements or in implications only. That is only in an implied form.

Some Catholic theologians go so far as to say that all Catholic teaching and practice that we now have on the official level can be found in Scripture, if only in the form of implications. Not explicitly said necessarily. But always implied by what is said.

There are others who are not willing to go that far. But who think that some things can be found only outside of Scripture. That is to say in the tradition which is outside of Scripture.

Tradition and the official teachings of church councils and popes then contain truths that are not stated in Scripture, at least not in an explicit way. And then also there's something they call private revelations. And these are used as sources of truth which people are urged and encouraged to obey and to believe. But these private revelations are not considered sources for official teaching. And their contents are permitted and allowed and highly regarded in the Catholic Church. But they are not mandated for people to believe and teach.

The most well-known example of such private revelations is the statements which the Virgin Mary is alleged to have made in Fatima, Portugal in 1917. Roman Catholicism holds that doctrine is to be based on Scripture plus the oral tradition that comes down from the apostles which contains revelation that's not found in Scripture. And that many customs and historical developments are authorized by these oral traditions.

Also Roman Catholicism claims that the church has infallible power to decide what the right doctrines are and which really are the doctrines that are to be found in the apostolic deposit. And as this infallible power is exercised through the church councils and through the statements of popes.

Lutherans disagree strongly with these claims. Because Lutherans contend that all doctrines to be taught must be proved from Scripture. That's the Scripture alone principle. The argument here by Lutherans is that the Old Testament was considered the final norm of teaching by Jesus. And by the apostles. And the same thing applies then to the New Testament, which is a continuation of the Old Testament Scripture.

The Jews claimed that there was oral tradition that was not found in Moses and the prophets and yet was necessary to teach. But Jesus called these traditions the commandments of men which added to the Word of God. You find his statement on that in Mark 7.

And Acts 17 tells the story about the Bereans. And I mentioned this before. The Berean people were called noble because they searched the Scriptures to see if the things being said by the apostles were so.

Every teaching should be submitted to the norm of Scripture. Now, we have a great respect for tradition because it often contains clear and beautiful statements of Scripture teaching, especially those pieces of tradition that we call the ancient creeds. And we wholeheartedly defend church councils that say what the Bible says. Like the Council of Nicaea. And the Council of Chalcedon in their creedal statements. And we have found many statements of church fathers that recognize this.

For example, the statement of Saint Athanasius. The holy and divinely inspired Scriptures are sufficient for all instruction in the truth.

No. 3.

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: Do you agree with the Eastern Orthodox teaching that people need to become divine in order to be saved? And how does this idea relate to the Orthodox concept of Theosis? I remember hearing a lecture not long ago on research being done among the Finnish Lutherans regarding the relationship between the Orthodox view of Theosis and Luther's own views on sanctification.

>> This concept of Theosis is in itself a biblical idea. Peter states it in II Peter 1:4 where he says that God has given us great and precious promises so that after you have escaped the corruption that lust brought into the world you might by these promises share in the divine nature.

He doesn't mean that Christians are exalted to Godhood. And the Orthodox have never taught that, either. But rather what he's saying is that the Christian shares in the qualities of God. Like goodness and holiness and so forth.

As Peter says: Be holy in all your ways like the holy one who called you. That's in I Peter 1:15. In the Christians' renewal in the image of God, his new self is continually renewed in knowledge to be like him who created him, as Paul says in Colossians 3:10.

Christ our redeemer makes us God in this sense, by transfiguring us into his own likeness. Listen to II Corinthians 3:18: We all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord change into the same image from glory to glory by the Spirit of our God. And so we see that the Holy Spirit -- rather Christ through the Holy Spirit shares his own glory with us.

The Eastern Orthodox have applied this classic statement of biblical truth by Saint Athanasius about the Son of God. He was made man that we might be made God. But they have distorted this biblical idea by making the sanctifying renewal of Theosis part of the basis for justification and acceptance with God.

The Confession of Dositheus, which I referred to earlier, states the traditional Orthodox view of justification in these words: We believe a man to be not simply justified through faith alone but through faith which works through love, that is to say through faith and works. He has that in his Decree 3.

And a modern theologian, George Mastrantonis, says the same thing. He puts it this way: Almighty God accepts good works as worthy of receiving justification as a condition through his compassionate mercy for God rewards each faithful one according to his works. God himself ordained these works as contributing to the justification of man. Mastrantonis wrote "a new-style Catechism" as he calls it. And I just read from there.

Saint Anthony the Great, who is a church father much used by the Eastern Orthodox put it this way: Through likeness to God we become united with God. And this union is achieved through imitation of God by the help of grace.

The Orthodox also hold that even Adam in the Garden of Eden did not have perfect communion of God at the time of his creation because he had not yet progressed that far in Theosis, which was interrupted by his fall. However, fallen man has retained his innate goodness and his free will which are brightened in conversion and which provide a natural inclination toward God from which Theosis can begin anew.

Timothy Ware, who took the name Kallistos when he joined the Eastern Orthodox Church, wrote about it this way. He said: To describe the relation between the grace of God and the free will of man Orthodoxy uses the term cooperation or synergy. And from that Greek word for synergy, synergos, we get the common word the synergist, meaning cooperation with God's grace.

What I just quoted for you there was from Ware's book called "The Orthodox Church." And in that same book he goes onto say that Orthodox do not say as Calvin said that man after the fall was utterly depraved and incapable of good desires. And then he quotes again from Dositheus who said: A man, therefore, before he is regenerated is by nature able to incline to what is good and to choose and to work moral good. He's not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian, although he has it in his power to will or not to will, to cooperate with grace.

To quote Father Mastrantonis again, he puts it this way: The Orthodox church believes that the corruption of the Godlike image of man was not complete. That man's will became blurred. But did not disappear. The church fought against these two extremes, he says. First that in the innate sinfulness of mankind, human nature is able to practice virtue by itself, making Christ's sacrifice a moral example which is pelagianism. Orthodoxy rejects that.

And then second, it rejects the theory that the human soul is totally corrupted and that man's salvation is God's work alone, which was the teaching of Augustine. Here Mastrantonis is saying this in his little book "The Fundamental Teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church."

So they say that the image of God in man was not destroyed by the fall but remains. Covered over by sin. But it contains seeds of virtue, though hidden. When grace begins to change the sinner, these seeds of virtue are manifested as he begins the work of Theosis.

Lutherans regard all of this as a combination of Theosis, the biblical concept, with a false optimism about man. However, Martin Luther did state the idea of Theosis in his theology.

Finnish Luther scholars led by ***Professor Uomo Manama have devoted much attention to this theme of Luther's thought. And it's been very important in dialogue between the Lutherans and the Orthodox, which you asked about. I'm thinking especially of the conversations that took place in the 1970s and the 1980s. These exchanges have been very enlightening in regard to Luther's understanding in his theological work. But unfortunately the Finnish Luther scholars have fallen into the Orthodox era of mixing forensic justification, justification by declaration by God and transformational justification. Justification by faith and works. And thus, the Finnish scholars have really misunderstood Luther.

Luther did, indeed, sometimes use the language of Theosis. For example, he said in a sermon: God pours out Christ, his dear Son over us. And pours himself into us and draws us into himself so he becomes completely humanified and we become completely deified and everything all together is one thing, God, Christ and you. He's stating the biblical teaching of Theosis here.

In his well-known book "The Freedom of a Christian" Luther writes: We conclude, therefore, that a man lives not in himself but in Christ and in his neighbor. Otherwise, he's not a Christian. He lives in Christ through faith and his neighbor through love. By faith he is caught up beyond himself into God. By love he descends beneath himself into his neighbor. And yet he always remains in God and in his love.

Here Luther is treating Theosis as an application of the famous happy exchange theme which his book "The Freedom of a Christian" introduces with these words: The incomparable benefit of faith is that it unites the soul with Christ as a bride is united with her bridegroom. By this mystery, as the apostle teaches, Christ and the soul become one flesh. And if they are one flesh and there is between them a true marriage, indeed, the most perfect of all marriages, since human marriages are but poor examples of this one true marriage, it follows that everything that they have, Christ and the church, they hold in common the good as well as the evil.

Accordingly, the believing soul, Luther says, can boast of and glory in whatever Christ has as though it was his own. And whatever the soul has Christ claims as his own.

In a Christmas sermon Luther says this: As the Word became flesh, so it is certainly necessary that the flesh should also become Word. In other words, God becomes man in order that man should become God. Thus, strength becomes weak in order that weakness might become strong.

The logos puts on our form and figure and image and likeness in order that he might clothe us with his image, form and likeness. Thus, wisdom becomes foolish. In order that foolishness might become wisdom. And so in all other things which are in God and in us. In all of which he assumes ours in order to confer upon us his -- that is his things.

In these and other passages, Luther is using the biblical concept of Theosis. He does not, like the Orthodox, link it to the idea of justification by works, which he repudiates everywhere in his theology.

For example, he says in his second Galatians commentary: As long as we live we are not justified or accepted by God on account of the keeping of the law.

No. 4.

>> While we have very few Orthodox Christians living on the ranches of eastern Wyoming, still I'm curious about the worship practices of the Orthodox. I have heard their style of worship is highly symbolic and liturgical in character. Is that true? Why is worship so important to Eastern Orthodoxy?

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: Worship is, indeed, very important to the Orthodox. And it's a vital part of Theosis, as they see it. Father George Mastrantonis to quote him again calls worship the hope for salvation. And he says that prayer has the power to modify the church member for a sound spiritual life.

He says: Prayer is considered in the Orthodox church the highest privilege that a Christian has. That of communication with God. Praising and supplicating him. Prayer is the center of the religious life of the devoted Christian.

The Orthodox church considered the depository of infallible public worship has been entrusted with the power of God's grace to gather all its members to pray and be sanctioned together, to communicate with each other, as a spiritual ecclesia and to be in communion with God and with one another.

The grace of God is bestowed upon each Christian by the Word of God in the person of Christ and his church as well as through the sacred ceremonies, mysterio and other divine services where the presence of every church member is important. Mastrantonis says this in his fundamental teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Worship, first of all, serves the purpose for the Orthodox of expressing faith and hope by means of an abundance of forms and symbols that are saturated and filled with meaning and beauty. The words of the liturgy express the church's teaching. And every part of the church architecture and liturgy has symbolic meaning which can aid the instructed worshipper in his or her devotion.

The holy liturgy is in reality as they see it a religious drama in which the entire plan of salvation is dramatized by the priest and by the choir.

The passion of Christ, for example, is portrayed when the consecrated elements are carried about in the church and deposited on the altar. Which in this portion of the liturgy then is viewed as Christ's burial place. But then later in the liturgy, the altar is then made the symbol of the empty tomb from which Christ has departed. So then in the Eastern Orthodox liturgy, you have a definite joyous celebration and dramatization of the resurrection of Christ.

The church's dome reminds one of the -- of heaven. The wax candles symbolize illuminated and inflamed hearts and also melting and contrite hearts. The chandeliers represent the glory of the father of light. The procession of the book of the Gospel symbolizes the come of Christ into the world.

Two candlesticks on the altar indicate the two natures of Christ. Four candlesticks on the altar are reminders of the evangelists. The intinction spoon for administering Holy Communion symbolizes the angels' pincers touching and cleansing Isaiah's lips with the live coal.

The cuff maniples that the priest wears on his arms signify the mighty hands of God. And so it goes with innumerable examples of meaningful symbolism in the Orthodox liturgy for those who know about them and are instructed about them.

Now, worship also serves the Orthodox endeavor of gaining salvation through Theosis, as we were talking about earlier. Prayers that are offered in private and in public for help in carrying this it out are often heard. That includes assistance from the saints in heaven as part of that help.

The Orthodox prayed for the dead believing that Theosis continues after death if it is begun in this life. And so they say: We pray for the living that the grace of God may be upon them. And for the dead that they may become worthy of the vision of God.

But the Orthodox do not usually teach any purgatory for making satisfaction for sin. And that is an important point of difference between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics in this matter.

The ceremonies of worship provide the grace that's needed for achieving Theosis through holy living. Like the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox recognize seven sacraments, which they usually call mysteries which give grace to enable the good works of holiness. They are called mysteries because of the mysterious power which is connected with outward form in the use of these ceremonies.

And since they use tradition as a norm in addition to Scripture, they don't limit the number of sacraments to those ceremonies to which Scripture ascribes a command and a promise of grace. So these seven ceremonies which they then include are Baptism, CRISM, which the Roman Catholics call confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, marriage, ordination and the unction of the sick.

The adoration of icons or holy pictures of Christ or of the saints plays a role in achieving Theosis. For one thing, they have a revelatory function. And they are a form of divine revelation to guide and enlighten those who are seeking Theosis.

That is to say the icon is said to be a special revelation of a supernatural reality and a way of salvation by becoming like God. For this purpose, an icon must be painted in a certain way, according to certain rules so that everything in it is reminiscent of a realm that's different from the material world. And of men who have been regenerated into eternity. It must give the appearance of not being of this world, that is the icon must.

Figures that are depicted in the icons must be shown as unworldly, ascetic, as having refined and spiritualized features. There will often be distortions and exaggerations like a thin nose and large eyes, long and thin fingers. Abstract and unnatural colors.

The icon is to have a two-dimensional effect. It is to express beauty of soul rather than physical beauty. The gaze, posture and gestures will express trust, reference, humility, calmness, meekness, gentleness and so forth.

There may be halos in order to symbolize higher knowledge, sanctity, victory over death. The icons portray men becoming like God. Being transformed spiritually and morally through a union with supernatural reality and attaining glory through this supernatural mystic union.

In addition, the icon bestows supernatural help in the struggle for Theosis. An old liturgical sentence is this: From it -- that is from the icon -- we draw the grace of salvation. When icons are adored, the believer is said to be brought into closer mystical relationship with the ones that are depicted in the icons. That is Christ and the saints. So that their help then is made available for working out the whole process of Theosis or sanctification.

Icons are efficacious for the process of Theosis. One writer says it this way: Now, inasmuch as icons teach us, remind us, lift us up to the prototypes and arouse us to emulate the sacred persons indeed depicted, they help us to brighten the divine image within us. They aid us in uncovering and developing the beauty of holiness. In other words, they help man attain likeness to God.

The efficacy of the authentic icon in this regard has as its basis the principle that we become like that which we continually contemplate. There I was quoting from Constantine Cavarnos who wrote a book called "Orthodox Iconography," which he goes into great detail about the use of icons in worship and in the whole plan of salvation.

The second Council of Nicaea which was an Ecumenical Council of 787 and is claimed to have infallible authority endorsed this icon adoration for which it used the word from the Greek proskynesis. The original statement of this Council was in Greek. And you find that word, proskynesis, in the records of the Council.

For this purpose Orthodox churches have an iconostasis or partition of icons. And church members adorn their homes with icons. And they venerate these icons by kissing them, kissing the feet of Christ in the icons of Christ and kissing the hands of Mary in icons of Mary and kissing the face -- faces of other icons. And they burn candles and incense before these icons and parade before them.

Lutherans like most Protestants reject this practice of adoration or proskynesis of icons on the basis of Matthew 4:10 where Jesus says quoting the Old Testament, Deuteronomy, you shall worship the Lord your God. And him only shall you serve.

Where the Greek word in the New Testament for worship is a form of this word proskynesis. This is something that should be offered only to God and not to creatures. And certainly not to the devil who was tempting Jesus here to bow down with proskynesis and worship him.

We also do not accept the other special claims that are made about icons while still recognizing that pictures and other art can be very helpful in devotions.

No. 5.

>> Dr. Manteufel, I'm your student from Cleveland, David. Unlike Josh we have many people with Orthodox background in our neighborhoods. Here is a question that I have: If I identified the Separated Eastern Churches and the Eastern Rite Catholics as the same group, would I be correct? Or would such an assertion be an insult to both groups?

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: The Separated Eastern Churches and the Eastern Rite Catholics may have labels that sound very much the same. But they are quite different. The first group is composed of bodies which are similar in most teachings and practices to the Orthodox churches, which are in communion with the ecumenical patriarch or the patriarch of Constantinople, the leading bishop of Orthodoxy. But these latter Orthodox churches, which we might call the Main Line Orthodox churches, do not recognize these Separated Churches as legitimate churches.

And this situation illustrates an ecclesiastical principle of Eastern Orthodox which is important to notice and be aware of. That is to say a religious body is a true church and a continuation of the visible church organization which Christ founded only if it meets two criteria.

First, Orthodox teaching, correct doctrine. And two, communion with a bishop of the apostolic succession. Now, the apostolic succession is the succession of bishops in an unbroken line of consecrations going all the way back to the apostles.

Roman Catholicism and the Protestant bodies fail to meet one or both of these criteria. And are not -- according to Orthodoxy, and also Roman Catholicism, they are not strictly speaking churches. And so the Separated Churches, quote-unqoute, which have members also in America, by the way, are not considered true churches by the Main Line Orthodox bodies. That is to say those that are in communion with the ecumenical patriarch. The worldwide patriarch of Orthodoxy.

The Separated Churches include a body which adheres to a Nestorianism and therefore it's doctrinal position and its bishops are unacceptable to main line Orthodoxy. And this is the church of the east and of the Assyrians. Now, in Nestorianism, which is a heresy that was rejected by one of the ecumenical church councils, that is to say the Council of Ephesus, denies that the two natures of Christ share each other's attributes so that for example, human nature was not omnipotent to perform miracles like changing water into wine and that was only his divine power that was being used here.

Nestorius who started all of this did teach that Christ was both God and man. But he denied that these two natures of Christ actually fully shared their qualities or their properties and attributes with each other. And so quite rightly the Orthodox and the Council of Ephesus viewed this as not really taking the personal union of natures in Christ seriously. Not taking it with all of its implications.

And so they are regarded as not meeting the criteria -- the criterion -- of correct teaching. And therefore, their bishops, also, are not in communion or fellowship with the bishops of Orthodoxy. Fellowship is denied to them because of that doctrinal problem.

Then there are other Separated Churches which hold to monophysitism, which is another heresy. And was condemned, again, rightly by the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451. That is the false doctrine that our Lord had only one nature rather than the two natures, divine and human, which are indicated in Scripture. In that he was true God and also true man.

And they say that one of these natures has disappeared or been swallowed up in the other nature. And so they are not recognized. Examples of these churches would be the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Armenian church. And there are representatives of these churches also in America.

Still other Separated Churches are not recognized by the Main Line Orthodox because the bishops that organized them are not regarded as being properly connected with the Apostolic Succession. And these include the Christ Catholic Church of the Americas and Europe, the American Catholic Church, ***Cyro Antiochian and the African Orthodox Church.

The Eastern Rite Catholics, on the other hand, are bodies which were formerly Eastern Orthodox but have done something which none of the Separated Eastern Churches have done. They have accepted the claim of the Pope to be head of the church by divine right. And they are now part of his church.

I mentioned before that Orthodoxy does not accept the special claims of the Pope to be head of the church and to be able to speak infallibly simply as an individual bishop by himself and the like. But these are Orthodox bodies which have agreed to these claims. And so they then submit to the Pope as head of the church and are part of Roman Catholicism.

They teach the Orthodox teaching or let's say they teach the teaching which Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism hold in common. And of course then they would be insulted if they would be confused with those Separated Eastern Churches that I was referring to earlier. The Separated Churches, especially the ones that are teaching false doctrine, either in Nestorianism or monophysitism would certainly not be considered acceptable to these Eastern Rite Catholics.

But they are called the Eastern Rite Catholics because they have been allowed to retain some Orthodox liturgical rites and customs. Which are different sometimes from the Roman Catholic way of doing things.

This includes, also, having married clergy, which runs counter to the Roman Catholic law of celibacy for priests. They are granted a dispensation from that.

Examples of these Eastern Rite Catholics, they are also found in America are the Armenian Catholics and the Ruthenian Catholics.

No. 6.

>> If I may, I would like to shift our focus slightly to the west. Is the Roman Catholic Church the oldest church? And are Roman Catholics within their right to assert that their church is the original church of Christ?

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: When Jesus said in Matthew 16:18: Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it, he wasn't found in an organization in the sense of a worldly system with headquarters and pomp and circumstance and so forth. And so he was not found in the Roman Catholic Church at that time. Or any other special church organization.

The word "Church" Is used in Scripture. The Greek word is ekklesia to refer to the whole body of believers in Christ or a congregation of believers in Christ. This is clear when Paul addresses his first letter to the Corinthians: To the church of God in Corinth. To those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy. Together with those everywhere who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours. That's I Corinthians 1:2.

In Chapter 12 then of I Corinthians, he describes all of this further when he says that no one can say that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Spirit. And we are all baptized by one Spirit into one body, Verses 3 and 13 of Chapter 12.

That is the church is made up of all of those who are converted and baptized by the Holy Spirit.

In Ephesians 1:22, Paul says that the church is the body of Christ. That is it includes all who have Christ as their spiritual head. And that's why in Chapter 2 he calls it God's household. Built on the foundation of the prophets and the apostles with Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. These Ephesians 2:19 to 22.

The church then is all those who are built on Christ as their rock and have him as their head. And have faith in what the apostles and the prophets have said.

Now, going back to Matthew 16:18, which I quoted at the beginning, the Roman Catholic Church has claimed that because the name Peter means rock in Greek, then he is the rock on which the church is built and which Jesus was talking about. And that it properly consists of those that adhere to him and to his successors in the papacy, that is that the church consists of all of these.

But as we've seen, Ephesians 2 calls Christ the rock on which the church is built. And in Matthew 16 Jesus had asked his disciples: Who do you say that I am? And Peter had answered for all of them: You are the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the living God. The Lord answered: Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah. For this was not revealed to you by man but by my Father in heaven. And I am telling you that you are Peter. And on this rock I will build my church.

The rock of the church is Christ and the revealed truth about him. And the church will be found wherever there are people who believe that truth. And Simon here was called Peter not because he himself was a rock or the rock of the church, but he pointed to the rock in the confession that he had just made about Jesus being the Christ, the Son of the living God.

He was associated with the rock. Just as in the Old Testament King Jedediah was called Shalom, which means peace in Hebrew, not because he himself was peace. But which because of the peace which prevailed during his reign. And you'll find that in II Samuel 12:25 and compare that then with II Chronicles in the Old Testament 22:9.

It's not right to say that the Roman Catholic Church was the original church and that all other denominations have rebelled against it or have started up without it or some such thing. Roman Catholicism was one church organization that arose among the Christians. And the doctrinal position which identifies Roman Catholicism contains many errors which did not come from Christ.

As a historical church organization and denomination, it is older than the Lutheran Church, the Baptist church and so on. But when people are deciding which church to join, the criterion for them should not be age, the age of the church organization. But rather it should be doctrine. They should ask: Does this group teach what Christ and the apostles taught?

No. 7.

>> I would like to ask another question about Roman Catholicism. When I have asked Catholics how one is saved, I get conflicting responses. They speak of justification by grace. But other times they talk about works in a way that seems to contradict this. Do Catholics have an understanding of grace that is different from how Lutherans understand it?

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: Yes, it may be confusing when Roman Catholicism speaks about grace in different ways. For example, long ago Saint Bonaventure wrote that justification involves the idea that the formal cause of it is grace, that is the love which God infuses.

Catholic Catechisms will often state that there are two kinds of grace: Sanctifying grace, grace that makes us holy, and actual grace, grace which enlightens the mind, strengthens the will and moves one to perform supernatural good works.

The Council of Trent, which has always been an important source of doctrine for norming doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church, distinguishes grace as an enabling gift from the loving attitude or good will of God. It says for example: If anyone says that men are justified either solely by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ or solely by the remission of sins to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Spirit and remains in them or by the grace which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be accursed.

Or another one of these curses goes like this: If anyone says that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ does not truly merit an increase of grace and eternal life, let him be accursed.

But then sometimes grace is closely associated with the good will of God. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which came out in the early 1990s, states this: Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God. Adoptive sons. Partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

What it comes down to is this: The sinner merits salvation and merits eternal life by his works. But God shows gracious good will and mercy in giving him a chance and help for doing this. Because he does not deserve to have a chance. And he does not really deserve to have help in doing it. But God gives it to him anyhow. So it's a combination then of grace and good works in this way.

Now, we often oversimplify the Catholic doctrine and speak as if they said nothing about Christ at all. But they certainly do. That's apt to lead to confusion if you leave that out.

When we hear in the modern discussions with the Roman Catholics that no one can be saved without grace, many people then conclude that Lutherans have sadly misunderstood the Roman Catholics and that they teach pretty much the same as Lutherans do about salvation. But what Roman Catholics are saying is that as far as grace and faith and Christ is concerned, that is the same doctrine that the Lutheran Confessions objected to in the 16th Century. And was stated in the decrees of the Council of Trent where the Lutheran doctrine was rejected.

This is the doctrine that justification means that God gives the sinner a saving righteousness which he can use to defend himself in the face of God's condemnation of him for his sin. That righteousness is an inherent righteousness or moral holiness which God creates in him by an act of renewal. It is because of this righteousness that God forgives his sins and accepts him into favor. This saving righteousness is not the perfect obedience of Christ. And Trent denounces the teaching that we are forgiven and justified only for the sake of what Christ has done.

Rather, they say that the significance of Christ's righteousness is that it is the basis on which God gives us our own righteousness.

Catholicism makes the distinction between the initial reception of the saving righteousness and the preservation and increase of that righteousness so that we can use it to deal with our sins. The initial righteousness comes to the baby when it is baptized and to the non-Christian adult who is converted. The saving righteousness is preserved and increased by using it to do good works to merit more and more grace and to merit eternal life.

Man is justified by grace. That statement means that the initial reception of righteousness is not merited by good works and that God graciously helps man to merit eternal life.

When we hear the statement by Roman Catholics: Man is justified by good works, that means that saving righteousness is preserved by good works. When we hear the statement that man is justified by faith in Christ, that means to them that knowledge of the plan of salvation incites a person to do good works to be saved and gives him confidence that God will help his efforts.

This doctrine of Trent taught in the Council of Trent and its decrees has never been given up but was reaffirmed at Vatican 2. So we must add our own good works to Christ's work of atonement in order to be saved.

We must do good works to become righteous and merit an increase of grace. And initial grace is an unmerited gift and initiates one's relationship with acceptance with God. But this means that God accepts us as people that he is willing to help be saved through obedience.

Christ procured all the graces, all the helps that we need to be saved. But only the initial bestowal of grace is unmerited. The relationship with God is preserved by keeping the Commandments, which merits more grace. Christ's righteousness is not imputed or reckoned to believers. But it, the righteousness of Christ, earned the grace which is to be given to men to enable men to acquire their own righteousness.

So then Roman Catholics and Lutherans differ on justification, which is the way that sinners are forgiven and become righteous before God. The dialogues on justification by American Catholics and Lutherans show that they have two different doctrines of justification, which I described in the reports.

The names often given to them are the transformationist teaching and the forensic teaching. Roman Catholicism, the transformationist teaching, teaches that justification is based on a transformation that is brought about in a person by which he becomes righteous and acceptable to God.

Lutheranism teaches that one is justified by a forensic act of God. That is a declaration that one is declared righteous for the sake of Christ. For the sake of what Jesus has done.

This declaration is pronounced on the one who believes in Christ and his righteousness. And therefore, this teaching is called justification through faith alone.

While the Roman Catholic teaching is called justification by faith and works. Or by merit. Because those things are brought about as part of the transformation on which justification depends.

Both Roman Catholics and Lutherans say that a person is justified by grace. But they don't mean quite the same thing by this. The Roman Catholic means that God's grace will help him or her to be transformed. To have faith and to be obedient to God. And to do the good works which merit eternal life.

Lutherans says that God's grace freely forgives and accepts the sinner apart from any works which he ever does in his life. And brings about the faith that he will do that for Jesus' sake.

Both Roman Catholics and Lutherans confess that a person's justification is based on Christ's righteousness. But again, they understand this in different ways.

The Roman Catholic means that the perfect obedience and righteousness of Christ gave all sinners the opportunity to be justified. Because of Jesus, his life and his death, God renews the sinner and creates a righteousness of moral holiness in him or in her. And on the basis of this righteousness the person is justified and counted righteous. Jesus earned all the grace that people need to have this personal righteousness and to grow in it and merit eternal life.

Lutherans teach that a person's own righteousness has nothing to do with his justification. When a person believes in Christ, God counts Christ's righteousness as the believer's righteousness and declares him righteous because of Christ. We say that God imputes Jesus' righteousness to him. Reckons it as if it was his own life and works.

This is the heart of Lutheran teaching. We feel that if it were true that justification is based in any way or degree on our own righteousness or anything that we have done in our life, then we could never have confidence that we are justified. Because our life and our works are so full of sin and are so imperfect that we don't believe that we could ever really become worthy of being justified and accepted of God.

We cannot accept the teaching that we are justified by becoming righteous with our own righteousness. Or that one's own righteousness must be added to Jesus' righteousness as the basis on which we are justified. This will take away a person's comfort of knowing that he is accepted by God.

And so Lutherans stress passages like Romans 3:28: And a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. And we say that Christians should never do good works for the purpose of obtaining justification. Or forgiveness of sins. Or God's favor. Or eternal life. But always good works should be done to express and to live out a faith that believes that one is already in God's faith.

Both Lutherans and Roman Catholics say that God does transform people. God does sanctify them by his Spirit. So that they do good works and express their faith in love.

And both say that these Christian works merit rewards. But Lutherans do not think that works ever merit justification or forgiveness or eternal life as a reward. They don't merit those rewards. Strictly speaking, they don't deserve any reward for works but when God has accepted believers for Christ's sake, he graciously forgives all the sinful flaws in their good works and gives them many rewards anyway.

You asked about forgiveness of sins. And here we have to also add this: Roman Catholic doctrine is that forgiveness for sin is given because of Jesus' suffering and death. But the sinner must still make satisfaction for sins. That is acts of punishment that make reparation to the majesty of God which has been offended by sin.

Lutherans reject this and say we could never pay God back for our offenses against him. Jesus paid all of the debt of our sin on the cross. And this is reckoned to us as if we had done it ourselves.

He was wounded for our transgressions Isaiah says in Chapter 53. He was bruised for our inequities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him. And by his stripes we are healed. The Lord has laid on him the inequity of us all.

We don't need to add works of satisfaction to any of that. God freely gives us full forgiveness. For the same reason we reject the idea that there is a purgatory where payment for sin is made by suffering.

There is another effect or implication also which comes out of this Roman Catholic doctrine of justification on the basis of works added to faith or added to what Christ has done. That is to say I'm talking here about the idea of anonymous Christianity. Where people can be saved without even using the name of Jesus. Still be saved on the basis of what Jesus has done but without using his name or confessing faith in him.

Vatican 2, the second Vatican Council teaches this. It says that people can be justified anonymously without using the name of Jesus if they live a life of love and good will toward their neighbors and have a spirit of hope. These are signs that saving grace is working in their lives.

But Lutherans see here a teaching of justification by good works or good qualities in people. One can only be justified by trusting in what Jesus has done for sinners. And acknowledging that. Saint Peter said that salvation depends on the name of Jesus. There is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we are to be saved. Acts 4:12 where Peter's words are found.

The whole matter of certainty about salvation is affected by this. And this is one of the major points of disagreement between Lutherans and Roman Catholics, between Roman Catholics and Protestants in general.

Roman Catholics connect their doctrine of salvation with doubt, a necessity to doubt one's salvation. So the Council of Trent puts it this way -- this is official teaching: If anyone says that he will for certain with an absolute and infallible certainty have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special revelation, let him be anathema. That is let him be accursed.

Again they say this in the Council of Trent: No pious person ought to doubt the mercy of God or the merit of Christ and the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments. And so also each one when he considers himself in his own weakness and indisposition may have fear and apprehension concerning his own grace since no one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.

Lutherans completely disagree with this and say that all those who have faith in Christ can have certainty that they will be saved. As we say in our official writings, we believe, teach and confess that although the genuine believing and truly regenerated persons retain much weakness and many shortcomings, down to their graves they still have no reason to doubt either the righteousness which is reckoned to them through faith or the salvation of their souls. But they must regard it ascertain that for Christ's sake on the basis of the promises and the Word of the holy Gospel, they have a gracious God.

The believer's assurance of salvation is based on the certainty and the universality of the Gospel promise. Doubt concerning forgiveness implies that one's sins are more powerful than the Gospel. But the forgiveness of sins we know is the central teaching of Holy Scriptures. And they are ascertain as Christ. Ascertain as his work for us.

As saint Peter said in Acts 10:43: To him, to Christ, all the prophets give witness that whoever believes in him shall receive remission of sins.

No. 8.

>> As I said earlier, we do not have many people of the Eastern Orthodox faith in our region of the country. But we do have many Roman Catholics. I have heard some Protestants say that the LCMS should not oppose the teachings of the transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass because they strongly emphasize the important doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ. How should I respond to such comments?

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: Well, first of all, Roman Catholics are, indeed, to be commended for teaching that Christ's body and blood are really present in the Lord's Supper according to the Words of Institution. We Lutherans say that, also. But the doctrines of transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass go beyond the Words of Institution and should not be commended.

Take transubstantiation, first of all. Transubstantiation is the change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, with only the accidents or outward appearances of bread and wine remaining. This is contrary to Saint Paul who indicates that the bread really remains, even when we are distributing and eating it.

Look at I Corinthians. In Chapter 10 Verse 16 Paul says: Is the bread which we break not a communion of the body of Christ? And in the next chapter, 11 Verse 27, Paul says: Anyone who eats the bread or drinks the Lord's cup in an unworthy way is sinning against the Lord's body and blood.

This may appear to be just a matter of hair splitting, but it really is a serious matter for us to consider. And that's because it raises a question for us Lutherans whether we can use the Words of Institution with confidence to support our doctrine of the sacrament.

On the one side of the controversy Roman Catholics have charged that we are not taking the Word seriously, "This is my body and this is my blood," if we don't really think that the bread and the wine are changed into the body and the blood of Christ.

And on the Reformed side, we may be told that if we're going to take the words literally in the Words of Institution: This is my body, this is my blood, then we must teach transubstantiation with the Catholics. And if we don't want to do that, we then must logically give up our literal interpretation.

To both sides we say our interpretation in Lutheranism is sound.

As for the Sacrifice of the Mass, which is taught by both Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, it is contrary to evangelical doctrine. It is the use or the alleged use of the body and the blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper to offer a sacrifice for sin. That is to offer this sacrifice along with Christ. Because it is his offering.

He offered his body and blood on the cross. And now we can join him in making that offering of his body and blood to the Father in heaven for the sins of the world. For our sins.

But the problem is that man, according to Scripture, does not really take part in offering the sacrifice that makes atonement for his own sin. That is another version of the Roman Catholic doctrine of man doing something for his own salvation. Man somehow bringing about salvation through his own endeavors added to the endeavors of Christ the Savior.

Scripture says only that Christ offered this sacrifice. And it says that over and over again. For example, in Hebrews 7:27 we read: Unlike the other high priests, he, Christ, does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

Again, Hebrews 9:14: How much more then will the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God cleanse our conscience from acts that lead to death so that we may serve the living God?

Never is it said that we did it. Or are doing it. That is making that sacrifice of Christ. It's clear in the book of Hebrews that no man, not even the Old Testament priest, is able to offer the atoning sacrifice for sin, except Christ, the great high priest.

We should not impose on Scripture the false idea that man has a part to play in bringing about his salvation. Only one who is holy and undefiled by sin can offer the saving sacrifice.

Hebrews 9:26 has these words: Such a high priest was fitting for us who is holy and harmless and undefiled and separate from sinners and made higher than the heavens who does not need daily like those Old Testament high priests to offer up sacrifices first for his own sin and then for the sins of the people. And then it goes onto say that he offered sacrifice for the sins of the people once for all when he offered up himself.

I Peter 3:18 says: Christ died for sins, once for all. The righteous for the unrighteous. He died for them. He didn't die with them. Or in cooperation with them. II Corinthians 5:14 says: He died for all.

It doesn't say that he died with all. It is never said that we in any way join Christ in offering this sacrifice to God and bringing it before him. It's not an offering that he and we do together over and over again.

Christ did it once. Once for all. And we simply receive the benefit which has been gained. We receive that by faith.

No. 9.

>> I have what I believe to be an intriguing question. I have heard Catholics complain that Protestants are misinformed when they oppose prayer to Mary and saints. They say these Protestants themselves recognize that it is right and proper for members of the church to ask other members to seek blessing from God for them. Catholics are claiming to do this very thing in prayers to the saints who are fellow Christians in heaven. Do they have a point?

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: It's true that that argument seems to be a very attractive argument. Since people here on earth ask each other to pray for them in their daily lives as interceders for them with God, it may seem right and proper to pray or talk to the people already in heaven to intercede, that is pray, to God for them.

But there's a problem with that. There is a great difference between talking to someone, to a fellow Christian, who is here on earth with you and talking or trying to talk or claiming that one is talking with a fellow Christian who is not on earth and not in -- taking part in this life but who has died and gone to heaven.

Worldly people have tried to talk to the people of the past, to the dead, by praying to saints, by using a medium at a seance, by worshiping their ancestors, et cetera. The Christian, however, must follow the teachings of the Bible.

We think here of Deuteronomy 18:10 and 11 where Moses says: There shall not be found among you anyone that makes his son or daughter to pastor the fire or a charmer or a consulter with familiar spirits or a wizard or a necromancer. Now that word necromancer means one who contacts or claims to contact the dead. That is not a Christian activity. That's not an activity that's permitted to the people of God. Rather it is to be rejected as an occult kind of activity.

We read in Isaiah 63:16: You are our Father. Abraham doesn't know us. Israel doesn't pay attention to us. But you, Lord, are our Father. Your name is our redeemer from everlasting. Now, that passage clearly teaches that those that have died and gone to heaven cannot intercede and pray for us. They are not in a position to do so. That is to have information on which to do so.

Abraham and Israel or Jacob were patriarchs in the Old Testament. They were the spiritual forbearers of believers under the old covenant. And they were with God. When Isaiah spoke the words of this text. That is to say they had died and were already in heaven with the Lord.

But notice that it says Abraham doesn't know us and Israel doesn't pay attention to us. This means that they did not know what was happening on earth. And thus, were unable to do anything for Isaiah and his companions.

What was true in Isaiah's day is still true today. Those who have died in the Lord and who are with the Lord do not know what is happening among us and are unable to do anything for us, including praying for us.

The Roman Catholic Church, of course, along with the Eastern Orthodox Church does promote the idea of praying to saints. Of invoking saints to get their help in interceding for us.

The Council of Trent of the Roman Catholic Church says it this way: It is good and beneficial to invoke them, that is the saints, and to have recourse to their prayers, assistance and support in order to obtain favors from God through his Son Jesus Christ our Lord who alone is our Savior and redeemer.

But once again we see how this is not a way in which we should honor the saints. There are ways in which we honor the saints, of course. We remember their holy lives. We praise God for the examples that they gave. And we remember that when we speak of the communion of saints in the creed, we are acknowledging that we have fellowship with our fellow Christians who have died and gone to heaven. But we reject the idea that we can pray to them.

And as a matter of fact, we say prayers are to be offered only to God because it is a form of devotion, which claims that the one to whom the one is speaking can hear us /even if such a person is not with us, is far distant from us in heaven or someplace like that and so forth. In other words, it's treating dead people as if they were God. As if they were omniscient and able to here us at all times and alike. We reject these claims.

The Lutheran Confessions make the point that Scripture does not teach us to invoke the saints or to ask for their help. Neither a command nor a promise nor an example can be shown from Scripture for the invocation of saints.

And so what follows from that that consciences cannot at the least be sure about such invocation. There simply is no scriptural basis for having any surety about it. And besides that, we have seen that there are scriptural arguments against it.

Besides this, we often see that this custom of invocation of saints has led to various kinds of errors, too. Or been combined with various kinds of errors and misuses.

For one thing, the whole practice of praying to saints to gain their help and believing that they can give special help to us is really based upon the idea of merit. That the saints are those that have accumulated great merits. And therefore, are able to obtain benefits from God that ordinary people cannot.

So for example, there's this prayer that's recommended to be offered to mother Frances Xavier Cabrini. It goes like this: Oh, Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, thou who didst obtain the reward of the glory of heaven through thy virtuous life, hear the prayer which I confidently entrust to thee.

The practice of praying to saints really stands or falls with the whole doctrine of salvation by merits. And if we reject the one, I think we ought to reject the other.

Besides this, there are certain other strange customs that have -- we see developing. For example, parents have prayed to their beloved children after their death. So that Roman Catholics have -- many of them have said that if you have a baptized child in heaven that died as a little child, then by all means, pray to him or her. And another Roman Catholic writer spoke of how he asked his deceased wife to pray with him.

These are excesses in piety as they might be called and as they sometimes are called. But nevertheless, they are still errors that flow from the basic error of prayer to saints. It comes down to this: That the Holy Scriptures teach us to pray to God alone, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Prayer is an act of worship. And Jesus said: Thou shall worship the Lord Thy God and him only shall Thou serve.

And we think also of Psalm 46:1, which says that God is our help in every trouble. It is in him alone that we seek refuge. It is he who forgives our sins, who heals our diseases, who redeems our life and who crowns us with his mercy. We read all of that in Psalm 103 Verses 3 and 4.

Christ is the mediator between God and mankind. As I Timothy 2:5 says there's one God and one who brings God and man together. The man Jesus Christ. No one else takes Jesus' place. Because he is the only one who gave himself as a ransom for all.

Jesus paid the ransom by laying down his life for our sinners. So Jesus is the only way to the Father. And so then we all -- when we come to the Father to ask for gifts and blessings, we should do that in Jesus' name. We should pray always in Jesus' name. And not in the name of a saint.

No. 10.

>> I sense we are coming to the end of our discussion about Roman Catholicism. And before we finish, I want to ask why Roman Catholic teachings about church and ministry are so disturbing to Lutherans. At least that's my sense here in Cleveland.

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: David, Roman Catholicism says that the Christian church is a body of people who profess faith in Christ and are governed by the bishops and the Pope. The government of bishops is part of Christ's will for the church and must be included in the definition of the church.

Lutherans disagree with this. We say that the church is the body of all who believe in Christ as their Savior. And is found wherever there are Christians, no matter what form of church government they use.

Some Lutherans do have a system of bishops. And others don't use bishops. But all Lutherans agree that the Word of God does not require government by bishops in the church. And that it is something that developed historically for convenience in administration and the like.

It is not necessary for salvation or for the existence of the church to have bishops who govern the church. The formation of congregations is something that is divinely instituted. And that is necessary. And the office of the ministry is divinely instituted and is necessary for the church. But bishops are not.

When a religious organization claims to be identical with the true church that was founded by Christ as the Orthodox do and as the Roman Catholics do, that always raises disturbing questions for those who are not members of that particular organization. That is to say if these claims are right, then are these people really saved? Do they have true ministers?

Do they have true and valid sacraments? If they are not in the church, then can they be comforted by the promises that are given to the church?

For example, in Ephesians 2:19 and following where Paul says to the people in Ephesus: You are fellow citizens with the saints and of the household of God. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone in whom all the building fitly framed together grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are built together for a dwelling place of God through the Spirit.

Again, Ephesians 5:25: Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word.

And then there are Jesus' words in Matthew 16:18: Upon this rock I will build my church. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Listen to these wonderful promises that are made here. That is the promise of being part of the temple of the Lord and of being a dwelling place for God and of being sanctified and cleansed by the Lord. And of standing upon the rock of the church. And having security against the gates of hell.

Are those that do not belong to the church then deprived of the comfort of all of these promises? But these are unnecessary questions. And unnecessary disturbances. Because they come out of a false and unbiblical claim about the church.

No. 11.

>> In the rural Midwest and here in Wyoming one finds many Mennonites. They are on the whole a very quiet, law abiding group of people. I find them commendable in many ways. Is the Mennonite teaching of justification based on Christ in us a biblical teaching?

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: The Mennonites are the continuation of the Anabaptist movement of the 16th Century. The organizer of the Mennonites was a fellow by the name of Menno Simmons. And he, like all of the Anabaptist's, talk of justification is based on the transformed life of the believer and its work. The term Mennonite, of course, comes from his name.

He criticized Luther's teaching of justification, which is forensic justification. And he described Luther's teaching as saying that faith saves without any assistance from works. And he called this an inadequate teaching of justification.

The holiness of the Christian is what justifies. This view has been taught in many Mennonite statements. One of the most widely used of these is the Confession of Dordrecht from the year 1632 which put it this way: Christ offered a sacrifice and an offering to God for a sweet smelling savor. He asked for the comfort, redemption and salvation of all the human race. Thus, we believe that the Son of God died, tasted dead for every man, shed his precious blood and purchased redemption for the whole human race and thus he became the source of eternal salvation to all who from the time of Adam to the end of the world shall have believed in him and obeyed him.

And then, also, Christ made a testament or a covenant arrangement which stated how this salvation is actually to be received. Namely, by the works of a reborn and transformed life. The Mennonites called this testament the law of Christ, which is the holy Gospel. And so this Gospel really is a proclamation of law. It is a proclamation of how Christ's salvation will come to those who live in his kingdom and obey the law. Especially the new law of his kingdom. The Sermon on the Mount and other commands.

People become God's children by faith and good works. And so they are just justified merely by being declared righteous by God apart from works because of the work of Christ for them. But rather they are justified by the transforming work of Christ in them.

Mennonites say we are justified by God through faith. But to be fully justified in the eyes of men and God, works are required. A man a righteous when he has yielded himself to God. His sins purged from his life through the blood of Christ and he is, therefore, living a cleansed, pure, holy, justified life before God.

The Mennonites find fault with Luther and the doctrine of justification taught by him and by us. But Lutherans maintain that we say exactly what Saint Paul says: A man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law, Romans 3:28.

We recognize that Christians are expected to do good works. For example, Saint Paul writes to Timothy: Command them to do good. To be rich in good deeds. And to be generous and willing to share. I Timothy 1:18.

There does not need to be a quarrel between Lutherans and Mennonites on that point. Christ, we also agree, is surely with them who believe on him. Paul says to the Ephesians that he prays that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith. Ephesians 3:17. But Scripture does not teach that works and the indwelling Christ belong to the basis of justification.

No. 12.

>> We do not have an abundance of Mennonite folks in my neighborhoods. But we do have Amish living nearby. Should we be concerned about Amish non-conformity to the world? And is it true that while the Amish appear very strict and law oriented, they are in fact very forgiving of each other? I sometimes worry that Lutherans fail to understand the Amish and the Mennonites and because of that lack of understanding, Lutherans can become judgemental.

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: Well, first of all, we should point out that while the Amish and the Mennonites are sometimes distinguished from each other, as a matter of fact, the Amish are one kind of Mennonites and they are sometimes called the Amish Mennonites.

The Amish Mennonites have a piety which is highly committed to works of love and service and humility and contentment. And as just pointed out under the last question, they value the quiet, law abiding life. And that's true in general of all Mennonites. But the Amish are the most strict.

The Mennonites are a peace church, calling for peace, and abhor in the horrors of war. Their ethic of non-conformity to the world is an endeavor to take seriously the biblical admonition to avoid worldliness.

They remind us of Saint Paul's well known words: Be not conformed to this world. Romans 12:2. They know something of Saint John's rebuke of worldliness in which people love the world instead of loving God, which is really a form of idolatry.

John says: Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man loves the world, a love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust or evil desire of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but of the world. That's I John 2:15 and 16.

And the Mennonites also we should say are well known for their Mennonite disaster service, which is listed by the Federal government as one of the agencies who are qualified to help in times of disaster. So they are well known for social works of this kind. In all of which they are trying to avoid simple worldly attitudes.

But the Mennonite rules and renunciations, practicing non-conformity to the world, often go beyond what Scripture forbids. The Mennonites don't agree themselves on how far to go in identifying things and practices as worldly.

The most strict and extreme here are the Amish Mennonites as I said before. And there are degrees of austerity among the Mennonites here. And changes in concessions and inconsistencies come about, too.

Electricity, automobiles, voting and public office often have been considered too worldly by Mennonites. The hook and eye Mennonites reject the use of buttons on suits and vests, fastening them with hooks and eyes. Simplicity in dress and in mode of life are other examples.

Some time ago a Mennonite preacher wrote a hymn expressing certain restrictive attitudes at least held by some. And the hymn which the Mennonites sing in the churches goes like this: God's standard for his people has always been the same. A call to separation down through the ages came. He wants us to be holy. His challenge still is hurled. That his peculiar people be different from the world.

He furthermore he declares that all godly women dress in modest, plain apparel, and thus his name confess. No gold or pearls for Christians, bobbed hair or painted face. No knee length skirts. We're different, redeemed by saving grace.

Men, holy hands unstained by nicotine should lift. Rejecting neck ties, pins, rings and all such worldly drift. True Christians take no part in carnal warfare's murderous arts for Christ disarmed his soldiers and reigns within the heart.

Our interests are quite different. No radios, TV. With those who walk in darkness, what concord can there be? In business, marriage, social life, unequal yokes beware. Come out and be you separate, the world of God declares.

Now, in evaluating all of this, it has to be said that voluntary self denial for purposes of honoring good and pure things are commendable in themselves. There are examples in the Old Testament of fine self denials and renunciations for good purposes of serving the Lord, like the customs of the Nazarites and the Recabites. And in Romans 14 Saint Paul calls for toleration in different preferences with regard to such self denials.

But false claims and demands should not be made by self denials and renunciations. For there is a biblical teaching of Christian liberty with regard to things which are neither commanded nor forbidden by the Lord.

So Paul says in I Timothy 4 that it is wrong to forbid marriage and the eating of certain foods. And he teaches this as just one application of a general all-embracing principle. Namely, every creation of God is good. And nothing to be refused if it be received with Thanksgiving for it is sanctified by the Word of God. I Timothy 4:4 and 5.

These morally neutral things can certainly be sin fully misused by the world and often are. But they can also be rightly used by good Christian faith and godly moderation. Christians who use them do not necessarily have an inferior piety because of that. And the Amish bishops or leaders are not applying the principle of Christian liberty when they impose restrictions upon the people of their churches with regard to such things.

Now, often the Amish Mennonites will acknowledge that something they prohibit is not evil or worldly in itself. But they say that the prohibition is needed as a safeguard against worldly influences. And as a guideline that puts a lid on worldly developments.

So technological advances that are rejected by the Amish are really not considered immoral. Owning a car, using tractors in the field, installing a telephone in one's home are not considered evils in and of themselves. The evil lies in what a new invention might lead to. Might lead to.

The Amish ask: What will come next? Will other changes be triggered by this one? How will acceptance of a new practice affect the community's welfare over the years?

Describing the taboo on the telephone, an Amish craftsman said: If we allow the telephone, that would just be a start. People would say: Okay. Now we'll push for this. And we'll push for that. It would be a move forward that might get the wheel rolling a little faster than we can control it, if you know what I mean.

An Amish bishop noted: I might have a car and it wouldn't hurt any. But for the oncoming generation, you ought to be willing to sacrifice for them.

So it's selective modernization that we often find. And there are some principles in Amish thinking that govern the changes and concessions to modernization that are sometimes made. For example, changes that produce economic benefits are more acceptable than those that do not. Making a living takes priority over pleasure, convenience or leisure. Thus, a motor on a hay mower in the field is more acceptable than one motor on a lawn mower.

Visible changes are less acceptable than invisible ones. So using fiberglass in the construction of buggies is easier to introduce than changing the external color of the buggy itself. Working as a cook in the kitchen of a restaurant is more acceptable than working as a wait stress.

Changes that threaten symbols of ethnic identity, horse, buggy, dress and so forth, are less acceptable than ones related to key symbols. Using a modern tractor in a shop is more acceptable than using a tractor in the field in obvious respect to horses.

Jogging shoes are more acceptable than new hot styles because head gear for both men and women is a key identity symbol. Changes linked to profane symbols are less acceptable than those without such ties. Computers whose screens appear uncomfortably similar to those of televisions are rejected whereas gas, fired barbeque grills are acceptable.

Changes that threaten sacred ritual are less acceptable than those unrelated to worship. Changing to non-farm work is more acceptable than changing the pattern of singing, baptism and worship. Changes with specified limits are more acceptable than open-ended ones. Hiring cars and other vehicles primarily for business on weekdays is more acceptable than hiring them any time for any purpose.

Changes that encourage regular systematic interaction with outsiders are less acceptable than those that foster ethnic relationships. Working as a clerk in an Amish retail store is more acceptable than serving as a hostess in a public restaurant.

A business partnership involving outsiders is less acceptable than one involving church members. Changes that open avenues of influence from modern life are less acceptable than those without such connections. Membership in public organizations and the use of radios, televisions and news magazines are less acceptable than subscriptions to ethnic newspapers.

Changes that threaten family integration are less acceptable than those that support the family unit. Forms of work and technology that separate the family are less acceptable than changes that strengthen family interaction. So bicycles are less acceptable than tricycles for children.

Decorative changes that attract attention are less acceptable than utilitarian ones. Landscaping a lawn is less acceptable than eating hotdogs.

Changes that evaluate and accentuate individuals are less acceptable than those that promote social equality. Higher education, public recognition and commercial insurance are less acceptable than calculators and instant pudding.

But none of this takes account of the principle of Christian liberty. That is what the Amish bishops and the leaders who give approval to such changes are really not paying much attention to.

The Mennonite renunciation of oath taking and going to war and public office holding involve things that are allowed to God's people and that are endorsed by Bible teaching. Their reply to this point is that the endorsements involved are in the Old Testament. And that the New Testament of Christ's kingdom has a higher standard of morality that does not allow these things.

So the Mennonites basic argument here is that the New Testament has a higher standard of morality than the Old Testament. That is to say there's a higher moral law in the New Testament than in the Old Testament. There is a preChristian ethic and then a definitely Christian ethic. Two moral laws within Scripture.

So oaths and war and the like belong to the old preChristian standards. And, indeed, are sanctioned by the Old Testament for God's people that lived under it.

If we use examples like those of Abraham and Moses taking oaths, for example, or fighting, they will say that these are part of that older ethic. The preChristian ethic is continued in the governments and political structures of this world. And they recognize that God has ordained government and the power of the sword and the preChristian ethic for the world in general. And the Mennonites do promote respect for government. That is respect by Christians for it. As long as it does not require them to disobey the new law of Christ's kingdom.

They take this as the meaning of Romans 13. And they say that it calls for respect for the government and prayer for the government. And gratefulness for the protection and order that the government brings about. But the Sermon on the Mount and the New Testament teaching of Jesus show that he gives his people a higher moral standard than the Old Testament does.

Christians are to live in Christ's kingdom of peace, love and humility and must not be involved in carrying out the work of the civil order. Where the preChristian ethic is still in effect.

There are some questionable moral assertions being made here. First of all, the assertion that the moral standards of the New Testament and of Christ are not in continuity with the Old Testament moral standards. But in fact Jesus was not introducing a new moral law. In the Sermon on the Mount he masterfully was revealing the deepest spiritual implications of the Old Testament moral law.

But in fact we know that love and the non-vengeful attitude of God's people are part of Old Testament teaching, also. Look at Leviticus 19 which says: Thou shalt not avenge. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

That ethic of love is already found in the Old Testament moral law. And Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount: Do not think that I have come to destroy the law. Matthew 5:17. And there he discusses the Old Testament law.

And as for oaths, there we see that oaths are also endorsed in the New Testament. Saint Paul uses an oath, that is an appeal to the name of God, to support his teaching. For example, in Galatians 1:20: Before God I lie not. So for important purposes, oaths are certainly useful, also according to the New Testament moral law.

There is only one moral law. And to say that there are two moral laws in the Bible is really to say that God contradicts himself.

There's another questionable assertion here. And that is that God has commanded and ordained certain things which are really contrary to his will. That in the Old Testament he sanctioned war and oaths in the preChristian ethic. But that in the higher ethic of Jesus, it is revealed that these things are always contrary to his will. And of course that's making God contradict himself.

A third questionable assertion is that Christians can enjoy the benefits of civil government but cannot participate in carrying out its work and should not attempt to serve their neighbors by performing the duties of an office within civil government. This is saying that Christians are to thank God for the order that is provided by the civil power but must never take part in the use of arms and force necessary for preserving this order.

But the real New Testament teaching is that these things are, indeed, available to Christians for their use in serving their neighbor, their fellow citizens. Romans 13 says to the New Testament Christian in Rome that the government is the minister or the servant of God to you for good. And it endorses the use of the sword for war and for punishment.

No. 13.

>> Let me follow up with another question. Suppose I were to hear an argument between a Quaker who says that there is no need for the church to use baptism and the Lord's Supper and a Mennonite who maintains that baptism, the Lord's Supper and foot washing are commanded by Jesus. What should I make of all of this?

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: That would be a very interesting argument, David. An argument between two non-Lutherans. Let me know if you ever do hear an argument like that. But they are saying opposite things. And yet each would be citing Scripture to show the point. And be claiming to be following Scripture.

So are they both wrong or what? The Mennonite would be arguing that the commands of Jesus in Scripture are binding on the church. Jesus commanded that all penitent believers who have been born anew must confess their faith and be baptized with water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Mennonites use numerous passages about baptism for their proof text on this point. Especially Matthew 28:19. Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

So according to that, according to the Mennonite, baptism is meaningful for all those who have faith in Christ and are born again of the Spirit. Jesus also has commanded that believers commemorate his death for them by the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper and it is meaningful for all for whom he died, showing his love and teaching us to imitate that love in our communion with God.

And here the words of the institution of the Lord's Supper are cited by the Mennonites. And Jesus has also commanded the washing of the feet of the saints, which is a sign of the Christian humiliation. And also a sign of the true washing which is the purification of the soul in the blood of Christ. And here the Mennonites who promote this cite John 13. Where Jesus washed the disciples feet and commanded that they should do as he had done. And also I Timothy 5:9 and 10 which says that the believers in the early church were doing this.

What then does the Quaker say? The Quaker refers to New Testament passages about baptism and states that this is a sign of the baptism of the Spirit, which is really rebirth. The baptism of John was a display of this sign. And the baptism of John did not continue forever.

Jesus in Matthew 28:19: Go and teach all nations, baptizing them, commanded that this figurative baptism of John should be continued for a time in his church until its use came to an end. Though all who after that would wish to use it as an object lesson are free to do so.

Similarly, the Quaker says that Christ commanded that his supper of symbolic bread and wine should be used in the church for a time as a sign for the weak who need such a sign. The Quaker adds that the command to wash the feet of the saints had no less authority than the commands of baptism and of the Lord's Supper. And that these two signs are no more necessary in the church today than it, the foot washing, is. Since the spiritual realities that are symbolized in all three ceremonies is really all that is necessary.

Well, what shall the Lutherans say then? We note that both the Mennonite and the Quaker regard all of these ceremonies as no more than symbols. And also we note that we as Lutherans regard baptism and the Lord's Supper at least as means of grace.

For example, baptism does now also save us as I Peter 1:21 says. And the Lord's Supper is a new covenant in his blood, which -- that is Jesus' blood -- which bestows forgiveness through that blood. See Luke 22:20.

But the Mennonite is right in maintaining that the permanence of the sacraments in the church is what is really indicated by the words of Scripture. And that the Quaker is really not right on that.

In instituting baptism, the Lord promised to be with those who were doing it along with the teaching of the nations, supporting them and supplying the power behind their teaching and behind baptism. He said in Matthew 28: Surely I am with you always, even to the end of the age. He obviously intended baptism to be used to the end of the age. It is to be done as long as the teaching of the nations is to go on.

Similarly with the Lord's Supper in I Corinthians 11:26. Whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. And so the Lord's Supper is not to stop before the parousia of our Lord.

However, both the Mennonite and the Quaker are in error in thinking that Scripture authority includes a command that a foot washing ceremony should take place in the church. Either permanently or in a temporary way.

When the Lord had washed the disciples feet, he said: I have given you an example that you should do as I have done to you. John 13:15. This passage only says that he gave an example of humble service by washing his disciples' feet. And this indicates how his followers then are to live. They are to do many such things. And he was simply exemplifying that with this act of foot washing.

So to bring this to a close, the -- both the Quaker and the Mennonite are wrong in some things. But the Mennonite is more right than the Quaker here.

No. 14.

>> Quakers speak of inner light, don't they? Does the Quaker inner light teaching contain both truth and error? And is the idea of inner light as taught by the Quakers similar to the ideas of Lutheran pietism? By way of a side note, I'm always amazed by the extent of pietism I find among those elderly Lutherans who move into our churches here in LA from the Midwest. This seems especially true of those of the Scandinavian background.

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: You mentioned pietism, which was a movement that developed among Lutherans in the 18th Century and continues today in some places. It's a movement that insisted upon living piety in the Christian. And the pietists weren't all alike. Some were more radical than others. Radical pietism was more rationalistic than some of the types. And some was closer to Orthodox Lutheran tradition.

But there was a tendency in pietism to what we can call an Osiandrian doctrine of justification. The founder, ***Phillip Jacob Spainer, said that justification is directly related to the indwelling Christ. That is faith is not simply the acceptance of the merits of Christ. It must also call Christ to dwell in the believer's heart.

And the concept of the imputation of Christ's righteousness for a declaration of righteousness and justification is replaced by the idea that justification and sanctification form a unite, that is a new birth. Where there's an inner transformation becoming the source of the new life of the Christian. Which really identifies the Christian.

Phillip Spainer did not hold that a Christian could live a perfect life in this world. But he did believe there are those who can attain freedom from all intentional sin. And in the emphasis upon the sanctified life as a testimony to the true faith, there also was the feature that came in of a negative attitude toward life in this world.

Dieing to this world was it to manifest it self in the avoidance of all worldliness of pleasure and amusement. And there was a tendency and is a tendency toward synergism and also the rule that the Christian should be able to point to a distinct demarcated conversion experience preceded by an inner crisis, that is the repentance struggle revoked by the preaching of the law.

Man then in this way is brought to the point where he decides to break with the world and begin a new life. And then it is that the gift of faith is bestowed on him. And through this faith receives forgiveness. Other characteristics of pietism have been the view of experience as the ground of real certainty. And an attitude toward Word and sacrament which overemphasizes the feelings.

Now, Quakers whom we want to talk about here are, indeed, like the pietists in some respects, in some of the things that I've just been describing. But Quakers go beyond pietism in teaching the concept of the inner light. That there is an inner light by which Christians -- and in fact all human beings -- can expect to receive communications and messages from Christ and his Holy Spirit apart from Scripture and Christian preaching.

The concept of the inner light in Quaker thinking has many ramifications and applications. It affects their view of Scripture. That is Scripture is seen as a collection of the revelations or inner light experiences of the prophets and the apostles. The primary rule of Christianity is said not to be Scripture but rather the Spirit and his inward testimony. And Scripture then is a secondary rule which points and directs Christians to the direct guidance of the Spirit which produced the Scriptures.

And the right use of the inner light or the guidance within then will lead to a knowledge of the same truth as found in Scripture since both Scripture and their own spiritual experiences emanate from the same Holy Spirit. So Scripture then for Quakers is a useful guide, a very useful guide. But the final, ultimate authority for faith in life is the voice of God within the individual. And Scripture is simply a secondary guide for this.

The concept of the inner light accounts for the name Quaker. That's really a nickname. Officially the Quakers prefer to properly be called the friends. And that's taken from a Bible passage, John 15:15, where Jesus said: I have called you friends.

The inner light really gave rise to this nickname, Quakerism, because these were people that quaked and shook in their worship meetings because of the effect of the inner light or the coming of the Spirit which was breaking through to them so that they were quakers in that regard. And their critics then called them the Quakers and made fun of them for that. So it was a term of duration at least in the beginning.

The concept of the inner light is also a reason for the difference between the three main types of Quakers. Those three main types are the rationalists, the Orthodox Quakers and the conservative Quakers. The rationalistic Quakers are often called Hicksites after John Hicks of the 19th Century who advocated a liberal kind of theology. But the point is he was saying that his liberal ideas should be regarded as acceptable among Quakers as long as the inner light was being taught. Because that was the really important thing and not the doctrine that is taught by the -- by Christian people.

Then there are the Orthodox Quakers who maintained that while the inner light is very important to be teaching and using, it is equally important to teach some Orthodox doctrinal terms and ideas along with the inner light. And the teaching of the inner light does not exclude them or allow unOrthodox teaching.

And then there are the conservative Quakers who are called conservative because they are much concerned with the conservation and preservation of the essential and original Quaker convictions as they see these. Above all the teaching of the inner light, which is what is most important. And these are often called the Wilburites after John Wilbur, who was a 19th Century preacher of the Quakers. And a leader of them. Who complained that the Orthodox Quakers of this time were stressing traditional Christian doctrines too much at the expense of the inner light teaching. And wished to give greater emphasis to the inner light and the use of the inner light.

The inner light concept shapes their view of the Christian life. That is to say the Quakers emphasized the development of spiritual experience by communion with the inner light shining within a person. So they say, for example, the chief end of all religion is to redeem man from the spirit and vain conversation of this world and to lead him into inward communion with God. That's an experience of the inner light, which is then to be expressed in a Christ like lifestyle.

Quaker piety, for which Quakers are well known, has been described as a sensitivity to the wider spiritual life above us, around us and within us. A dedication to duty, a passion for truth and an appreciation of goodness and eagerness to let the love and grace of God come freely through one's life. A reference for the will of God wherever it is revealed in past or present and a high faith that Christ is a living presence and a life giving energy always within the reach of the receptive individual.

So this is living by the inner light. And by the power of God that comes through the inner light.

Quakers also take the notion of the inner light to the extreme of teaching that the Christian who is being led by the inner light can come to live a perfect life, that is to say he can become free from all sinning all together. That is to say as the founder of Quakerism, George Fox, said: He can rise above sin level.

The concept of the inner light is also applied in their view of conversion. That is to say Quakers teach that every human being that's ever born into the world has two seeds within him. That is to say two features within him, the features of spiritual life within him, which can grow into something.

There is the good seed and the bad seed. The bad seed is sin and tendencies toward sin and one can let that grow within one -- oneself and so become a very evil person. But the other seed, the good seed, is actually the inner light. And conversion comes about by cooperating with that inner light and letting it shine within a person so that their doctrine of conversion is certainly a synergistic doctrine. That is it's a doctrine of cooperating with the inner light that all people actually have. If only it will be recognized and used.

Similarly, the doctrine of the inner light among the Quakers is applied in their view of justification. They say that justification is based upon the working of the inner light. That is upon the rebirth that cooperation with the inner light brings about within a person.

So for them, justification is definitely not simply a declaration that one is righteous on the basis of an imputed righteousness of Christ. And they explicitly refer to Luther's teaching on that and reject it. So the Quaker teaching is not forensic or declarative justification. But rather a justification by becoming righteous. A justification based upon transformation by the use of the inner light.

The idea of the inner light is applied to their view of the call into the ministry. That is to say they believe that whenever somebody becomes a minister, whether man or woman, the call into this work of ministry always comes about through the inner light within a person. Telling that person to become a minister and to serve God as a minister.

And many Quaker congregations have no ministers because no one among them has received such a call through the inner light. Only certain people receive such a call. When they do, then they announce that to the congregation and then this announcement is recorded. And that person then serves in that congregation as the recorded minister of that congregation. And as I say it can come to both men and women, they make no distinction on that.

The concept of the inner light is applied in the worship meetings of the Quakers. That is to say in their practice regarding worship meetings. The traditional Quaker meeting which is used by many, many Quakers of various types is called the silent meeting and the unprogrammed meeting. Because it is a worship service that's not programmed in any way by the planning of sermons and hymns and the like. But rather, it is a meeting in silence for the purpose of letting the inner light shine within us and meditating upon that inner light.

And all of this continues in silence unless the Spirit through the inner light moves a person to speak a word or a prayer or preach or sing. Otherwise, there is complete silence until the very end of this service.

There are some Quakers that have what's called a programmed service. That is to say there are some planned things in it so it's more like a Protestant service with which we are familiar. But nevertheless, also they still make provision for the working of the inner light in such a service. So that if someone is moved to give some kind of testimony or some such thing, they are free to do so.

The concept of the inner light is also applied in the decision making process in business meetings. That is to say all decisions -- the Quakers have this principle: That all of their decisions are to be unanimous. That is to say they are not to be made simply by voting and deciding to do what has the most votes. But everything must be unanimously decided.

And this then must be done by the use of the inner light. Letting the inner light work so that there is persuasion that takes place. And sometimes they will simply say: Let us simply stop and meditate about this. That is to say: Let the light shine within us.

And in each of these business meetings there's always a clerk of the meeting who has the duty to watch and observe whether the discussion is showing a consensus being reached. And if he or she notices such a consensus taking place, then that is recorded as the sense of the meeting by him. And if no such sense of the meeting is reached, then no decision is recognized.

And also, the inner light is the ground for their view of equality and their view of benevolence. Quakers often say that their insistence upon the quality of all men is based upon their recognition of the fact that the inner light is found in all men. No matter who they are. Whether they are Christians or not.

So that all people are equal because all have the inner light. And furthermore, we should love and help all of them because they all have the inner light, just as we have the inner light. And so a recognition of the duty of benevolence toward all people then arrives out of taking the inner light seriously.

One custom for which the Quakers have been well known in their history is the linguistic habit of always using the pronouns thee and thou and sometimes just thee in referring to the second person. And this came about because of their view of the equality of all men. There was a custom in the time when Quakerism arose in the 17th Century of referring to certain individuals of high nobility with the plural form in the second person. Even though it was only one person being addressed, they were addressed as if they were more than one person. And this was said to be a recognition of respect for them in addressing them.

But the Quakers did not want to do this. Because they regarded this as the denial of the equality of all men. So whether they were talking to a prince or a pauper, to a nobleman or just to an ordinary person, they always said that he should be called with the second person singular pronoun. And in that day the second person singular pronoun was often thee and thou in the old English. So they used thee and thou for referring to everyone.

And Quakers have often done this. Although, that custom has now been pretty much discarded because of modern linguistic usages which does use the second plural form, mainly you, also for the second person singular form nowadays.

Now, in this teaching of the inner light, there is, indeed, a mixture of truth and error. There is some truth in it. That is to say the Bible certainly teaches us that Jesus is the light of the world. John 9:5. Jesus says it there. And in John 1:9 there is the statement that Jesus was the true light, which enlightens every man that comes into the world.

That in fact is often called the Quaker text. Because the Quakers like that text very much. Because they say that it says that every man that comes into the world has the inner light. And is enlightened by the inner light. Whether they are Christians or not. Whether they have ever heard the Gospel or not. Whether they confess Jesus or not. They all have the inner light which gives them light by which they can be saved.

II Corinthians 4:6 is another one of the many passages about light in the New Testament. It says: God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness has shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus.

And I John 2:10 and 11 is one of the many passages that speaks of the great and thick darkness of the sin and immoral attitudes and the like from which we certainly do need -- we need deliverance by illumination.

So John says there: He that loves his brother abides in the light. But he who hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness.

So there is certainly biblical truth in the concept of the inner light. But Quakers have added some errors to this basic biblical truth, as I've been pointing out already.

One of these errors is that there is salvation apart from the name of Christ. That is apart from knowing and using the name of Christ as Savior. Acts 4:12 as the words of Saint Peter in talking about the name of Jesus. There is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we are to be saved.

So we do not believe that every person, whether he knows the Gospel or not, has light by which he can be saved. Because it is the Gospel of Jesus which saves. He is the Savior and the -- the saving truth is found only in the Gospel. We must insist upon that.

Also, the teaching the of synergism in form of the cooperation with the inner light and bringing about one's conversion, that also is not a true biblical teaching. In the passage that I quoted before from II Corinthians 4:6, one thing we notice is that it's God that turns on the light within a person. It's not a person that has the light within himself or can use that light within himself. But rather, it is a light that's turned on by God. And that's what conversion is.

Let me read the passage again: God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness has shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus.

And furthermore, John 1:9 really does not say that every person that comes into the world has the light of Christ or has Christ as a light. The use of this text as the Quaker text is really a wrong use of the text. Because the words there, "that comes into the world," is really referring to the light himself. That is to Jesus, the historic Christ. So he is the light that enlightens every man. Who was coming into the world to give that light to every man.

We have to look at the context here in John 1 because the context then also says that there were people who definitely were going against the light, namely, the light of Jesus who had appeared to them in his earthly life. And they were rejecting him. They were rejecting the light that had come into the world. And that's what the text is talking about, the historic Christ. Not an inner light that is in all people regardless of whether they know the Gospel of Christ or not.

No. 15.

>> I hope these questions are not so obvious as they may first appear. But what do Quakers lose by not using the sacraments? And why are they so opposed to the sacraments?

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: Well, first of all, we should say that Quakers are not exactly opposed to the sacraments. They are willing to say that the sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper, served as good object lessons in the early church when they were still being used.

Actually they regard the use of sacraments as optional. And so you will find a few Quakers today here and there who opt to make use of them as object lessons of the Gospel as they understand the Gospel. That is object lessons in their devotion.

But Quakers say that the ceremonies here are only externals. The important thing is to have the spiritual realities which they symbolize. That is to say the important thing is to have the substance that is behind these externals and these symbols.

What the Quakers are opposed to really is the claim which they consider false and misconceived and presumptuous that the sacraments are means of grace and means of salvation through which God works. And that they are necessary for the church. They are opposed to that kind of teaching. And they say that this is really confusing spiritual substance with physical externals.

And as we've already been pointing out under other questions, Lutherans do, indeed, believe that the sacraments are means of grace and means of salvation through which God does work powerfully.

And so what do Quakers actually lose by not using the sacraments? And that's true of many of them, that they do not use the sacraments. That's the usual Quaker approach.

We can say that they lose the very effect which the sacraments were intended to have. That is spiritual upbuilding, which the Lord intends to work through his sacraments.

In baptism we have many glorious promises about what baptism does. "Baptism does also now save us." I Peter 3:21. We know from Scripture that God acts through baptism and thereby creates a clear conscience which can stand before God in making it's appeal. That's what I Peter 3:21 actually says.

God creates new life in baptism. And the believer dies to sin and rises to new life in baptism. That's what Paul is talking about in Romans 6. There he says that we are incorporated into Christ's death and resurrection through baptism.

Mercy comes into our lives through the washing of rebirth and renewal. Titus 3:5 says that. The words of Saint Paul. Baptism justifies us and makes us righteous in God's sight and makes us heirs in sure hope of eternal life. The letter to Titus says that in the passage that I just referred to, Titus 3:5.

The Holy Spirit comes to us through the Word combined with water and by this one enters God's kingdom. That was what Jesus said in John 3 to Nicodemus when he said that some are born of water and of the Spirit. And that no one can enter the kingdom of heaven without that.

The church is cleansed in baptism. Ephesians 5:25 to 27 says this. Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it that he might cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word. And the people of the nations are made disciples of Jesus through baptism. Matthew 28. The words of the Great Commission: Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

We also know from scriptural teaching that the Lord's Supper is a wonderful and glorious and powerful means of grace through which God works with us and gives us blessings. He wants to give us communion with himself in our feelings of loneliness which so often afflict us. He gives us communion with himself and with our fellow believers in connection with him.

In our enslavement to sin, he wants to give us deliverance from that by giving us the very body and blood which was -- which were given and shed in order to deliver us, to redeem us. Against the fear of death he wants to give us assurance that we will rise again. Here he gives us the very body which was given into death for us in order that he might conquer death and take away the curse of death. That we might rise with him.

He wishes to give us the benefit of an inspiration for thanksgiving when we receive the very body of Christ given for us and the blood of Christ shed for us. We cannot help but be aware of the great love of the Savior for us. That is the Savior who did -- who made such a sacrifice for us.

And so we are, indeed, moved to heart felt thanks giving. And for this reason the Lord's Supper is often called a Eucharist, which means in Greek a thanksgiving.

And in our tendency to forget what God has done for us through Christ, the Lord wants to bless us with a remembrance and a memorial of what he has done. That's why the Words of Institution have the words of remembrance.

Take. Eat. This is my body. Do this in remembrance of me. And take. Drink. This is my blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do as often as you drink it in remembrance of me.

And in our home sickness he wants to give us the promise of an eternal home. We often have the feeling of being strangers and pilgrims here on this earth. And that heaven is really our home. And the Lord's Supper certainly reminds us of this. Because this supernatural reality here that shows us that there is a glorious life beyond this. And God has provided for us a way in which we may enter this glorious life. That is to say he has provided for the remission of our sins by this shedding of the blood of Christ on the cross. By this forgiveness then, we are made acceptable to God. And it is possible for us to then live forever in the heavenly home, which would not be possible without the Savior of the cross.

No. 16.

>> Here is a quick question I think: If Quakers make little use of the sacraments, what do they believe about Christ?

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: Quakers, indeed, have a doctrine about Christ. And they think that it is important that Christ has come. Although, they also have the doctrine of the inner light, which says that even people that don't know about Christ nevertheless have a connection with God through the inner light. But nevertheless, they also say that the inner light is connected with Christ, even if they don't realize that it is.

There are two kinds of Quakers as far as the attitude toward Christ is concerned. There are the Unitarian Quakers and the Trinitarian Quakers. And you will, indeed, find both of them.

The Unitarian Quakers say that there's only one divine person. And that Jesus Christ was simply a man who was filled with the inner light that God gives. And so when Christ is called a light and when he is called a Son of God, that is simply a way of saying, they will say, that Christ is filled with the inner light. And that he is a special servant or Son of God.

The Trinitarian Quakers believe that there are three divine persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. And they believe that Christ, the Son, is also called the Light because he gives the inner light which is so important to them, to us. And that he works together with the third person of the Trinity, that is the Holy Spirit, in bringing this light to people.

Now, here we need to talk about the Quaker view of the work of Christ. And they definitely do have teaching about the work that Christ was sent to do. They say that he purchased the inner light by his death for sinners. And that one does not need to know the Gospel story about Christ in order to be saved or to have the benefit of salvation. But they say that salvation always comes about by making use of the inner light which he has made available.

And this was also true of the people in the Old Testament living before Jesus came. They say that inner light was always being made available in anticipation of the Savior who would come to make that inner light available.

And they will say then this: That Jesus has made justification potential for us. But it is the new birth coming about through working with the inner light which actually makes justification actual for us. So they distinguish between making justification potential, which Jesus did. And making it actual, which comes about in our own lives. But they say, also, that is the work of Christ. Because Christ gives the inner light for producing that inner birth in us, which then makes justification actual on the basis of a change or a transformation that comes about in us by regeneration or rebirth.

No. 17.

>> I hope I'm not taking us too quickly in a new direction. But I want to ask about millennialism. What are the problems and dangers of millennialism? And are all millennialists the same?

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: Well, there are certainly different kinds of millennialists. And they are not all the same. Millennialism in general is the doctrine that there will be a period of glory and political power for the people of God before Judgement Day. And this is thought then to be the meaning of the reign with Christ, which is spoken of in Revelation 20 which uses the word thousand there, that he reigned for a thousand years with his saints. And the word millennialism simply comes from the Latin word for thousand and also the Latin word for year, millennialism.

There was amillennialism or non-millennialism which denies that there will be any period of glory or political power for the believers before the coming of Christ. But rather, it is taught by amillennialists that they shall endure tribulation until the end. As Matthew 24 portrays.

And then also there is the passage in John 18:36 which is very important in this -- in considering this matter: Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." That is his kingdom doesn't have the same nature as the kingdom of this world. It doesn't originate by political and military maneuvers and does not operate by means of political powers.

So then this is the teaching of amillennialism. And I'll talk about that for a little while. That is to say amillennialism takes the position that the thousand-year reign with Christ is actually going on right now. It refers to the period of church history when Christ is, in fact, reigning through his church or reigning with his church. Sharing his power at the right hand of God with his people. Welcome back to that later.

But the point is that during the time of the millennial reign as understood by amillennialists, we can say that the Old Testament promises that were made to Israel in the Old Testament have actually been fulfilled in the church. The millennial really is the life of the church.

And that means that the church is really the new Israel. That's shown by a number of passages of Scripture like, for example, I Peter 2:9. Where Peter uses words from the Old Testament referring to the Old Testament Israel and applies them to the Christian church: You are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a special people.

And Galatians 3:7 is a passage where Paul refers to the believers in Christ as the spiritual children of Abraham, therefore, the spiritual Israel, where he says: All who believe are the children of Abraham. And that's why in the book of Galatians at the end of the book in Chapter 6 he refers to the church as the Israel of God.

And so the church is the new Israel. And Peter in his Pentecost sermon makes that very clear. That the prophesies of messianic times were being fulfilled as he spoke in the beginning mission work of the Christian church and in the events that were there taking place.

And James does the same thing in Acts 15 in his speech at the Apostolic Council where he quoted from Amos 9 which talks about the coming building up of the tabernacle of David and the Gentiles seeking the Lord. And James pointing out that this was coming to pass in the mission work of the church.

Ephesians Chapter 2 and Galatians Chapter 3 make it clear that the Jews are united with the Gentiles in the kingdom of Christ. The Jews are not a separate class that have an independent destiny under God, an independent destiny to rule and so forth. But rather, they are united with the Gentiles in the kingdom of Christ. That is to say in the church. Galatians 3:28 says there is neither Jew nor Greek or Gentile if you are all one in Christ.

Now, I said that there were different kinds of millennialism. One is called postmillennialism. And that comes from the Latin word post which means after. And it means that the second -- it's the teaching that the second advent of Christ will occur after the millennium of righteousness and peace that has been brought about by the political and religious work of the church throughout the world.

So according to this teaching, Christ himself will not appear visibly to inaugurate this reign of Christ. But rather, Christ will stay in the background and will work through his church.

Modern postmillennialism began in the 18th Century. And it reached its heyday during the 19th Century and was a very prominent teaching in the churches of that time. And it's still held by some people today. But it's not the most common millennial teaching certainly.

There's diversity among the postmillennialists in teaching this thousand-year reign of Christ. Some take the number literally and some take it as a long time or symbolically as, in fact, the amillennialists do. And some expect the millennium to commence in the future. And some say it's already begun with the ascension and coincides with all of the church's influence. So that again is that -- that version of postmillennialism is much like amillennialism.

In any case, the Old Testament promises of the messianic kingdom are said to be fulfilled in the Christian church, according to amillennialism as well as in postmillennialism. All of the postmillennialists agree that the reign of Christ must include sooner or later the Christianization of the world and political dominion for Christians. And that Christ will not come again until all of these things have happened.

So while there are similarities between the non-millennialists and the postmillennialists, this is the important difference, that is that two-fold difference that I just stated. That is there is to be a Christianization of the whole world. And there will be political dominion for Christians. And they then teach that there will be a little season of Satan as Revelation 20 portrays. And there will be a visible second advent. And then there will be a general resurrection of all people at that time and a general judgement of all people. And verdicts of either eternal life or eternal damnation will then be rendered.

And then there is another kind of millennialism. Namely premillennialism taken from the Latin word pre meaning before. This is the teaching that Christ will return before the thousand-year kingdom begins. That is he will come to set it up upon the earth.

Premillennialism in one form or another has existed since the very beginning of the church's history. And we can read about it in various early church writings. Like Justin Martyr, for example, writing in the Second Century. He himself was a premillennialist. And states that. But he also says there were others that disagreed with him that denied there will be a millennium of a political nature. In other words, these were amillennialist or non-millennialists that he was talking about here and complaining about.

So there's a long history to both of these views. And we often speak of historic premillennialism which has a long history going back to the beginning of the history of the church. But then there is also a special kind of premillennialism called dispensationalism. And that's a version of premillennialism that began in the 19th Century with a man by the name of John Nelson Darby.

We'll speak more about dispensationalism a little bit. But here I want to point out that there are some definite problems with millennialism. You ask: Are there problems or what are the problems with millennial teaching? There are a number of them.

First of all, there is the problem that is connected with the verse that I quoted before, the words of Jesus in John 18:36: My kingdom is not of this world. That is -- that saying that Jesus' kingdom does not have the same nature as the kingdoms of this world and we should not be looking for the kingdom of Jesus to be taking this form. It does not originate from political and military maneuvers and doesn't operate by means of political power.

Now, millennialists who believe in a thousand-year political reign of Christ agree that this is what Jesus does mean in this passage, John 18:36. But they base their view upon the word "now" that appears later in this verse. That is that word "now," which is gennao in the Greek, comes up in this sentence of the words of Jesus. "Now my kingdom is not from hence."

And their argument then is that this word "now," that Jesus uses implies that his kingdom is not now of this world. But it will be of this world at a future time.

But amillennialists disagree with this interpretation of this text. That is amillennialists point out that the word "now," that is the word gennao in Greek, is used in two different ways in the Greek of the New Testament. Sometimes it can have a chronological meaning which is the way that dispensationalists are using it in this instance with regard to this text. But it also has a logical meaning. And when it has a logical meaning, then it is to be translated with some words like this: As a matter of fact. Or as it is in the real world which here and now exists. Or instead. Without any implication about whether a change is to come about in the future.

So what Jesus means according to that in this passage is this: If my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight. That's an unreal condition that he stated here. Because he says -- goes onto say: As a matter of fact, my kingdom is not from here. That is from this world.

Jesus' kingdom is in operation right now. We know that. And I'll point that out again in a moment. Jesus' kingdom does not await its existence in the future. That is in some time of some new and improved world system. But rather, it exists right now. And Jesus' description has to do with what its nature is right now.

Now, one problem, which I just referred to, with millennialism has to do with the form of millennialism called dispensationalism. Dispensationalism makes the claim that there is no kingdom of Christ now at the present time. And there will not be a kingdom of Christ until the time of the millennium.

This is because of their view that Jesus originally came to set up his kingdom during his lifetime. That is to set up his thousand-year reign. But he could not do that because the Jewish people as a whole would not accept him and would not follow him and cooperate with him in setting up this kingdom which has been promised in the Old Testament to the Jews. A kingdom will rule the earth.

And so because of that, Jesus had to postpone the setting up of his kingdom until a future time, until a future dispensation as the dispensationalists say.

And so what they say is that what Jesus did instead was to set up his church, which is not his kingdom. And that his kingdom will not exist until he comes to set up his kingdom in the millennium.

Non-millennialists disagree with this. Find a problem with this assertion. Because it's not what the Bible teaches. Colossians 1:13 says that God has translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son. That is to say it exists now. And we have been brought into it.

And in Acts 2, Peter tells how God has sworn with an oath to raise up Christ to sit on his throne. And he says in his Pentecost sermon that now that has happened. It has been fulfilled at the ascension of Jesus.

Then there's the whole matter of the Great Tribulation, which is certainly problematic within millennialism. Revelation 7:14 speaks of a Great Tribulation. That is it speaks of a great multitude arrayed in white which has come out of the Great Tribulation. Now, Lutherans and in fact, many other Christians take this to be referring to all of the trouble and tribulation throughout history by which Christians enter the kingdom of heaven.

But the dispensationalists see the Great Tribulation as a period after Christ's coming for the rapture. That is it will be seven years during which tribulation gradually will come about. And dispensationalists will then use the old prophesy in Daniel 9 to determine the length of the Great Tribulation. That is to say it will be seven years.

There's nothing in the Revelation passage in Revelation 7:14 about the length of time of the Great Tribulation. But dispensationalists derive that from Daniel 20 (sic), which speaks about the seven weeks or groups of years which have been designed by God for the purpose of bringing about reconciliation for sin and bringing in everlasting righteousness as the prophet says.

So it's a prophesy of the coming of Christ to make atonement for sin. And this was then to happen at the culmination of these 70 weeks or groups of seven.

What Daniel's prophesy says that after 69 of these sevens, the Messiah will be cut off. And then after that -- well then during this last week of seven, this last group of seven years, a covenant will be confirmed with many and he will cause the sacrifices to cease.

There are a number of different explanations of this passage, Daniel 9 -- from Daniel 9. And I'll just mention two of them here. One is the dispensationalist interpretation of this passage, which we are referring to right here. And then I will also refer to the second interpretation, which is the amillennialist interpretation or that is to say the traditional messianic interpretation of this passage.

Dispensationalism says that Messiah was cut off at the end of the 69th week. And so they say that last week of years, that last seven years was postponed because his kingdom was postponed as we have mentioned before in their teaching. And so then they say Daniel is describing events that were happening -- that are to happen, rather, just before the establishment of the millennial kingdom.

So there's a period of seven years to come just preceding the millennium. That's the seven years which have been postponed along with the millennial kingdom itself. And in those years there will be a secular dictator, that is the anti-Christ, who will make a covenant or agreement with the Jews in Israel. And then he will renege on that covenant or treaty by attacking Israel and by destroying the temple that will be built in Jerusalem at that time. And in that way he will cause the sacrifices to cease. He will put an end to the ceremonial worship of sacrifices in that rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.

We disagree as amillennialists with this interpretation. According to Daniel's words, the 70 sevens were to conclude with the accomplishment of reconciliation. Of the vicarious atonement.

But in the dispensationalist interpretation, the atonement really does not take place in this last week of years, this last seven years. But rather, the vicarious atonement takes place in history long, long, long before those seven weeks come about because they've been postponed. So that's a definite problem with that interpretation of the Daniel passage.

And also we don't agree that the kingdom of Christ has been postponed. It exists now we believe. And so we see no reason for a postponement of that last week of years. That is to say the postponement of the last seven years making it available for seven years of tribulation, to be called seven years of tribulation. That stands or falls with the postponement of the kingdom of Christ in the dispensationalist teaching. And if we reject the one, we also will have no reason for accepting the other.

Now, the other point of view, the traditional messianic point of view is this: That the last seven of years in this 70 sevens is the seven within which the fulfillment of the promise of reconciliation comes about. And in which it did come about historically. And that is the period in which Messiah was actually cut off as Daniel says.

And so the covenant which is to be made with many is made not by the anti-Christ but rather by Christ in this prophesy. It is the new covenant in his blood which Jesus announces in the Words of Institution for his Holy Supper. And he is the one that makes the sacrifices to cease by fulfilling the meaning of the Old Testament sacrificial system and bringing all reason for those sacrifices to a close because now he has brought the fulfillment to them.

Another problem with the whole matter of the -- the whole teaching of dispensationalism is their view about the Old Testament sacrifices. They teach that the temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem already during the time of the Great Tribulation and will continue then during the whole time of the millennium. And will be used for the Old Testament sacrifices to be performed. And the anti-Christ will make a temporary interruption in that sacrificial practice. But after Christ comes again and overthrows the anti-Christ then the sacrificial system will be put into operation once more. And will continue for a thousand years.

Where do the dispensationalists get this idea? They get it from the book of Ezekiel. In the last part of the book of Ezekiel in Chapters 40 to 48, there's a description of a temple in which sacrifices are offered. And the dispensationalists say that this is the temple of millennial times, which then will be a new temple that will be built at this time in Jerusalem. Which does not now yet exist.

But this -- all of this goes contrary to what the Bible actually says. Namely, that the ceremonial law of the Old Testament has been abolished now in New Testament times. It is part of the ceremonial law which has been abrogated. The book of Hebrews is very explicit about this.

Hebrews 7:18 says that the old covenant with its ceremonial law of sacrifice has been abolished in the New Testament. This passage then says: The former regulation is set aside. And then in the next chapter, Hebrews 8 in Verse 13 there's a quotation from the prophet Jeremiah concerning the new covenant which is to come. And then this comment is made by the author of the book of Hebrews: When he says a new covenant, he has made the first one -- the first covenant -- obsolete. Now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away.

So according to this, there certainly will not be a sacrificial system which is to be reestablished in future times. Besides this, there's another problem, too. That is if Ezekiel is to be taken as the proof text for the teaching of the new temple which is to come during the time of the millennium, then what should we do with Ezekiel 45:22 which says that in this temple the king will continually make sacrifices, first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people.

If this is a temple of the millennial times and the king of that time is Christ but Christ certainly does not have to make sacrifices for his own sin. So this doesn't fit that part of the prophesy.

Then there's something else, also, which is a problem for dispensationalism. And also for other kinds of millennialism. That is to say it's the whole matter of the little season in which Satan is released and allowed to stir up a rebellion among the wicked for a short time until Christ puts an end to it.

And all those who teach a literal millennium then also take this part Revelation 20 in a literal way. But there's a problem here which has been commented upon by certain writers. That is to say: Where do these wicked people come from whom Satan stirs up for such a rebellion? During the millennium, the people there are the saints, the resurrected saints who are glorified. They would not be wicked people who would be stirred up for a rebellion.

And so dispensationalists have to try to explain this. And what they say is that there will be certain people living in the millennium who will not be glorified saints. That is to say they will not be resurrected people. They will be people that will have survived into the time of the millennium. They will not have died during the time of the Battle of Armageddon which takes place just before the millennium. So they will not have died. And therefore, they will not be resurrected and will not be glorified. So then they will still have the old sinful nature.

And furthermore, they will not be people who will no longer marry as the resurrected will be as Jesus says. But rather, they will be people that will marry and have children. And they then will pass on their inherited sin to -- also to their children.

So the children then of the people living in the millennium will be people that may, indeed, become sinners, sinful people and wicked people depending on how they live. Some will be converted because there will be conversions taking place during the millennium. And some will never be converted. And they will be these sinful people. And they are the ones who are said to take part in the little season of Satan.

But this certainly is a problem. Because the Scripture really does not indicate that this will take place in this way.

And then there's the idea of two resurrections and two judgments. Millennialism says that there is -- at least premillennialism says that there are to be two resurrections a thousand years apart. That is to say there will be a resurrection of the believers that will take place just before the millennium. And there will be a resurrection of the evil people that will take place at the end of the millennium.

But that doesn't correspond with what Jesus says in John 6:40. That is to say he says there that he will give eternal life to the one that believes in Christ. And he says: I will raise him up at the last day. He won't raise him up a thousand years before the last day as premillennialism teaches. But he will raise him up at the last day when all the other people are raised up.

And then the matter of the two judgments does not really fit with Scripture, either. In Matthew 25 we have the judgement of the sheep and the goats. And according to premillennialism, this is not the final judgement but rather, this is the judgement simply of the people who are still alive at the end of the Battle of Armageddon. And those people then will be judged. And people with a favorable verdict will then go in through the millennium and will then live in the millennium with Christ. And as we said before, some of them are said to have children if they are not glorified, resurrected people.

But none of this really seems to be taking seriously the way the words read in Matthew 25. That is to say this is really describing a judgment in which certain people are damned and they go into everlasting punishment. And that certainly has an air of finality about it. That is describing the last judgment. And it's the judgement which really will involve all people, both living and those who are resurrected at the time when Jesus comes again. It is to be identified with the judgement of the last day.

No. 18.

>> I, too, am interested in learning more about millennialism. Are we denying the full authority of Scripture if we deny that the thousand-year reign of Christ in Revelation 20 will really happen? Can amillennialism be taken too far?

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: Yes, you refer to the Lutheran hermeneutic. That is there is certainly a rule of interpretation of the Scripture which says this: That we should not depart from the proper sense of the text. That is to say the exact sense of the words, unless forced by Scripture it self. That either by circumstances in the text itself or by a parallel passage or by the analogy of faith. And the analogy of faith is really the harmony of a passage with all clear passages on that same doctrine, which are found in Scripture.

Now, amillennialists are certainly undertaking an interpretation which does not follow the proper, meaning the exact, sense of the passage in Revelation 20. But rather, we are giving a figurative interpretation to the text, as I've already indicated in my answer to the last question.

And amillennialists believe that there is indication within Scripture itself, indication from the analogy of faith and from clear passages of Scripture that this is the right way to understand that text.

And so the thousand-years reign with Christ in Revelation 20 is understood figuratively. The number there is a symbolic number. And we find many symbolic numbers in the book of Revelation and elsewhere in Scripture. The number here is really a multiple of a number ten. Thousand is ten times ten times ten. And ten is often used in Scripture as a symbolic number referring to completeness.

And the thousand-years reign in Christ in Revelation 20 is an image of the completeness and completion of all that God had planned to accomplish through Christ. And it is saying that Christ will bring his plans and his purposes to completion, according to his own time schedule. The emphasis here is upon completion and completeness.

And so the thousand-year reign of Christ and of his people is really his work of carrying out the divine purposes. A work which he graciously shares with his church. And which he does through his people.

The Old Testament promises about the messianic kingdom are fulfilled not in some future reign of the Jews, which is to be set up in the future but, rather, these promises are fulfilled in the Christian church. And we take that into account in identifying what the kingdom of Christ is. What the reign of Christ with his people is.

The millennial period is the period of the church in which we are living right now. And in this millennial period Satan is bound, according to Revelation 20. That is to say he is bound in victories that are won by the church over the kingdom of darkness. Satan's kingdom. And also, during this time of the millennium that we are now experiencing, there occurs the career of anti-Christ. The counter Christ of the last times. And here we point out that there are both Protestant and Roman Catholic amillennialists. And many of the Protestants identify the anti-Christ with the Roman Catholic papacy. Of course, the Roman Catholic amillennialists don't make that identification. But identify the counter Christ with other figures of history and so forth.

And then there is the first resurrection in Revelation 20. There it says that there will be a resurrection of those people who will reign with Christ. The amillennialists take this to be a figurative resurrection. That is it is an image -- this resurrection described here is an image of a spiritual reality.

And then the little season of Satan, which is also described in Revelation 20 is taken to refer to increasing demonic activity and hostility to the church that appears near the end of history. That is toward the end of the period of the church, which is what the millennial reign is taken to be by amillennialists.

And then there is the Battle of Armageddon described in Revelation 16 and also Revelation 19. That is the end time conflict of God and the forces of evil. It's the final conflict of that ongoing war which is described in Scripture with military images.

Since the beginning of the church there has been such a war going on between Christ and his enemies, his spiritual enemies. And the Battle of Armageddon will be the final conflict of that war. Here we think of passages with military imagery like Ephesians 6 for example which says: Put on the whole armor of God in order that we might fight against the firey darks it of the wicked one and so forth.

And the vision of the Battle of Armageddon should not be interpreted literally any more than the other vision details of the revelation. Like the locusts and the chains and the lamp stands and the bulls of wrath and the beasts of the sea and the woman clothed with the sun and the moon and so forth.

And then amillennialism says at the end of this period will become the visible second advent of Christ. And the general resurrection will be a real physical resurrection of all people. And the last judgement will then take place.

Revelation 20 speaks of a reign with Christ. And in thinking about what this reign actually is, we should look to what the book of Revelation says here. Namely, that these are priests who reign with Christ. They are kings and priests. They share a kingdom and a priesthood with Christ.

And the reign of Christians with Christ and the royal priesthood that they share with him are really in operation right now. We do not have to wait for them to be set up in some future time.

Ephesians 1 speaks about this. That is Ephesians 1:20 describes the exaltation of Jesus when it says: God has set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places. And then in the next chapter, Chapter 2, he says: He has made us to sit together with him -- that is with Christ Jesus -- in heavenly places. And furthermore, we are now priests with him, according to I Peter 2:5 and 9 which speak of a spiritual priesthood which we have and then also speaks of the church as a royal priesthood.

And then in the book of Revelation itself in Revelation 1:6 it is said that Christ has made us a kingdom. That is there is an activity of reigning which the King shares with his people. And he has made us priests. And therefore, when Revelation 20 in the vision of the millennium refers to kings and priests who reign with Christ, that's referring to a present reality that's going on right now.

There are two different interpretations of this symbolism of a thousand years among the amillennialists, who are agreed, indeed, that there is symbolism involved here in the vision of the thousand-years reign. But one version is more comprehensive and says that the millennial image refers to reining with Christ in the church's life and work on earth and in heaven after death.

And then the second version is more restrictive as to what the millennium actually includes and says that the millennium includes only the life of the church after death. That is to say Christians will die and then go to share with Christ in reigning with him in his kingdom.

The more common interpretation among amillennialists is the first one. And I believe that is better supported by Scripture on the basis of things that I've said already.

Satan is bound during the millennial period. Scripture says that in Revelation 20. And here again, the amillennialists do not think that this should be taken in the exact sense, meaning the proper or literal sense. But rather, it should be taken in more of a spiritual sense to refer to the victories which the church gains over Satan and his kingdom in its work. Especially its mission work.

So Satan is bound according to this so he might deceive the nations for longer. And this means that Christ has decisively hindered and restrained Satan in his attempt to lead the whole world astray. He cannot do that now that Christ has come.

And so Satan is bound in relationship to what he would do if Christ had not come. And so Christ keeps the devil on a chain, so to speak. And controls and restrains his malignity and the power of Satan to bring rule to the whole human race was decisively curtailed by what Christ did.

Now, of course it is still true that the devil certainly does horrible, destructive work in the world right now. But his menace is not the same as what it would be without Christ. That is to say if Christ had never come.

We think of this fact in certain hymns that we sing like, for example, in the hymn about the "Mighty Fortress" talking about the devil. He can harm us none. He's judged. The deed is done. His rage we can endure. For lo, his doom is sure. To give one translation of a "Mighty Fortress."

Or there's the epiphany hymn which says: Jesus has come as the mighty redeemer. See now the threatening strong one disarmed. That's the devil.

Jesus breaks down all the walls of death's fortress. Bring forth the prisoners triumphant unharmed. Satan, you wicked one, own now your master. Jesus has come, he the mighty redeemer.

This is a present reality that we are speaking of here.

Then on the matter of the resurrection, I had mentioned before that amillennialists take that first resurrection referred to in Revelation 20 of those who are to reign with Christ not in a physical sense, a literal sense of a physical resurrection. Not in that proper exact sense. But rather, in a figurative sense.

And this is because according to Scripture, there is to be not two resurrections a thousand years apart but rather just one resurrection. And I pointed out at an earlier time why we say this. The words of Jesus in John 6:40 make it clear that there will be one resurrection.

The believer in Jesus will not be raised up a thousand years before the last day. But Jesus says: I will raise him up at the last day. There's one resurrection of all people. Believers and unbelievers. Just and unjust.

Therefore, it has to be that the first resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20 is not the physical resurrection to come at the last judgement. But rather, it is figuratively meant.

Amillennialists defer somewhat as to exactly what the symbolism of that first resurrection does refer to. Some amillennialists say that the first resurrection is an image of regeneration. And there certainly are a number of passages in Scripture in which regeneration is described by the image of resurrection.

For example, Ephesians 2 in the beginning verses which say that the Christians were dead in trespasses and sins. Now have been raised with Christ with a spiritual resurrection. That's regeneration.

Then there's the other point of view among amillennialists in which this first resurrection is simply identified with the rising of Christian souls into heaven after death. But that appears to be a much more unlikely interpretation.

Then, also, amillennialists do not take literally the description in Revelation 20 which refers to two comings of Christ. One to set up the millennium. And then another one at the end of the millennium to hold the final judgement. The great white throne judgement.

Because if we compare this with what clear passages of Scripture teach elsewhere, we see there's in fact only one return of Christ to be expected. This is spoken of in Hebrews 9:28: He shall appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

And then also you asked whether this amillennialism, this symbolic interpretation of the eschatological visions can actually be taken too far. Indeed, it can.

There is a version of amillennialism which is called Preterism. And that does go too far in applying all of this figurative interpretation to the eschatological prophesies. That is to say Preterism takes the basic amillennial rejection of a political reign of Christ, which all the amillennialists accept, and then extends that to a rejection of any expectation of the second coming at all. Saying that the second coming of Christ has occurred already. In other words, the second coming of Christ itself is said to be already past. And that's where the name of this idea comes from. It comes from the Latin word preter, which means past.

And it is saying that the second coming of Christ is past. It's not a literal event as described in Scripture. But rather, it's something in the past which has come about in some way that we understand symbolically or figuratively.

So Revelation as a book is said by this point of view to be no more than a book of symbols of the church's conflict with the Jews and with pagan Rome in the First Century. The thousand-years reign according to this was the life of Christ's church reigning with him until the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

And so Jesus' second coming then was not a literal event which we are still to look forward to. But rather, it was his action to punish the unbelieving Jews at that time in 70 AD. So that's certainly a figurative interpretation of the second coming of Christ.

And this is often called 70 ADism. That's another term for Preterism. And this view says that Christ continues to be present in Christianity and the work of the church. And that this will go on indefinitely. He will have no other coming. There will never be a second coming of Christ in the future. There will never be a literal resurrection of the physical body. But rather, the resurrection of the body is completely spiritual.

What we say about the first resurrection, that it was regeneration, that it was a spiritual resurrection, they say that that is what all prophesies of the resurrection are referring to. That is the spiritual experience of regeneration.

So then, according to this, we then will never have a resurrection of our bodies. But after death, we will continue to live in some spiritual body with the Lord.

Now, this idea, Preterism, is based mainly upon passages of Scripture that speak of Christ as coming soon. Coming quickly. And there are many passages of that type.

These passages should actually be understood as referring to a quickness as seen from God's perspective, not as seen from the perspective of men who are waiting for this to happen. Often impatiently. God, we remember, is not in time at all. But he is outside of time. He inhabits eternity.

God has set a date in time for the second coming of Christ and for Judgement Day, as Paul says in his sermon on Mars hill in Acts 17:31, he has appointed a day on which he will judge the world. But his Word to us is emphasizing that the return of Christ is the next great event to come in the plan of redemption.

Christ was born, suffered, died, rose again, ascended into heaven, sits on the right hand of God. And the next thing to happen will be the return for judgement. And we are now living in the interval between these two phrases of the creed. And we tend to forget that.

But the Word of God reminds us of it. And that's the reason for the use of the word soon and quickly and at hand and so forth.

The vast majority of amillennialists and in fact the vast majority of all Christians is that the Preterists have not done justice to the prophesies of Christ's coming. They have not seen the full scope of what is portrayed in them.

Look at I Peter 3:10, which says that: The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise. And the elements shall melt with fervent heat. The earth, also, and the works that are therein shall be burned up. And clearly nothing like that has happened yet.

No. 19.

>> Here is one more related question: Will there be a rapture when Jesus comes? I Thessalonians 4:17 seems to indicate that there will be a rapture.

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: Yes, indeed, it does. And we who do not believe in a literal political millennium, nevertheless, do believe in a rapture. Because Scripture does teach that in the passage that you just mentioned. Now, let's read the passage.

I Thessalonians 4 beginning at Verse 15. Paul says: We who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord will not precede those who have fallen asleep. That is to say have died. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God. And the dead can in Christ will rise first before anything else happens. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. So we shall be always with the Lord.

And the Word rapture simply means being caught up. And this is what Paul says. That this is what will happen when Christ comes again.

However, the dispensationalists have their own doctrine of the rapture which goes beyond what is stated here. That is they then say things that Paul does not state in I Thessalonians 4 and the words just read. That is he does not state that this event of the rapture will be secret and that it will not be seen by anyone else besides those who are taking part in it. There's nothing that says that.

And he does not say that the flow of history will go on then for seven years before the judgement at the end of time. None of that can be shown from this text. They have read it into the text.

Now, I think what was behind your question is that dispensationalists talk a great deal about the rapture. And they say that when this rapture happens, many people, namely, Christians will disappear out of the world. And those that are dead in the graves will also then disappear out of their graves. And they will simply not be in this world any longer. And that the only ones that will remain in the world are those who are unbelievers at that time.

And sometimes you see a car sticker that says: In the case of the rapture, this car will be unmanned. Meaning that the Christian driver will suddenly be gone. And who knows what will happen to the car then on the highway?

And there are all kinds of ideas like that. However, Paul does not indicate anything like that. But rather, as we have been seeing before, we expect that the rapture will be simply part of what's going to happen at the last day. When the dead in Christ rise, then the other people will also rise at the same time. And there will be a -- an appearance of all mankind before the judgement throne of God in order to be judged in the final judgement. That is how amillennialists understand the rapture.

Also, dispensationalists then say that there will be conversions that will take place after this return of Christ and after this rapture. That is to say they are called dispensationalists because they believe that history is divided up into dispensations. And they say that we are now living in the dispensation of the church.

And dispensationalists also then say that at the rapture the dispensation of the church will come to an end. And then another -- it will be time for another dispensational period to begin.

And there's a certain problem there with teaching that because dispensationalism, at least the -- according to the Scofield Bible, which is one of the many reference books for the teaching of dispensationalism, each dispensation has its own revelation by which God deals with people. And this revelation is different in each dispensation.

And so what is said in the Scofield Bible is that during the church period, which we are in now, people are saved by the Gospel of grace. That's the revelation that God is using now in this dispensation. But after this dispensation is over, after the rapture, God will be using a different revelation for converting people. And the Scofield Bible says that this will be the Gospel of the kingdom. And it is said that this is a different Gospel than the Gospel of grace. It's very comforting to know that they are wrong on this.

Another problem is that Scripture does not say that there will be conversions after a chance of salvation after the time of the rapture. Dispensationalists regularly say that there will, indeed, be another chance for those who have not up to the time of the rapture actually turned to God and believed in Christ. And they then will have another chance to be converted. But that hope is not held out in Scripture.

We see this, for example, in the parable of Matthew 25 about the wise virgins and the foolish virgins. The wise virgins were ready for the coming of the bridegroom, that is for the coming of Christ in the parable. And the foolish virgins who were not ready had the door shut on them and they couldn't get in. There was no more chance for them.

Or again, I Thessalonians 5 says that when Christ comes again, that will be the end of the whole period of grace. And that there will be no chance of salvation after that. That is it says: Now is the time of salvation. It does not say: You will have a another chance later. But now is the time of salvation. The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night. That is unexpected. The thief does not send notice that he's coming. And sudden destruction will come upon them and they will not escape.

No. 20.

>> In your answer to my question about the rapture, you said that dispensationalists have the idea that the Gospel of grace is different from the Gospel of the kingdom. And that it is comforting to know that they are wrong on that. What did you mean?

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: Oh, yes, I was talking about the notion of the dispensationalists that there will be conversions after the return of Christ. That is to say after the rapture happens. And that is they say there will be a mass conversion of the Jews at that time during the Great Tribulation period. And that these converted Jews then will also convert many Gentiles. And dispensationalists also believe that many conversions will take place during the time of the millennium itself. Because there will be all of those people who are children of unresurrected people and unglorified people living in the millennium. And those people will all need to be converted. And some so of them will not be converted.

Now, I had made the point that according to the dispensationalist Bible, the Scofield Bible, there will be a different means of conversion. That is to say a different Gospel for conversion that will be used during the time after the rapture than what is now being used during the church period.

So what Scofield says -- I'm talking about the Bible that was annotated by Cyrus Scofield, one of the great dispensationalist leaders. And according to him, the Gospel that will be used for conversions in the time after the rapture is called the Gospel of the kingdom. And that is to say all the passages of the Bible that talk about the Gospel of the kingdom are referring to this Gospel that is going to be used in that future time.

That is to say he says in a footnote: This is the good news that God purposes to set up on the earth in fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom. A kingdom political, spiritual, Israelitus, universal over which God's Son, David's heir, shall be king. Which shall be for one thousand years. The manifestation of the righteousness of God in human affairs.

Scofield also says in his Bible that there are to be two preachings of this Gospel. Two occasions on which it is preached. One has already happened. That was the preaching that was done during the ministry of John the Baptist, who was preparing people for the kingdom that was intended to be set up right then and there in the lifetime of Jesus. And that's called the Gospel of the kingdom in the Gospel accounts.

However, the dispensationalists say that because the Jews did not cooperate with Christ and proceed to set up the kingdom together with him, the kingdom was postponed. And so the Gospel of the kingdom was discontinued at that time. And now there is to be another use of that Gospel, another preaching of it or a second stage of the preaching of it, will take place after the time of the rapture in order to prepare people to live in that kingdom which Christ is setting up now during the millennium.

This Gospel of the kingdom is a kingdom in terms of kingship only. That is to say it teaches that one is to recognize Christ as king and submit to him and his kingdom. And also that the Gospel of the kingdom says that this kingdom is to be established by power and not by persuasion. By the power of Christ. Not by persuasion.

And in this respect it stands in marked contrast with the Gospel of the grace of God, which is now being used to bring people to God, to Christ, in the church dispensation. So Scofield says this, meaning the Gospel of the grace of God, is the good news that Christ Jesus, the rejected king, has died on the cross for the sins of the world. That he was raised from the dead for our justification. And that by him all that believe are justified from all things.

That's the Gospel that is being used now. And it is a Gospel which calls people to be saved purely by grace alone. However, the Gospel of the kingdom, which shall be used after the rapture by the evangelizing preachers is Scofield says in his Bible pure law. And he explains this by saying there's not a ray of grace in it. Not a drop of blood, Christ's blood, in that.

And so in other words, the Gospel of the grace of God, according to Scofield's Bible, is the Gospel for the church age. And the Gospel of the kingdom was preached before the cross came about and before the church age, during which the Gospel of the cross is to be preached. And the preaching of the Gospel of the kingdom is to be resumed after the church age ends, after the rapture.

And so in other words, what he's saying is that there will come a time when people will be saved in some other way than the grace of God. In some other way than the blood atonement of Christ.

Dispensationalism then has often been criticized by its critics for mixing grace and works in this regard in saying that there will come a time when it will be possible for people to be saved apart from the grace of God. And that's a false doctrine of grace to say that there's a possibility of that in the future.

And this is what I was talking about earlier. There certainly would be no comfort in that kind of Gospel. That is the Gospel of the kingdom, which would simply be really a Gospel of law. Because no Christian could actually be saved by it. No Christian can be saved by his own works. That's a basic Bible truth.

And certainly that great multitude that's described in the book of Revelation in Chapter 7 was saved not by some Gospel that was -- that just had law in it or that didn't have any grace in it. But they were certainly saved by grace and by Christ's atonement. Because that's specifically said in Revelation 7:14: These people dressed in white robes in the vision are those that have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the lamb. Now, that's the way of salvation by grace through the blood of Christ.

Dispensationalists want to say that in the time after the rapture the Jews will be converted by the Gospel of the kingdom, the law Gospel. And also that they then will use that same Gospel of the kingdom to convert these Gentiles who are -- who supposedly are the multitude arrayed in white that's described in this vision. But that cannot be. Because it is said here that these people with robes of white are people that have not been saved by the law in some way. But rather, they are people who are saved by the blood of Christ.

No. 21.

>> All of us have made references to the faith groups that surround our own congregations. Here in Cleveland I constantly meet Christians whose belief system has been heavily influenced by the Reformed Church. Calvinism abounds. As I speak with such folks, I'm amazed at the distance between Calvinism and Lutheranism when it comes to the affairs of state. Lutherans appear to avoid mixing matters of faith with issues of government. But just the opposite seems to be true for the Reformed. Many of my Reformed brothers and sisters advocate growth in the influence of the church to the point that one day we would have a Christian world government. I'm sure this question is out of order, but would you be so kind as to comment on this?

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: Calvinism is characterized by the view that the glory of God should be manifest in the state. And that God should be glorified by enacting laws in Christ's name. Church and state are more closely allied in Reformed theology than they are in the Lutheran theology.

Now, if you go back to John Calvin and his great book, "The Institute of the Christian Religion," he devotes Part IV of it to what he calls "The Aids By Which God Calls Us Into Communion with Christ." And he says these aids are the church, the sacraments and the state.

And then in describing the role of the state, he says that both heathenism and the Old Testament make religion and divine worship the business of civil government as well as the church. He says that no government can be happily constituted unless its first object be the promotion of piety. And the state is to share in the care of divine things.

Now, furthermore, in Reformed thinking, the state is to govern according to guidelines that are set forth in the Bible. One of the Reformed documents of modern times, "The Living Confession of the Church of the Netherlands," expressed the Calvinistic view that the church and the state have a joint responsibility to extend the kingdom of God by applying revelation to social problems.

Now, we are going to talk about an eschatological view called reconstructionism, which is basically a Calvinistic development. And reconstructionism actually goes to an extreme in proposing that government should govern nations according to the laws of the Bible. And in fact, here is the extreme part, in fact, according to the Old Testament political laws.

So then there is an idea called reconstructionism. And I think that's what your question is referring to. There is the idea of a hope that the millennium will come about by the work and the influence of the Christian church so that Christians will be able to control the government. And reconstructionism takes all of that a step further and says that Christians will dominate the earth, also in the government, in such a way that it will be able to -- they will be able to reconstruct society according to the -- according to the biblical laws, including the Old Testament political laws.

This viewpoint has sometimes been called Dominion Theology because it emphasizes that Christ and his church will dominate the world prior to his return. It also is sometimes called Theonomy from the Greek words for God and government. Meaning that it aims to set up the government of God upon earth.

This movement was actually started by a man by the name of R.J. Rushdoony. He stated it in a famous book that he wrote called "The Institutes of Biblical Law." And his disciples have carried on this movement and this idea.

Like, for example, David Chilton, who wrote "Days of Vengeance" and also "Paradise Restored." And another disciple of his, Gary North, has written "Backward Christian Soldiers" and so forth.

Now, there are even independent reconstructionist congregations that have been formed to promote this viewpoint. As I said, these congregations have a Calvinistic background because reconstructionism is basically a Calvinistic movement. But also, this reconstructionist idea has been adopted by some people in the charismatic movement. There are reconstructionist charismatics who sometimes adopt the whole post millennialists point of view. Because reconstruction is really a post millennialists idea. It is saying that the church is going to gain political influence upon earth so that it can reconstruct society to be governed according to biblical laws, including the Old Testament political laws.

But also in some cases, people of other eschatological viewpoints, that is to say premillennialists, have also adopted reconstructionist ideas.

There's another idea, also, that's very closely connected with this idea of political reconstruction and this kind of extension of post millennialism and of the of idea of the church influencing the course of history and influencing the development of world government. I am referring toes what is offer called Manifest Destiny. Meaning the Manifest Destiny of the country of America, of the United States.

Manifest Destiny technically means the destiny of America in God's plan to become ever more powerful and prosperous. For centuries there were some post millennialist leaders in this country who have claimed that this country has a divinely given purpose. To take the lead in bringing about the golden age of the millennium.

Jonathan Edwards, for example, the great Calvinist preacher, viewed America as a God favored land with the mission of perfecting and displaying the fullest fruits of the Protestant Reformation. As an example of a truly godly society and thus, hastening the coming of the millennium. This trend of thinking became very prominent in the 19th Century in what is often called civil millennialism.

And the most complete statement of it was a book called "The Hand of God in History" by a man called Hollis Read. That argued that God's millennial purposes were finding fulfillment in America. And that the Golden Age would spread out from here.

He favored American imperialism as a way to advance Christianity's influence. And this post millennial type of thinking was popular among the Protestant denominations in America at that time.

Civil millennialism is not taught very much today. But it's revised in some form or another from time to time. In the 19th Century, this idea of civil millennialism and especially of Manifest Destiny was often expressed in a form of nationalism, which claimed divine sanction for territorial expansion of the United States.

The actual term "Manifest Destiny" was first used in connection with such nationalism in 1845 in a journal called "The US Magazine and Democratic Review". And that spoke of, quote, "Our Manifest Destiny to overspread the American continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our multiplying millions."

With all of that bloated language he was talking about the plan to annex Texas to the United States. It was a Manifest Destiny for it the author was saying.

And this notion, Manifest Destiny, was also used to defend the annexing of Mexican territory and Oregon and Cuba and the Philippines, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam. And these nationalists showed a fondness for military conquest and glory.

Winthrop Hudson in his book "Religion In America," describes an exchange in Congress concerning acquisition of the Philippines that really brought up this subject for debate. That is the subject of Manifest Destiny. According to this report, Senator Albert Beveridge said: We will not renounce our part in the mission of the race as trustee under God of the civilization of the world. He has marked the American people as his chosen nation to finally lead in the redemption of the world. This is the divine mission of America.

And then Senator George Hoar replied that another view of American policy could be found in the Bible. And then he quoted from Matthew 4:8 and 9: The devil taketh him up into an exceedingly high mountain and showeth him all of the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them and sayeth unto him: These things shall be thine if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

So in other words, not all were in favor of Manifest Destiny. And it was debated in the halls of Congress even. And some considered the hankering after territorial possession and expansion to be not biblical but demonic.

Now, this idea of Manifest Destiny sometimes appears simply as a political idea not connected with post millennialism. But it also has been connected with post millennialism. Also, the idea of Manifest Destiny has been taken up by premillennialists and also by certain cults, millennialistic cults.

So in answer to your question, I think it has to be said that the idea that a Christian world government will develop is actually based upon faulty assumptions that cannot be really rooted in Scripture.

No. 22.

>> Thank you. I, too, have a question that is a little bit tangential to our topic of millennialism. And I think my next question will reveal something of my East Coast location. Let me give you a little context for this question. My wife is a World War II student. She is self taught but quite a remarkable scholar. Not long ago while we were watching a video about the last days of Hitler, a good film entitled "The Downfall." She noted the dialogue was drawn almost word for word from the writings of Albert Speer. After the movie we looked up the book and she was right. I mention this because Susan has a great interest in the Jews and God's relationship to the descendants of his people, Israel. Susan would want me to ask: Will there be a mass conversion of the Jews some day, according to Romans 11 Verses 25 and 26?

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: Many people do think that such a mass conversion of the Jews will take place, according to this Scripture passage. I've already mentioned that the dispensationalists hold that this mass conversion of the Jews will take place during the time of the Great Tribulation. And that these converted Jews will in turn convert Gentiles. And also post millennialists regularly teach the mass conversion of the Jews to take place during the millennium. And some others, also, hold to it.

Here is what the passage says, Romans 11:25 to 26: A partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way, all Israel will be saved.

My view is that this does not refer to some prophesied conversion of the Jews that has not happened yet and that will not happen until the hardening of the Jews stops. Rather, it says that the hardness of heart will continue in part of the Israelite people until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. That is to say until all Gentiles have been converted who are going to be converted. And that means that this process will go on up to the time of the second coming of Christ, according to what Matthew 24:14 says.

This Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations and then shall the end come. By the way, notice that the Gospel of the kingdom is stated here to be what the Gospel is. And as we said before, it really is the same thing as the Gospel of grace. There is no Gospel except the Gospel that teaches grace. And it is that by people are saved, whether Jew or Gentile.

And so there will be no special period for the conversion of the Jews. This process will go on until Christ comes again.

What Paul means here is this: Part of the Jewish people is hardened in unbelief, while another part is being converted to faith in the Messiah. And that part that's continually being converted, that's the elect remnant that is referred to earlier in this chapter. If you look at Verse 5 you see a reference to it. And even so at this present time, also, there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

This is a two-part phenomenon. A hardening of part of Israel and the conversion of another part of Israel. This two-part phenomenon is going on simultaneously all throughout all history. Up until the time that all of the elect Gentiles have been converted. And then shall the end come.

The word "until" that's used in this passage indicates only the time up to which an occurrence is to last. In biblical language, it implies nothing about any happening after that.

Just for example of this just for comparison, we could turn to I Samuel 15:35 which says: Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death. And that word until there doesn't mean that after the day of Saul's death that Samuel then came to see Saul. Of course it doesn't mean that.

So you can't prove anything from this word "until" that appears here in the passage that we're looking at in Romans 11:25.

So the elect among the Jews, that is those who are elected to be saved, the part that does not become hardened permanently, that part will be converted as long as the elect among the Gentiles are being converted. So there is this two-part phenomenon again taking place here. The election of Jews and the election of Gentiles -- the conversion of Jews and the conversion of Gentiles according to their election is taking place in this way right up until the time of the end.

There's not some special period to be fitted in here when there will be a mass conversion of the Jews. And all of this is the answer that Paul gives to the question which he raises at the beginning of this discussion: Has God cast away his people? Namely, the people of ancient Israel.

And the answer that he's giving is no. There is an elect remnant who are definitely going to be saved. And to receive the blessings that God has for them.

What I'm giving here is the usual amillennialist interpretation of this passage. There's an alternative amillennialist explanation, which says that the word "Israel" in Verse 26 refers to spiritual Israel. That is to say the understanding of Israel that I was referring to earlier, which takes the church as being the new Israel made up of both Jews and Gentiles who believe in Christ. And that Paul is making a statement about the conversion of all the people of the church. No matter what their nationality. And he's saying that all of them will be saved through Christ.

And that Paul -- the idea here is that Paul wishes to talk about how the Jewish part of spiritual Israel will be gathered in.

That's a possible interpretation. And it fits with certain themes that are generally found in amillennialist thinking. But it still doesn't seem to fit the context that we have here. Because in Verse 25 there's a definite distinction made between Israel and the Gentiles. So the word Israel in Verse 25 certainly refers to the people that are not Gentiles. In other words, it refers there to physical Israel and is making a statement about them.

And so it seems, also, that the word Israel in the next verse, Verse 26, should be treated the same way, as referring to physical Israel. That is the people who are descended from Abraham. Rather than to the spiritual Israel, the church, which is made up of all believing Jews and Gentiles.

No. 23.

>> How is eternal life obtained, according to Jehovah's Witnesses. And what do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about Christ and his work? Has this group unwittingly preserved the heresy of Arias from the Fourth Century?

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: The Jehovah's Witnesses was started by a man by the name of Charles Taze Russell in the 1870s. He started a Bible class in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. And that eventually became the Jehovah's Witnesses. It wasn't called the Jehovah's Witnesses at that time. They just were called the Bible Students.

But in 1930 they had a convention in which they adopted the name Jehovah's Witnesses. And they said they were taking that from Isaiah 43:10: You shall be my witnesses says the Lord -- or says Jehovah as they translate it. And they claim that they are the true witnesses of Jehovah and of all of the truth about him.

Russell also set up something called the Watchtower Society in 1884 in order to handle all of the publications that he was putting out, especially his journal, "The Watchtower." And that society, the Watchtower Society, then became the governing body of the Jehovah's Witnesses. And is to this day.

Now, the purpose of the redemption of Christ, according to the Jehovah's Witnesses, was to restore man's right to live. Man originally was created to live forever upon the earth. But then he lost the right to do this because he fell into sin. The result of sin is not eternal punishment, as they see it. But rather, it's the loss of the right to live at all. It's the sentence of being annihilated, of being completely blotted out from existence. Man has lost the privilege of living in God's world.

The Son of God, they say, is a mighty creature, who was sent to restore man's right to live sent by Jehovah to carry out this great purpose. But the Son of God is not the eternal God without beginning and without end. And Jehovah's Witnesses definitely reject the doctrine of the Trinity.

They say there's only one divine person. Only one eternal person. And that is Jehovah, who is the true God. And then they say that the Son or Christ is a creature that was created as an angel. And then he became a man. He stopped being an angel all together and was completely transformed into being a man. And he lived as a man up until the time of his death. And then he returned to being an angel and is no longer man at this time.

As for the Holy Spirit, they say that is simply a name for the power of God. It's not a person at all. That's one of the corruptions which has been imposed upon the church throughout the centuries. That the Holy Spirit is a person.

Christ, the Son of God, was transformed into a man in order to carry out his two purposes. His purpose as Savior and then later his purpose as king.

He carried out the first task by living a perfect, sinless life as a man. By which he earned for himself the right to live forever. On earth. He gave up his right to live on earth in a human life forever. So that it, his right the to live as a man forever, could be transferred then to all who show themselves worthy of it. And this is what his saving sacrifice was, which the Bible talks about.

That is to say it was the sacrifice of giving up his humanity in his death. And he stopped then being a man all together at the time of his death. He is no longer a man.

Then his second task or purpose was to be king. That is to set up the kingdom. He was to carry out this purpose in order to apply the right to live to all who can show themselves worthy of it. He carried out this task by his return to initiate the kingdom. And that return took place in 1914 say the Jehovah's Witnesses. That's a date that they have calculated.

And this return was not a visible appearance because Christ is no longer a man. He has no body which could ever be seen. When the Bible speaks of his return or of his coming, his second coming, that's a figure of speech for taking up action to set up the kingdom.

He has set it up in heaven in 1914. And it is operating there ever since. And he will set it up on earth at the time of the Battle of Armageddon, which will come at any time. And that will be the millennial kingdom. The Jehovah's Witnesses definitely are a form of premillennialism. And this is the meaning of the prophesy of the thousand years reign of Christ.

His coming in 1914 was for the purpose of setting up that kingdom. And people in that -- people then are to use that kingdom to gain the right to live which he has made available. And they do this by their works in which they exercise their faith in him or their conviction in him and his work.

Almost all people will earn the right to live during the time of the millennial kingdom on earth. But a certain number of people -- and the number is 144,000 taken from Revelation 7 -- are righteous enough to gain the right to live already before living in the kingdom that Christ has set up.

All of these 144,000 are noble people who decide to give up their right to live on earth forever. That is they decide not to use that. But instead to become spirit beings like Jesus did. And to live in heaven with him. And assist him in ruling the kingdom of God.

Most people will have physical bodies in the millennial kingdom. That is to say they will be raised at that time. There are some people who are so wicked that they have already shown in this life that they definitely are unworthy of the right to live. And so there will be no point in raising them at all.

But most people will at least have a chance to show themselves worthy of the right to live during the time of the millennial kingdom. And either they will pass that test and gain the right to live. Or they will fail it and then will be annihilated. Blotted out forever.

This is a thumbnail sketch of the Jehovah's Witness plan of salvation. In evaluation of it we can state that Jehovah's Witnesses fail to see, first of all, the greatness of man's need. That is to say in reality man faces not only annihilation as a result of his sin but everlasting punishment and misery as Scripture says.

Matthew 25:41: The Judge on the Day of Judgement will say to those on his left hand: Depart from me you cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. And a Matthew 13:42: The Son of Man shall cast them into a firey furnace. There shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

The Jehovah's Witnesses fail to see the greatness of the Savior in John 20:25. It definitely is said that Jesus is God. "Thomas answered and said to him my Lord and my God." And also the Bible says that he definitely has had a bodily resurrection. He said, for example, in John 2:19 and 21: Destroy this temple. And in three days I will build it up. And he spoke of the temple of his body.

And thirdly, Jehovah's Witnesses fail to see the greatness of the salvation provided for us. It is a free salvation. Undeserved by works. Given purely for the sake of Christ. It is not something that is earned or which we must show ourselves worthy of.

Ephesians 2:8 and 9 is the famous promise: By grace you have been saved through faith. And that is not from yourselves. It is the gift of God. Not by works. It is a renewal by a divine personal sanctifier, namely, the Holy Spirit.

In Titus 3:5, for example, we have the words of Paul: He saved us by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit. And then Paul also says in Ephesians 4:30: Do not grieve God's Holy Spirit. And you can only grieve a person. So this divine sanctifier who brings salvation to us is definitely a divine person. Contrary to what the Jehovah's Witnesses think and say. And this salvation that has been divided for us is actually a deliverance from eternal misery as has already been stated.

Now, you asked about Arias and that is to say you asked whether the Jehovah's Witnesses have unwittingly preserved the heresy of Arias in the Fourth Century. Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses have preserved the heresy of Arias. But not unwittingly. In their literature he is praised as one of the great champions of faith in the early church.

They honor him as one of the leading defenders of authentic biblical teaching. That is of primitive Christianity. When errors like the Trinity were being imposed upon the church and he nobly and faithfully stood against that error.

And so he was an agent elder who stood up for the dissident segment of Christianity in those days. And he took issue with the Council of Nicaea, which was adopting such false doctrines as the Trinity.

The Jehovah's Witnesses hold that Arias rightly understood that the Son of God was a created being, an angel. And also that while he was a distinct person from the Father, he did not share a divine essence with the Father.

Where the witnesses do not agree with Arias and where they think that he had fallen into error was in his idea that the Holy Ghost is actually a person. They say, as we noted before, that the Holy Ghost is simply a name in the Bible for the power of God. And they say that it is the post New Testament perversion that had made him out to be a person so that actually it had made it out to be a person. The Holy Spirit is not a person.

And Arias had been influenced wrongly by that idea, which had come about. And that then needed to be corrected. By Arias was one of the most important forerunners of Charles Taze Russell. And Russell has carried on his great work. This is what they say about Arias.

No. 24.

>> Following up, let me ask another question: What is wrong with attempts by Jehovah's Witnesses to calculate events of the end times? Instinctively I dislike the concept. But I'm not certain why I find it so repugnant.

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: We'll start with an explanation of that date, 1914, which the Jehovah's Witnesses set as the time for the setting up of Christ's kingdom. And they have that as a calculation that they make from Daniel 4:16, which describes the madness of King Nebuchadnezzar saying: Let his heart be changed from man's and let a beast's heart be given to him and let seven times pass over him.

In using this text, they make a number of claims that Nebuchadnezzar's madness described here was the period of domination of the Gentiles over Israel. That is it foreshadowed that symbolically. That the seven times mentioned here are seven years. That these seven years are actually years of 360 days each so that it really is referring to a period of 2520 days. That these days in turn stand for years so that it refers to a period of 2520 years of Gentile domination. And that 607 BC was the beginning of the Gentile domination over Israel.

So applying all of these claims, they come up with this calculation. 607 BC plus 2520 years brings us to the year 1913. And therefore, the time of October 1913 to October 1914 was the year of the beginning of Messiah's kingdom. So they say. And they have held to that up to the present time.

Other calculations of dates have been made by the Jehovah's Witnesses and by various other groups. And have resulted in many disappointments and embarrassments and contradictions with what other date setters have done. Sometimes with the very same texts.

For example, William Miller started the 19th Century Adventist Movement by setting 1844 as the year of Christ's Second Advent. And he did this on the basis of the passage in Daniel 8:14. When this didn't happen in 1844, that is the second come of Christ, he admitted that he was wrong.

But some of his followers claimed that the date was correct. But the significance of it was wrongly stated by him. And it was said by them that this date really refers to the beginning of Christ's work as judge. And these people then became the Seventh Day Adventists. And they hold this interpretation to the present time.

The Seventh Day Adventists also used Daniel 12:11, a passage that mentions 1290 days to figure the date of 1798, which they say refers to Napoleon's humiliation of the Pope.

Jehovah's Witnesses calculate 1922 by using that very same passage of Daniel 12:22, which they say is a prophesy about an important Jehovah's Witness convention. And so it goes among the date setters.

Dispensationalists do not usually set dates. But some of them do. A few years ago a tract was circulating which was entitled "88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be In 1988." Now, there is a very excellent reason why 1988 cannot be the date of the rapture.

Now, your instinct is absolutely correct in finding all of this repugnant. And I would like to conclude with some comments about date setting speculations.

First of all, the results are bound to be uncertain. As we have illustrated with certain examples by comparing the calculations of the -- of various groups and the like.

Second, Matthew 24:36 is an important passage here. That's where Jesus speaks about his second coming by saying: Of that day and that hour no one knows. Not even the angels of heaven. But only my Father, who is in heaven. And that should discourage Christians from making any calculations concerning the Second Advent of Christ or other eschatological events.

Third, the Seventh Day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses and other groups really are using this date setting to serve the theological doctrines and claims which they make. The Seventh Day Adventists use Daniel to ground their peculiar doctrines of Christ's work in his last judgement. They are showing thereby that their message and their work was really foretold in Scripture.

The Jehovah's Witnesses use Daniel to get proof and confirmation of their claims about the kingdom of Christ and the rightness of their propaganda. The special manifestation of Christ's kingdom began in 1914 they say. And in order to participate in the benefits of it, one must accept the Jehovah's Witness teaching either in this life or in the millennium.

And according to Jehovah's Witnesses and their dates, one must give up the hope of a return of Christ, which is yet to come. Because he has come invisibly in 1914. This also commits men to a denial of the physical resurrection of Christ. That is he came in 1914. But there was no body to be seen. Because he has no body.

Fourth, the Lutherans leave the interpretation of time periods and the various Bible passages as open questions about which we cannot get certain results. We should, instead, focus our attention and our faith upon clear assertions of the Word of God about Christ's work and second coming and last judgement.

The figures given in these passages may be imagery or they may refer to certain days in biblical times or they may refer to time periods ending in early church history. Or in the Middle Ages. Or perhaps, later in history.

The real importance of these passages using numbers in the Bible is that God has measured the times and the durations of all events. And that nothing happens which is out of his control. And there is great comfort in knowing this truth. And then beyond that, it's not wise or safe to go.

When we enter into the life to come, then no doubt, we will get more and better information about these passages and their meaning.

No. 25.

>> I was intrigued with Nick's question about the Fourth Century heresy to air Gus. And the relationship with that error of the teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses. It leaves me to want to ask a similar question: Have the Mormons preserved the heresy of Arias? And do Mormons believe in the one true God?

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: This body began in 1830 with the publication of the Book of Mormon. And with the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which began at that time with just six members. But it has grown since that time to over 10 million people throughout the world. And in fact, it is the largest of all of the cults with which we have to contend.

I call it a cult because as we shall see, it definitely is not a Christian body in its teaching.

The founder of this body was Joseph Smith, who claimed all his life to be a prophet who was receiving revelations from God and visions and appearances from God. The church which he founded now has its headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah. But he lived in New York in the beginning part of his life. And he claimed that God the Father and God the Son appeared to him in the grove near his boyhood home in pal Myra New York.

And that they told him that none of the existing churches on earth was the true church that had been founded by God the Son. That it had disappeared from the face of the earth. And they commissioned him to restore the true church. And this he did in 1830.

He also claimed that a heavenly being by the name of Moroni appeared to him and showed where certain golden plates were buried near his home. And these plates he said were engraved with the words of an ancient language. He said that he was given divine help in translating these words and the result was the Book of Mormon.

He published his translation of the Book of Mormon in 1830. And that he called a new holy book, which was to be added to the Bible as the Word of God. Of course this gives the Mormons their nickname, Mormon. That is to say they are the Mormon people. But their more official name is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Which, of course, they claim to be the one true church. It is the church of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith has restored the true church.

Now, the fact of the matter is that Mormons do not recognize the true God that is described in Scripture. They recognize the existence of deity. And they refer to God the Father, and God the Son and God the Holy Ghost in their alleged revelations and teachings. But it's not biblical.

They teach that there are many gods. And they say that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are three gods who form a special group of gods called the Godhead. And they say that these three can be called one not in the sense of being one in essence, which they share, but rather, one simply in the sense of being united in their purposes and action.

This, of course, is contrary to what the Bible says in many places like in Isaiah 45:5, which says: I, the Lord -- I am the Lord. There is none beside me. There is no God beside me.

Now, the Mormons hold that every one of the gods that they speak of is a glorified man Joseph Smith said: God himself was once as we are now. And is an exalted man. You've got to learn how to be gods yourselves. The same as all gods have done before you.

This idea is at the very heart of Latter-day Saints theology. And it lays the foundation of their ultimate hope. They often quote the saying which they said was given by revelation to them: As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.

And when they use the name "God," they usually mean God the Father, who is one of the gods. But they recognize that the Son is also a god. And that there are many other gods.

They say in one of their books of revelation: The Father has a body of flesh and bone as tangible as man. So had a what they are saying is that God was once a man on one of the inhabited planets of the universe. And he was born to another god and goddess. And he by a life of holiness earned Godhood for himself.

This, of course, is completely contrary to what the Bible says. For example, in Hosea 11:9: I am God and not man.

They regularly say that God the Father, is the eternal father. But by that they do not mean that he didn't have a beginning. Because, as I just said, they do teach that God the Father, was born at a certain point long, long ago. And that before that he didn't have a beginning.

But what they mean by the phrase "eternal father" is that he doesn't have an end. And they also mean that God the Father at one point died and has been resurrected. And therefore, he is now a glorified resurrected being who will never die again. And therefore, he is eternal.

Of course, this also is contrary to what the Bible says about God. Because he is from everlasting to everlasting. Psalm 90.

God the Father has at least one wife, probably many wives, by whom he has many children. These children are really our own souls. Our souls are the spirit children of God. And when they, the Mormons, speak about spirit children, they are talking about beings that actually have bodies which are made of a very refined type of matter, which is what spirit is. And these spirit bodies they say have forms and limbs that look like our physical bodies.

The two most important sons that were born to God the Father are Christ the Son of God and God the Holy Ghost. They, too, earned the right to become gods. And they -- and so they are really exalted men.

The Mormons teach a number of things about the Son of God, that is about Christ, which are contrary to what the Bible actually teaches. They say, for example, that he received a body upon earth by the sexual with relations of God the Father with Mary. And they say that she is a virgin only in the sense that she did not have sex with any mortal man. But she did have sex with an immortal man. Namely, God the Father.

And in this way the body of Jesus was brought into being. They also say that Jesus was married. And that the wedding at Cana in John 2 was actually his own wedding. They say he was married to Mary and Martha and perhaps to others.

All of this is completely contrary to what the Bible actually says about Jesus. The Bible says definitely that Jesus did not come into being at one point as a person and as a conscious identity. But that he has always existed. He himself said in John 8:58: Before Abraham was, I am. He is the one that just has always been.

Now, you asked about Arias, whether the Mormons also follow the heresy of Arias. And we can answer that question yes. The Mormons also honor Arias as a defender of true doctrine. They say that he recognized that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct beings, even though the last two are of lower rank than the first one, the Father. And also he recognized that these three persons do not share a divine essence with each other.

Milton Backman, who is a well known Mormon historian, has written a book called "American Religions and the Rise of Mormonism." And there he gives a very favorable treatment to Arias in church history. And he says that Arias was fighting against the Council of Nicaea and it's false doctrine that the three beings, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have one essence.

And Backman also notes that Arias taught that the Son was exalted to Godhood. But still remained inferior to the Father. That's also what Mormons teach about God the Son.

They say that Arias called the Father eternal. And on this point the Mormons would criticize Arias. They do criticize him. Because while the Mormons also call God the Father, the eternal Father, they mean something different from what Arias did. Arias actually believed that the Father is eternal without beginning. But when the Mormons refer to God as the eternal Father as we saw before, they mean that he was born as a man and worked his way up to Godhood. And is eternal because he will now never die.

So to sum up we can say that there are certain agreements which the Mormons have with the teaching of Arias, which I've just mentioned. And also there are certain disagreements which the Mormons have with what Arias taught.

First, they think the Son of God was not created by the Father as Arias said. But that rather, he was born as a child of the Father and his wife.

And then second, they do call the Father eternal as Arias did. But they mean something different from what Arias did with that. We should also point out that there are certain agreements between Arias and the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Latter-day Saints. Things which they all teach.

For one thing, they all teach that the Father and the Son are distinct persons. But do not share a common divine essence. And then secondly, all three say that the Son of God is a god in the sense of being an exalted finite being.

Now, the Latter-day Saints expand on this beyond Arias to teach that this is what all gods are. That is to say exalted finite beings. And that even the Father is simply an exalted finite being.

Here we should say that the Latter-day Saints do not have a proper concept of the biblical God as an eternal and infinite being. But that rather, they certainly teach a false god.

No. 26.

>> What are the Book of Mormon and other holy books? Wyoming may not have the diversity of Los Angeles and New Jersey but we do have Mormons in abundance.

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: There are a number of these so-called holy books which I consider additions to the Bible. There's first of all, of course the book of mob Monday which I was referring to earlier. And that contains the history of an alleged civilization in America to which prophets were sent by God. And the last two of these prophets were Mormon and his son, Moroni.

This civilization's people were the descendants of immigrants from the Holy Land. And actually were part of the ancient people of Israel. When the prophet Mormon saw that his people, the Nephites, were going to be wiped out by their enemies, the Lamanites, he wanted to preserve the record of his people. And especially the writings of the prophets that had gone before him. So he gathered these prophetic books together and inscribed their contents upon golden plates in the language of the time.

His son, Moroni, finished the work which he did. Mormon had added two books of his own. And Moroni then added a book of his own. And all of this was put onto the golden plates.

Moroni also buried these golden plates in New York where he was living at that time in that ancient world. And then as we have noted before, much, much later he then appeared to Joseph Smith to reveal these books.

The Book of Mormon tells how Jesus appeared to the people of that ancient civilization and established his church among them. The Book of Mormon contains many statements of doctrine and also many prophesies about the second coming of Christ about the millennial kingdom, for they are premillennialists, also. And about the restoration of the true church of Christ, which died out both in the ancient American civilization and also elsewhere in the world. And many other matters.

The Mormons believe that the Lamanites, who wiped out the Nephites, actually then became the American Indians. And that they lost all knowledge that they had once had of the true church that had been established among them by Christ himself.

Another holy book is called the Doctrine and Covenants, which is a collection of various revelations given to Joseph Smith. Besides this there is the Pearl of Great Price, which is a collection of various inspired documents. Such as the book of Abraham and the articles of faith of Joseph Smith. In addition to this, every president of the Mormon church is said to be a prophet who receives revelations, which are taught in the Mormon church and are printed in books.

Many questions, of course, have been raised throughout the years about these alleged Mormon revelations. And numerous critics have argued that they are, in fact, hoaxes. We can see by an examination of them that these so-called revelations contradict the traditional Scriptures of the Christian church in many ways.

For example, the Mormon revelations say that the church disappeared and needed to be restored. But the Bible says in Matthew 16:18: Upon this rock I will build my church. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Those are the words of Jesus which says that the church would never perish, would never die out.

The Mormon revelations say that there are many gods. But the Bible, of course, says that there is just one God.

The Mormon revelations say that God has a body. But the Bible says that God is a spirit.

The Mormon revelations say that salvation is by works. Whereas, the Bible teaches that we are saved by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

The Mormon revelations say that Jesus was born at Jerusalem. And the Bible of course says in Luke 2 that he was born at Bethlehem. And so we could go on with a long, long list.

Besides this, the Mormon revelations make many false predictions. Such as that the second coming of Christ would happen in 1891. And some of these predictions have then proven to be false. We don't hear the Mormons talk much about those, however.

And also, these Mormon revelations, in fact, conflict with each other, if you examine them closely. The Book of Mormon says that there is only one God. Whereas other Mormon revelations say that there are many gods. And that holy men can, in fact, become gods.

The Book of Mormon says that hell is an everlasting punishment. But other Mormon revelations say that there will be a release from hell, which all people will eventually experience. And so we could go on also with a long list of contradictions here.

The Mormon revelations speak of two kinds of salvation. The lowest level of salvation is a general salvation, which comes to all people. And then there is a higher kind of salvation, which is also called individual or personal salvation, which only some people attain to.

General salvation is the removal of the condition of death. Because they say Christ died for Adam's transgression. And this guarantees that everyone will be resurrected. Everyone will have his soul reunited with his body. And those who have only this level of salvation then will never enter the kingdom of heaven, which actually belongs to the higher kind of salvation, the higher level.

This means that there are some people who must pay for their sins themselves on earth and in hell after death. And then at the last judgement, they will be resurrected. And those who have finished paying for their sins then will either live in a place called the terrestrial kingdom planet or in a place called the telestial kingdom planet. And then the very worst people will have to continue paying for their sins in a place called the outer darkness or the second death.

Then there is what is called the personal or individual salvation. The higher level of salvation. And this is really life in the kingdom of heaven. Or the celestial kingdom as they call it.

Personal salvation does not come automatically to people as general salvation does. But rather, it must be earned by people and only certain people attain to it.

Like the general salvation, it is also made possible by the atonement of Christ. But it is only a special salvation that some people earn in what is called the kingdom of heaven.

Baptism makes people members of this kingdom of heaven. And they say that a true baptism can only be administered and received in the Mormon church. Baptism they say is the beginning of repentance and of good works. And they say that good works are necessary for obtaining full forgiveness of sins.

One must be in the kingdom of heaven in order to earn the forgiveness of sins, which is made available there. One of the past presidents of the Mormon church put it this way: God cannot forgive unless the transgressor shows a true repentance. The repentance that merits forgiveness.

Now, not everyone who is in the kingdom of heaven will actually attain Godhood. That's only the highest level of the kingdom of heaven. Godhood must be earned by doing good works. By holding church office, by tithing, by doing mission work, by performing ceremonies in the Mormon temple. By other special works.

Many people in the kingdom of heaven only earn partial forgiveness of their sins because their obedience is not good enough to earn the full forgiveness of sins. And only those who earn full forgiveness can actually then become gods. And all other people, even in the kingdom of heaven, will only have a lower degree of glory.

It's often said that Mormons are under great pressure to be perfect, to be righteous. And that this leads often to psychological and emotional problems. Suicide and other tragedies. And that is to say if you're not fully forgiven and you're told that you're not fully forgiven, then you can't be sure whether God really accepts you or loves you. And you're really always a second class citizen in the kingdom of heaven.

And justification by faith is very definitely rejected by the Mormon church. To be fully accepted by God, they say you must become worthy of rewards. And the more rewards, the better.

A very famous authority in the Mormon church, a man by the name of James Talmage made this statement: The sectarian doctrine of justification by faith alone has exercised an influence for evil since the early days of Christianity.

No. 27.

>> Please tell us more about the Mormon belief and life after death. And why are so many people attracted to Mormonism? Is there anything about missionary work that Lutherans could learn from the Mormons?

>>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: Yes, the Mormons do believe in life after death. Unlike the Jehovah's Witnesses, they say that the soul lives on after death. Jehovah's Witnesses say that when the body dies, the soul dies until the time of resurrection, if one is ever going to have a physical resurrection.

But the Mormons say that at the time of death, the body lies in the grave. But the soul then goes onto one of two places. Either to paradise or to the prison of spirits in hell.

It is of course, the good Mormons who go to the place of paradise. And then all others must go to the prison of spirits to suffer and pay for their sins.

But they also teach that the departed Latter-day Saints in paradise will be making -- and that they do make -- missionary trips to hell to preach to the people there and call them to repentance. And if people in hell do repent, then they can leave hell and enter into -- into paradise. But in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is found in paradise, they must have baptism. Because that's the absolute entry ticket into the kingdom of heaven. And so then, baptisms must be provided for these people that repent in hell.

And so proxy baptisms, substitute baptisms, are done on earth in Mormon temples continually. So if the dead person does repent in hell, then the proxy baptism is ready for him. And will be credited to his account.

The Mormon church has an extensive genealogical service and program for the purpose of providing family trees to their members who wish to be baptized for their ancestors. And these genealogical records are also made available to the general public.

The baptism of a Mormon person for the dead does not guarantee that that dead person will be able to leave hell and go into the kingdom of heaven. But it means that if the person does repent in hell, then there will be a baptism ready to be credited to his account.

The Mormons claim that I Corinthians 15:29 in which Paul talks about baptism for the dead is a reference to the use of this same practice in the church at Corinth. Now, we have to say that all of this teaching is contrary to what the Bible says. That is to say according to the Bible, there will not be conversions after death.

Hebrews 9:27 is very clear on this: It is given to men once to die. And after that, the judgement.

And we can be certain then that I Corinthians 15:29, whatever it does mean, is not teaching a baptism to benefit the dead, to make possible a conversion and a departure from hell after death.

Bible scholars are not agreed on what this obscure passage in I Corinthians 15 does actually mean. And they are not even agreed upon whether Paul was talking about a practice that he approved of or a practice that he disagreed with and disapproved of.

Now, at the judgement of the world by Jesus Christ, the resurrected souls will be sent to one of four destinies, according to what they have earned. The highest destiny is the one that is appointed for the people of the celestial kingdom. That is to say the kingdom of heaven. These are the faithful Mormons.

Now, faithful Mormons who have not earned Godhead will live on the glorified earth forever. But the upper Class of the celestial kingdom is made up of those who become gods and goddesses. Each new god will receive a whole planet to rule over. And he and his goddess wife or wives then will provide children to populate these planets. Just as has happened with our planet earth. And the whole progeny of God the Father among us.

Then there is the terrestrial kingdom. And that's a class of honorable people who are non-Mormons. They must pay for their sins in hell. And then they will rise at the time of the last judgement. At the end of the thousand years of the millennium. They will have finished paying for their sins. And they will go to a happy place will be found on a planet that is assigned to them. This will be the terrestrial kingdom planet.

There is a third class known as the telestial kingdom people. And that's made up of worldly, wicked people, who, indeed, must pay for their sins in hell. But they will rise on the day of judgement. And their punishments will be over at that time. And they will be sent then to a planet that is appointed for telestial people.

Finally, there are the sons of perdition. Those are the devils and the very worst of the wicked people. They continue to be punished for their sins, even after they are resurrected. And they will go to a place called the second death or the outer darkness or the lake of fire. But this punishment will also come to an end.

The doctrine and covenants book speaks about this. And says that the end of the eternal punishment is known only to those who actually experience it. That is whose punishments actually do come to an end. But it will come to an end for all people. That promise is made. As I said before, the Book of Mormon denies this. But the later revelation affirmed that there would be an end to punishment for all the wicked.

Now, why do the Mormons attract people in such great numbers? That's because it has an organization and wealth and programs that are impressive to people. And it makes a very favorable impression upon the world in general. It emphasizes family life and clean, healthful living and industriousness and concern for needy members.

Many people think of the Mormon church as an outstanding Christian group. But they don't know how anti-biblical and unChristian it actually is in its teaching.

What can we learn from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints about missions? That's hard to answer your question there, since we don't want to recommend their false doctrine or their legalism. But we can say that it would be fine to imitate them in inspiring the young people of the church to enthusiastic service like those that go out on house-to-house evangelism. Or those that go out to various places in the world on missions.

And also, they encourage their members to share the message that they cherish. And to invite others to consider it.

A few years ago my wife and I traveled to pal Myra New York to see the house where Joseph Smith grew up and the so-called sacred grove where he is said to have had visits from God the Father and God the Son. And also to see the Mormon pageant, which is a musical production based on the contents of the Book of Mormon.

By the way, all of these things are an attractive missionary appeal in themselves. Especially to people who aren't aware of the many false doctrines that are taught by the Mormons.

But while we were there, many people asked us: Are you members of the church? And they were obviously trying to make some kind of an outreach to us. And that's commendable in itself. We had not asked them to give us a reason for the hope that is in them as Saint Peter says. But they were ready to give it to us anyhow.

And that's all commendable. But we only wish that they had a better hope to explain.

No. 28.

>> A colleague and I were talking the other day about all of the different churches in America. Here in New Jersey it sometimes seems that there are more than I can count. How did we get so many different denominations in the United States?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Eric, that's a very good question to consider as we start our discussion of the American religious scene. Afterall, one of the things that really makes the American experience unique is the presence of so many different religious traditions.

Now, in the early history of our nation and even before it was a nation, that meant mostly Christian traditions. So a variety of different Christian denominations have been on the scene from the beginning of the European conquest of North America.

But in more recent years we've seen Asian religions. We've seen some from the Middle East. Islam. Buddhism. Confucianism. A variety of different traditions have had a significant impact on the American religious scene.

And sometimes it can be hard to make sense out of all of the different groups. In fact, I was a pastor in Tennessee for five years. And on the road on which our church existed, Old Hickory Boulevard on the north side of Nashville, there were at least 18 separate Christian denominations represented.

It could really make one's head spin trying to make sense out of all of these different groups. So what we'll try to do over the course of this particular class is make some sense out of this very complex picture. And to that end where I would like to start is to talk about the growth of the various denominations in the first place.

We tend to talk about the development of organized religion here in the United States in terms of the colonizing efforts of western European countries, especially beginning in the early part of the 17th Century. Jamestown, for example, formed in 1607, was an official colony of the English state. And as such had a religious component to its formation. It was part of the Church of England. It was Anglican.

Today we would call that part of the Episcopal communion here in the United States. But the Anglican communion worldwide has its roots in the English Reformation. We'll talk about that a little bit later in this course. But that's just one instance of one of these traditions being present here in America very early on.

There are others, of course, as well. Most familiar to many people are the efforts of the pilgrims and the Puritans in New England. The pilgrims arriving in 1620 and starting their Plymouth colony. The Puritans coming a little later, 1628, and establishing the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

Now, sometimes we conflate the two of those groups. We put them into one. But when they were first formed, they were very, very different from one another. The pilgrims were separating dissenters, that is they said there was no hope for the Church of England and they separated themselves entirely from it. In fact they believed in order to be part of the church, one could not be a participant in any of the Church of England's activities.

The Puritans, on the other hand, were dissenters but they were non-separated. What they tried to do was to purify the English church. So they approached things a little bit differently.

Now, it's true, later on the two groups did, in fact, merge into one. And Massachusetts itself was largely characterized by the latter perspective, namely, that of the Puritans. But note what we have already.

Down in Jamestown already from the early 1600s the Church of England is present. In New England we see the presence of groups like the Puritans and pilgrims. Both with roots in England, as well.

You go deeper into the south, Georgia, the Carolinas, the Church of England was also very strong there. Although, it grew in strength only later on with the establishment of such cities as Savanna and Charleston.

Where things really began to get interesting is in what are called the middle colonies: Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, New York. There you had a great variety of different Christian churches beginning to emerge already in the 1600s.

In what was originally called New Netherland, you had the Dutch Reformed Church. In New Sweden, which was formed in 1637-38 you had a Lutheran colony. In Maryland there was a thriving Roman Catholic community.

So a significant variety already in the 1600s of different Christian traditions were present. As time went by, that just became more and more the case. In fact, as you moved into the 1700s, it was actually the case that others joined in this and created what we today think of as the melting pot of American religion. And that was nowhere more true than in the middle colonies.

Right about the year 1690 things began to change in an important way. Significant numbers of Germans began to make their way to the middle colonies, especially in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. And the effects would be profound.

The German Reformed Church emerged. The Lutheran Church grew significantly. And over the course of the 1700s, that continued to be the case.

So already before the American Revolution there were significant populations of a variety of different Christian groups. In fact, in one very important volume by Edwin Scott Gaustad, "Historical Atlas of Religion In America," he actually counted the number of congregations that were existing in various points in American history. And the picture that emerges is really rather fascinating.

For example, in the year 1660 he gives the following numbers: The congregational church had 75 churches. Local congregations at that point in time. The Anglican or Church of England communion had 41. The Dutch Reformed in New Netherland, 13. The Roman Catholics, 12. The Presbyterians, 5. Lutherans, 4. And Baptists, 4.

By the time the year 1700 rolled around, the neighbors had changed. Congregationalism had grown significantly now numbering 146 separate churches.

The Church of England had 111. The Baptists, 33. The Presbyterians, 28. The Dutch Reformed, 26. Roman Catholics, 22. And the Lutherans, 7.

That's right on the cusp of the beginning of Lutheran growth and I often ask people: Do you see the glass half empty or half full? That is Lutherans had only grown modestly during this time. But if you looked at the larger picture, they had almost doubled in size. It would be in the year 1700 to 1740 that Lutherans would begin to grow very significantly once again.

Now, what does this tell us? I think it tells us a few things about the growth of the Christian traditions here early in the colonial period. That is there are a variety of people who are making their way to the American scene. But within that variety, there is a significant dominance of English speaking Christians.

The Lutherans as a result are a little bit on the outside having their German background primarily. Though, there are some Swede's and some Dutch who are present, as well. The German Reformed Church strong in Pennsylvania is limited in its scope. So in Pennsylvania, lots of Germans. Beyond that, not so many. And thus, Lutheran and German Reformed strength tended to be located in those particular areas.

In much of the rest of the emerging colonies, things tended to have their roots in some part of the English tradition. And that would have a tremendous impact as the denominations developed.

Over the course of the 1700s we saw that pattern repeat itself. The congregational church continuing to grow. The Anglican communion continuing to grow at least through the Revolution and then also some emerging churches beginning to have an impact. Namely, the Baptists, the Presbyterians. And then in the very latter part of the 1700s, the Methodists, as well.

Still through the American Revolution the old colonial pattern held fast. The one significantly growing church was the Lutheran Church. And it was populated largely by Germans. It's only after the Revolution into the early national period that things really take off and take on an entirely new character.

As a matter of fact, Methodism as a movement merges as a formally organized independent church in the year 1784 just after the Revolution and explodes onto the scene becoming the largest church in America in it terms of number of congregations by the year 1820.

It's followed by the Baptists. And by then also the Presbyterians have grown. Congregationalists, Episcopalians as they are now called. No longer the Church of England continued to grow. But not as rapidly as the other church bodies. And then a whole slew of other church traditions begin to make their way onto the scene.

Some have their roots in the great revivals we'll talk about later on in this course. Groups like the Disciples of Christ. Other groups like the Baptists will grow and explode in terms of their numbers. Largely due to specific ways of addressing the challenges and opportunities of the American frontier. And create a pattern for many other churches to follow as they develop during the 1800s.

Still by the end of the 1800s, the pattern has been largely set. The Methodist Church being largest. Followed by Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and others. It's only with the later part of the 1800s that Roman Catholicism begins to develop once again and to grow in significant numbers as immigrants make their way to the United States. Finally resulting in Roman Catholicism being the largest Christian church body here in the United States. But again among the Protestants, the Baptists and the Methodists continuing vying for that 1 and 2 spot.

It's a fascinating process. And one that I think we have to take into account if we're going to be effective in ministry in our given circumstances in the places where God has led us. Afterall, as I often have said, growing up in the Midwest, going to seminary here in Ft. Wayne, you could pick up a rock, throw it and you had a pretty good chance of hitting a Lutheran. When I moved down to Tennessee to be a pastor, you could turn over all of the rocks you could find and struggle to find a Lutheran. Why was that so? Why were there so many Baptists in the south and so few Lutherans?

Why did the patterns play out the way they did? Did they have to be this way? Or were there immigration patterns? Transportation patterns? And above all, theological issues that contributed to the way things developed.

Then toss into the mix the basic reality of American freedom and the reality of a democratized setting and you have great opportunities for new church bodies to emerge, develop and in some cases, come to dominate. The Methodists coming to mind once again.

America has a very unique character in this respect. And knowing about that unique character will help us to about more effective ministers of the Gospel as we proclaim Christ crucified and risen again for a world in need. It is a complex, yet a fascinating story. And I hope you'll find it an interesting one.

No. 29.

>> Thanks, Dr. Rast. That helps me understand how things have come to be the way they are. But why have they come to be like this? Perhaps a related question would concern formal and material principles. Would you be willing to give us an overview of these principles for the various denominations in America?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: That is a big question, given the fact that there are so many denominations. I've looked at estimates in terms of the overall number of denominations here in America. And they stretch from about 1,000 to one web site that I recently looked at said about 3500. And some have even gone above and beyond that.

It can become overwhelming to try to make sense of them. So one of the things we do is to talk about the formal and material principles in theology to give us handles, if you will, to make sense of the larger groupings of these denominations.

So for example, when you talk about a Lutheran formal principle, we will say sola scriptura, Scripture alone. When we talk about a Lutheran material principle, we talk about justification by grace through faith.

What do we mean then by these terms formal and material principles? To put it in the most simple terms, the formal principle is that basis upon which you build your theological position. The place where you turn. The authority, if you will, for your theology.

And for us as Lutherans, as we said, that's the Scriptures. The Scriptures are the sole source, rule and norm for everything we believe, teach and confess. They are the norma normans to use a Latin term. The norming norm. That give us our theology.

Then out of that formal principle, out of that authority, out of that text, if you will, we then draw the material principle. The material principle is the essence, the stuff, the matter, if you will, of our theology. That is what the formal principle teaches put in the simplest and most direct terms.

Then again for Lutherans, basic our teachings on the Scripture, the formal principle, we draw from them the material principle of justification by grace through faith for the sake of Christ.

The other churches, well, in the Protestant tradition, for example, would have very similar formal principles. For example, the Baptists, they would say sola scriptura, the Scripture alone, is our formal principle.

When it comes to a material principle, however, you ask: What really characterizes the Baptist tradition here in the United States? And the material principle, the thing that truly distinguishes the Baptists from all other traditions is their assistance on the autonomy and independence of the local congregation.

No formal creedal structures imposed from above. No adjudicatories that determine the way a congregation shapes its ministry. The local congregation is church in and of itself.

Within the Calvinist church bodies, groups like the German Reformed, the Presbyterians, the United Church of Christ in the present time but having its roots in the old evangelical and Reformed Church and congregational church. Groups with that tradition, their formal principle would be also the Scriptures. But in their reading of the Scriptures, they would draw out a material principle of the sovereignty of God. Putting the willful actions of God at the center of all things.

Within the Methodist tradition, somewhat in reaction to the Calvinist tradition, we might say the Arminian tradition in fact more broadly speaking, we see that there is a formal principle, once again, of the Scriptures as the center. The material principle, however, would be universal, full and free salvation. Not limited in any way, shape or form. Either in terms of Christ's atoning work or in terms of the opportunities that human beings have to receive the benefits of that work.

Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, has a little bit different thrust in terms of its formal principle. Certainly the Scriptures are there. But within Roman Catholicism, there is a three-fold formal principle. A three-fold authority. Scripture, tradition and the interpretation of the magisterium.

Usually understood in terms of the Pope being the one who has the final authority to speak Ex Cathedra on matters of faith and morals. So a three-fold authority in this particular case.

And a material principle then that takes on different shapes and different expressions, depending upon in some ways the perspective of the tradition and the magisterium as it speaks.

Take for example, in a concrete fashion expressions that the church has made say at the Council of Trent, 1546 to 1563. Or at the second Vatican Council more recently in the early 1960s.

In authoritative church councils like Trent and Vatican 2, we reduce things and see their material principle, that is acceptance of the magisterium's authoritative teaching. Thus, at Trent, you have not only positive statements about the necessity of human works, that is faith plus works, but also negative statements to the effect that anybody who says they are saved by grace through faith apart from works, let them be anathema, that is condemned.

We could go through a lot of other denominations as we extrapolated these formal and material principles from their authoritative documents. But I think for the present, that should probably suffice, simply to get us into the discussion and into a more deep consideration of these various traditions. In fact, what we'll do over the remainder of this course is look at these various traditions in some depth and discuss their formal and material principles and the impact that these have then on the shape of their ministry, their life and their ongoing character as a community.

It's a little bit awkward, formal and material. But it does give us some handles and some ways to make sense of this very complex story.

No. 30.

>> That helps me understand. Thank you very much. Now, if I understand you correctly, all groups have a confession of some sort, even if they claim they don't. Where do we go to find these texts? And how do we go about interpreting them?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Josh, well put. In fact, you've captured something I was leading towards and hadn't said explicitly. A material principle is a confession of sorts. And even those church bodies that say: We don't have a confessional text, do have a confession, at least theologically that they make in some way, shape or form. Even those groups that say, for example, that say "No creed but the Bible" have just offered up a creed.

So where do we go to find these particular texts? Well, this is the area of theology and historical study that we call comparative symbolics. That sounds like a mouthful. And unnecessary technical jargon. Let me tell you what it means. It means comparing the official confessional texts of a variety of different traditions.

Now in the Lutheran case, this is pretty simple for us to get after. We have our Book of Concord, 1580. And our Confessions I and Confessions II courses have led you through that material or will do so if you're taking that course in the future.

What you'll find there are explicit confessional text its that our particular community has put together based on the Scriptures. A little bit earlier we talked about the norma normans. The norming norm. The Scriptures themselves. The formal principle. Well, we also saw that a number of other traditions have their own norm norms, shall we say. Their own way of reading the Scriptures.

And while we share with most Protestants in understanding of Scripture as the formal principle, what we also find is reading the Bible leads us to different conclusions in some cases. Thus, each one of these traditions has some kind of confessional statement that it puts together, even if it's brief and simple.

We Lutherans have a fairly comprehensive statement with the Book of Concord embracing the Augsburg Confession, the apology, Luther's two Catechisms, the treatise of the Smalcald Articles, the treatise of the power and primacy of the Pope and the Formula of Concord. That gives us a place to go, a norma normata, a normed norm, based on the Scripture to understand and to learn what it is Lutherans have confessed.

Other traditions have similar texts. For example, the Church of England has its Thirty-Nine Articles. They were adopted as an expression of the Church of England's faith. The Presbyterian tradition has the Westminster Confession along with the Shorter and Larger Catechisms.

The Methodist Church has its Articles of Religion and also certain sermons of John Wesley to which it terms as authoritative texts, once again. Even the Baptists have their Philadelphia Confession, the New Hampshire Confession and other statements of faith that they turn to when explicating their position and making a statement of what it is that they believe, teach and confess.

Even in some of the more anti-creedal groups you'll find these kind of statements, as well. In my own ministry we were surrounded by members of the Church of Christ. And one of the points they consistently made was they did not have an absolute confessional text.

I would query some of the pastors and members: Then what is it that you believe, teach and confess? Where do you turn to know these kinds of things? How do you teach children what it is that you believe?

And they would come back and say of course: We only use the Bible. The Bible alone. No creed but the Bible.

But I would say: Then how do you keep from everybody coming up with their own thing? And their response was: Well, there are things certainly believed among us. And I said: What are those things? And there would be a consistent list that they would offer me.

And I would say: That sound to me like a confession of sorts. They weren't always thrilled to hear me say that. But nonetheless, I think the point got across. Every group has its confessional statement. Whether it be formalized in a Book of Concord or Westminster Confession or more informal in terms of the things that are certainly believed among us.

It's to those kinds of texts that we will turn as we explore the various positions of these church bodies, comparing their symbolics, their texts, their authoritative documents for their traditions. We'll look at them, consider them, compare them and find out how they square up with the Word of God.

It will be I think an interesting task. And an enlightening one, as well. And it will help you above all to understand the variety of positions that have characterized the Christian church here in America. And I think, too, it might also have some very practical purposes.

No. 31.

>> You know, Dr. Rast, I can see the importance of knowing the confessional and historical background of the various denominations intellectually. But what is the practical application of all of this? Is there any?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: David, I think there is. In fact, I often ask myself when I was at the seminary: As interested as I was in history, how will this impact my ministry? Is there a way to make this stuff useful? And now that I'm a seminary professor, I've heard students ask me the very same question.

Well, I found that as a pastor in Tennessee of all places that it was very important for my ministry to be familiar with these symbolical books of the various traditions. As well as to know something about their history. Not just the names and the dates and the facts. You know, I could make the statement that the Methodist Church was formally organized at the Christmas Conference in 1784. But who really cares?

However, knowing that when I came into contact with a Methodist, perhaps with a person who had been largely disenfranchised in that tradition who had dechurched themselves over time, yet I knew part of their story, was familiar with what they had learned as a child perhaps in their church from their Catechism or from their Sunday school, it immediately made a way for us to connect. That is it provided a bridge. It provided a way for us to develop a relationship.

Let me give you a really strong case in point. Again in Tennessee one of the more interesting groups that was around was the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. Now, when I arrived, I knew little or nothing about the Cumberland Presbyterians. I had heard of them, of course. But what they were I didn't really know. But over the course of my early ministry, as I began to be aware of their presence in our area, I said: I better get a handle on these folks. I better learn something about them.

And what I came to understand is they had grown out of the great revival in Kentucky/Tennessee 1800. And they had had a terrifically difficult experience with the larger Presbyterian tradition. In fact, things got so tense, the challenges were so pronounced, that finally they found themselves compelled to remove themselves from the general oversight of the existing Presbyterian churches. The point of controversy was especially the teaching of Christ's limited atonement.

They rejected that particular emphasis within the Presbyterian tradition. And as a result, developed this new church body. This new denomination called the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, named after the river, the area where they had first developed.

The cornerstone of their teaching is expressed in a way at Montgomery Bell State Park just west of Nashville. Just west of Nashville, Tennessee, about 40 miles. Where you see an archway that says: Whosoever will. And basically what they were saying is Christ had died for all. And whoever would accept him as their personal Savior could be saved.

They didn't believe that Christ had only died for a portion of the world with, the elect. We'll talk about that more with Calvinism shortly. They believed that Christ had died for all. And that the opportunity for salvation was therefore, open to everyone.

Now, I explored that a little bit. I visited the state park. I delved into their history a bit. And I read some of the early documents of their tradition. And it just so happened that one day a person who had for a long time been a member of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church but had always been unhappy with some of their teachings, particularly in regards to the Lord's Supper happened by. And they asked me a question. This person asked me a question: What's the difference between Martin Luther and John Calvin on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper.

Well, I asked: Do you want the long answer or do you want the short answer? And this person answered: The long one. I said: Well, you better come in. This may take us a while.

So in came this person. We sat down to chat. She immediately stated that she was from the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. I said: Oh, okay. That means -- I told part of the narrative of that church's beginning. And I expressed a familiarity with their theological position. And immediately we had a connection.

She said: You know my story. You know where I'm coming from. And therefore, you know, also, some of the points at issue. Perhaps some of the differences between our traditions.

But I could speak as one who was informed. Not merely as one passing judgement. And as such, we began a relationship that ended in her joining our congregation. Her family joining our congregation. And being a very productive member of our little community. It was a wonderful blessing. And it started from just knowing that little bit of that story and helping make those connections.

So I think there is a very practical use to all of this. It's not just technical theology where you can spout off a bunch of confessional documents and quote chapter and verse within them. It's more about the ongoing story of the church here in America as it defines itself, expresses itself and as human beings struggle to confess what they read in the Scriptures.

And it gives us by knowing those various stories a way of immediately connecting with people. Of saying that they are important. Of expressing their value. And of giving an opportunity for making a good confession, a clear confession of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. And what could be more practical than that?

No. 32.

>> Okay. I'm sold on the value. So let me get us started. In reading and discussing theology I've heard the word Calvinism used a lot. I know the name John Calvin. And I've heard him described as Reformed. But what does that mean? Could you tell us more about him? And was he a contemporary of Luther?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Well, David, you've put your finger on something very important here. In fact, oftentimes at the seminary students will use the word Reformed just kind of as a throw-away for everybody who is Protestant but not Lutheran. And I don't think that does justice to this particular tradition.

What you have in the Reformed tradition is a thoughtful theological position that is very consistent, perhaps in some ways too consistent. One that's developed over time. One that has as its basis in the minds of its framers a biblical legitimacy. And one that has had a tremendous impact on the shape of Christianity in the United States.

So having said that by way of introduction, what do we mean when we talk about the Reformed tradition? In fact, can we say there is "The Reformed tradition?"

Well, in terms of comparative symbolics, first of all, we have to be clear about one thing. The Reformed tradition has a variety of texts to which it turns. Unlike Lutheranism where you have a very consolidated set of texts in the Book of Concord, Reformed churches around Europe tended to have more localized texts.

So there are texts from the Netherlands. From Germany. From England. From France. From Switzerland and so forth. Significant texts that are definitional for various communities but never were compiled into one book like Lutherans did. And part of the reason for that can be found with its founders, with the people who really began the Reformed tradition.

We can list out a bunch. But we'll simply emphasize two. One whom you brought up, namely John Calvin. But one who came before Calvin namely Ulrich Zwingli.

Ulrich Zwingli was enormously important for the development of the Reformed tradition through his work first as a priest and then as a reformer in Zurich Switzerland. There he articulated the principle, the formal principle of Scripture alone over against the Roman Catholic three-fold tradition. Zwingli said: We'll use Scripture and nothing more to develop our position.

As he pursued that formal principle, what came out of it were increasing concerns over a variety of Roman Catholic teachings. In fact, he went so far as to say that the teaching regarding the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar was, in fact, erroneous. This would lead to some real crisis points with the Lutherans.

Now, it's true, Lutherans and Roman Catholics had some important differences in regard to the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. While they both accepted it, the means of that presence or the mode of that presence was understood very differently.

Roman Catholics believed in Transubstantiation. That is by virtue of the priestly action of speaking the verba ***ocus corpus mayem, that the bread in the sacrament was literally changed into the body of Christ. And while the accidents remained, the substance had changed.

While it still looked and tasted like bread, it had actually become only the body of Christ. The same thing being true of the chalice and the wine it held. That being transubstantiated into the blood of Christ. There no longer being any wine present, though the accidents, taste and smell of wine, remained.

Luther disagreed arguing instead for a sacramental presence of Christ. Oftentimes we express that in terms in, with and under the forms of bread and wine.

Zwingli found both of these positions problematic. And in fact, said the Supper of the Lord is primarily symbolical. And by virtue of the representation of the bread and wine, that evokes in our minds a cognitive process that creates a kind of memory.

Now, there's a presence of sort of Christ in that memory. But in the end it is simply that cognitive process. Not a real presence of the glorified Christ.

As a result, when Luther and when Zwinglians met in 1529 at the Marburg Colloquy they could not come to agreement on that point. They agreed on many other things. But on that point they remained divided.

Zwingli himself would die two years later in 1531 in battle against the Roman Catholics. And at that point leadership in the Reformed tradition was in something of a vacuumed state. Who would fill Zwingli's shoes?

The man who did was John Calvin. Calvin articulated a theological position already in 1536 in his most famous work "The Institutes," "The Institutes of the Christian Religion."

He revised that book several times over the course of his remaining life. And in fact, it grew and became larger over time. And continues to be an important resource for understanding the Reformed tradition.

Now, with Calvin, there's a little bit of different emphasis that you find on two particular points. True, he would say the formal principle, the basis for everything he believed, taught, confessed, would be the Scriptures. The once again formal principle being sola scriptura. But the manner in then which he drew forth from that Scripture led him to some different conclusions.

For example, when it came to the question of the Lord's Supper and the presence of Christ in the sacrament, a burning issue between Reformed and Lutherans, and certainly between Protestants and Catholics, Calvin offered a different explanation than Zwingli had. And it's important to keep these two clear.

Where Zwingli largely focused on the symbolic representation, Calvin talked about a spiritual presence. A real spiritual presence. Perhaps a spiritual real presence. Nonetheless, Calvin would say that by virtue of participation in the dominical meal, established by the Lord himself, our faith is excited and drawn up to heaven where we feed upon Christ in our hearts by faith.

It is a real participation of the believer with Christ feeding upon him. But it happened primarily spiritually through faith.

In some ways you might think that Calvin was trying to shoot the gap, if you will, between Zwingli's more representative approach and Luther's more real sacramental approach. You might say he was trying to have his cake and eat it, too. Nonetheless, the Lutherans never found this satisfying, this explanation of Calvin satisfying. Saying that it still compromised the clear words of Scripture: This is my body. And that it was unnecessarily philosophical and confusing and really didn't communicate well to the common people.

Better, said the Lutherans, to take Christ at his Word. When Christ says: This is my body, it is, indeed. This is my blood; it is, indeed. Just as Luther had sprawled on the table back in Marburg in 1529: Est Is.

So Calvin had a different perspective than Zwingli in regard to the Sacrament of the Altar and the presence of Christ. He also opened up a door that would be enormously important for the Reformed tradition.

Now, in this respect Zwingli had already spoken much about the sovereignty of God. Calvin takes that and builds upon it. And then offers opportunities for those who follow him to build upon it even more.

What I mean is this: In one of the later editions of his "Institutes of the Christian Religion," Calvin begins towards the latter part of the book to consider the question of election or predestination. Calvin was deeply trained in law. And thought like a lawyer. As a result, he tended to bring a very rational approach to his theological endeavors. And as a result of that, believed that if one were to posit something on one side, it would necessarily have a result on the other side.

Thus, for example, when one began to talk about the Doctrine of Election, that's God's choosing of some for salvation, Calvin began to extrapolate from that that one should also have the converse. Namely, that God at the very least did not choose some or at the very most purposefully reprobated or condemned others.

Now, he speculated on this point but really didn't want to bring it to the center of his theology. He said: What we want to focus on is the majesty of God. His monergistic work in human salvation. That he alone is the one who begins, continues and completes human salvation. We don't want to pry too much into these hidden matters.

Yet, he said, there is that terrible decree. Now, he tried to temper it. And especially his followers would try to temper this language by talking about God's action in covenanting with human beings. But there was that important shift. And in the wake of Calvin's work, there would be followers who would take this to its radical end. In fact, later on in the 16th Century there would be those who would develop and frame their entire theology around the question of God's unconditional election and reprobation. And this would come to define later Calvinism.

Now, the reason that's so important for us is that that particular understanding of Calvinism would characterize the Puritans when they came here to the American colonies in the 1630 vicinity. And that would shape in large part the character of American Christianity over the course of the 1700s and then produce a violent reaction in the early 1800s as a theological transition occurred taking Christianity in the United States in many ways into an entirely new direction.

So Calvinism may be a little bit different than what Calvin taught. Certainly with different emphases than what Zwingli taught. But nonetheless, under a broader heading called the Reformed tradition. And that broader heading of the Reformed tradition has many expressions. In fact, many of the groups we've already talked about here in the United States have that Reformed tradition as their roots.

The Church of England. The Baptists. The Presbyterians. The Methodists in their own way. All tracing their roots back in one way or another to this Reformed tradition. The manner in which that takes concrete shape we'll need to talk about so we can get to the heart of how this shapes American Christianity.

No. 33.

>> That helps me to understand the things I've read and heard before today. But it leaves me with some other questions. What kind of influence did Calvin's ideas have in Europe? And how influential has Calvinism been in America? What were and are the church bodies that we can call Calvinists?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Good, David. You're tracking right along with me.

Calvin had a tremendous influence. I've already alluded a little bit to that. His impact was felt throughout the continent. And over into the British isles.

In France, in the Netherlands, in England, later on in Scotland, Calvinism had a tremendous impact. And would continue to do so as it was exported both from the continent and the British isles to the American colonies. So that churches here on the American scene like the Church of England, Episcopal church, the Presbyterian Church, even the Baptists have their roots in Calvinism.

But as I was also saying, is Calvinism Calvin? What happened in the wake of Calvin's work is that his followers began to emphasize certain elements of his theology. And that horrible decree, as he called it, came more and more to the center of their thought. Now, the reason for that I think is pretty logical. Afterall, they simply argued that if you have on the one hand God choosing some, take, for example, the book of Ephesians Chapter 1 where the people at Ephesus, the congregation are called God's chosen, it would simply stand to reason that he didn't choose others. Or that he choose others for another fate. And as that moves more and more to the center of Calvinistic thinking, as that theme is developed more and more, that becomes the dominant element in Calvinism as a movement.

We see this played out in several areas in very concrete ways. For example, in the Dutch church this would take on concrete form in the TULIP theology as it's articulated by the Synod of Dort.

Now, David, you're saying: The Synod of Dort; what's that? Well, the Synod of Dort was held in 1618-19. And at it the Dutch Reformed Church defined it's theological position in terms of five specific points. And we use the word TULIP to help remember them.

The T in the TULIP is total depravity. The Calvinists believed that human beings were born into a state of sin. And as a result, could do nothing to merit God's favor. There was nothing of worth or value in their actions. In fact, by virtue of their total depravity, they simply fell deeper and deeper into sin.

The U stands for unconditional election this is the solution to the problem of human sin. God in eternity in hidden decree chooses some for salvation. He passes by others. Or according to some interpreters, purposefully condemns them, reprobates them as the language goes.

Total depravity, the problem of human beings falling into sin and living in sin. Then results in an unconditional election on the part of God to save some.

Those who are then chosen for salvation fall under the L. That is the limited atonement. Christ's work is limited in its efficaciousness to those who are elected for salvation, chosen for salvation. The death of Christ could have been efficacious for all had God so decreed it. But he haded limited its scope. And so the effects of Christ's death are limited, as well.

The I is store irresistible grace. Because God has elected one to salvation, therefore, when he comes with his grace with an effectual call, one will yield to it. One will, in fact, become a believer. There is no way to resist.

And then finally, the P, perseverance of the saints. Because one is one of the elect, it simply stands to reason, it simply flows out theologically that one will persevere in that faith unto the end.

Now, what is it that the Calvinists are trying to do by this TULIP theology? Well, they've recognized rightly what the Bible teaches about human sin. That we are, in fact, born into a state of sin. What they then turn to answer the problem of human sin is a hidden action of God. Namely, his electing action, his predestinating action. And then couple that with a second hidden action. Namely, his reprobation of others.

What they are doing with this is seeking to safeguard the sovereignty of God. That God alone is in control of all things. The result being, of course, then that they say if a person is saved, it is simply by virtue of God's work. His unconditional election first. His sending his Son to provide a limited atonement for those chosen, second. His coming in an irresistible fashion giving an effectual call. And his making sure that his elect persevere to the end. God's work from beginning to end in human salvation.

The problem of a theological system would be, of course, the other side of that equation. Namely, those who fall into perdition. Those who make their way ultimately to damnation. By locating the solution and God's action in terms of salvation, they felt compelled, reasonably speaking, then to say that God is also responsible for those who make their way to reprobation. Though, those who do find God's judgement in the end have no one to blame but themselves.

It sounds a little bit problematic, doesn't it? And in fact, I agree. However, as one sees this theological system play itself out, it has some incredible applications. And in fact, one in particular that comes to mind is that of William Perkins, 1558 to 1602.

Williams Perkins provided a schematic for understanding how this happens. And gave this system its technical meaning. Its technical terminology. Namely, supralapsarian double predestination. Use that one next time you want to impress your friends.

Supralapsarian double predestination puts God in control of all things, both those who would be saved and in the end those who would be damned. The supralapsarian element of this is a point at which Perkins has gone beyond Calvin, beyond many other Calvinist thinkers. But logically says: This is the way things have to be. Namely, that in eternity, before the fall and descent, before the creation of human beings, God made his determinations about who would be saved and who would be damned. Literally supra, before, above the fall this determination was made.

And on the basis of that electing action of God, humankind is thrust into one of two streams. Each individual human person is either one of the elect or one of the reprobate. And a the place where you end up, the stream where you find yourself, the sequence that is your destiny, is determined by God's decree.

If you're one of the elect, things are good for you. And in fact, as you look at the diagram that I have here of Perkins' Golden Chain, you'll see how it plays itself out. You are literally one who has God's electing favor upon you. And the result is that Christ's atoning work applies to you.

In time, said Perkins, the Holy Spirit will come with an effectual call. Usually through a sermon. Though it could happen through personal Bible reading. The Holy Spirit will come with an effectual call. And on the basis of the Spirit attending that Word of the Lord, one then comes to faith. Now, that doesn't mean that everything goes fine for you. But it does mean that ultimately you will persevere.

Certainly you can have doubts about your justification. Certainly you can find yourself pressed and facing challenges and temptations in this life. But the ultimate result is that you will and must persevere to the end. You'll be judged. But on the basis of the merits of Christ which apply to you as one of the elect. You will find your ultimate destiny, your ultimate goal, in the presence of God in heaven. It must play itself out this way. There is nothing you can do to change that. To lose that. To alter that.

On the other hand, if you should find yourself in the sequence of the reprobate, there are some interesting things that happens here. You'll note on the scheme that there are two subsequences. One is for those who are clearly reprobate. People who have no interest in religion. People who purposely, publicly and loudly reject the message of Christ. People who live a profligate life. They have no interest in fulfilling the will of God. And simply pursue their own ends to their own destruction. Those are clearly the reprobate. Nobody has questions about them.

However, that interior stream is much more interesting. Because here are people who are not of the elect. Who in fact, God has reprobated. But still they hear the message of the Scriptures. Still they hear the Gospel regarding Christ. And what happens is that the Word of God works on them, if you will, reasonably speaking.

That is to say rationally they understand what the Scriptures say about the work of Christ. But they erroneously apply it to themselves. You see, because they are not of the elect, the atonement of Christ, the work of Christ, is does not apply to them. While they can understand what it means, they cannot truly come to faith because they have not been elected.

The result is that hearing this ineffectual call, they can be sorry for their sins. They can even have a certain zeal for the kingdom of God. They can know what the will of God is and desire to fulfill it in their lives. But because all of these things are generated merely by words and by human reason acting on those words, they cannot in the end be done out of a true and living faith. Thus, they all count for nothing. And their ultimate response will be one of relapsing into their sinful condition. They will expose themselves ultimately as what they really are, one of the reprobate.

Now, here is one of the really amazing things about this Calvinistic system in Perkins' understanding. You could have a person who looks like they are one of the elect. They've repented of their sins. They have zeal for the Lord's will. However, because they have fooled themselves into believing they are one of the elect, their ultimate outcome will be their own destruction.

At the same time you could have an elect person who is struggling mightly with temptations, who is doubting their justification, who is uncertain about the claims of the Scriptures and so forth. But who is actually one of the elect. Why? Because God has said so.

So the person who looks like they are not one of the elect can, in fact, be one. And the person who does appear to be one of the elect, is, in fact, not one. This will be one of the truly heart wrenching elements of Calvinism. Because what it does is it essentially forces the Christian individual to ask: Which one am I? Am I one of the elect? Or am I one of the reprobate? And how do I know for sure?

The answer: You can't know. You cannot know absolutely and certainly. And this will be one of the themes that repeatedly appears in American Calvinistic diaries and biographies.

When the Puritans come over, they come with this perspective, this Calvinistic perspective. And one of the things they do is they struggle mightly with this question: Am I one of the elect or am I one of the reprobate? Where am I in the overall scheme of God's plan?

They are uncertain. And so they explore their inner feelings, their inner thoughts. Trying to come to some kind of certainty and assurance on this question. Oftentimes finding none.

The reason is that they are fearful of what they call hypocrisy. Now, when we talk about hypocrisy in the present time, we tend to think a hypocrite would be a person who purposefully passes themself off as something they are not. A person who lies to others.

Now, that would have certainly been the case, as well, in the 1600s. But at the same time, they would have struggled with a second meaning to the word hypocrisy. Namely, the person who has fooled themselves. Has fooled themselves into thinking they are one of the elect. And that they, therefore, have the favor of God.

It's a terribly unsettling theological position. And it leads people always to wonder, to wonder: Where am I? Where am I in this scheme?

Perkins' Golden Chain is one of the most unsettling theological schema that I've seen. But I've also heard this kind of approach to theology and religion preached. In fact, in one of the most famous sermons preached here in America, we see this in evidence.

It's Jonathan Edwards "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Now, Edwards preached this around 1741 as part of the great revival, the First Great Awakening, that had exploded on the American scene about 1735 much and as he preached this sermon, he preached it to a group of people who in a way were expecting things to happen. Were counting on God to work. Yet as he did so, he did so from a very consistent Calvinistic position.

The text itself is chalked full of earthy language and imagery that's easily accessible. And in fact, it's one of the most engaging texts that you can read. Edwards uses a variety of different analogies to get his point across.

He says, for example: God views you like a worm who is out on the pathway after a rainstorm. Writhing and squiggling around. And like anybody who has tried to make a walk down a path or a sidewalk after a rainstorm like that, it's almost impossible to avoid stepping on some of the worms. Well, Edwards says God steps on the worms and it makes him glad.

God also views you and your sinfulness with such anger, it's like water building up behind a dam. Every sinful action you undertake is more and more water piling up. And soon it threatens to overwhelm the dam. The only thing from keeping that dam from bursting at this very moment, says Edwards, is the hand of God. But should it be withdrawn, what would be the result?

Again, he says, you look about yourself and assume you are walking on solid ground. But in fact, as God looks at things, you're walking across a bridge that is made of wood. And the wood is rotten. And at any moment, the wood will give way. But for now, the hand of God is beneath that bridge upholding it. But should he remove his hand at any point, the bridge will come crashing down.

And of course then the most well known of all of the analogies and stories that he uses in this sermon, he says: God holds you like a spider over a flame. And should he let go at any point, the flames will consume you.

One of the most striking things about this sermon -- and there are many striking things about it. One of the most, however, is the fact that Jesus is mentioned so little in the text of the sermon. By the end of the text, as Edwards read this sermon in a church in Connecticut, people were literally leaping out of the pews begging him to stop.

At one point there was such chaos in the congregation, he did stop and wait for the elders to restore order. Then he went back to his text and began reading it once again. Coming to the culmination where he said: Fly! Fly from the wrath that is to come! Amen.

Little mention of Jesus. A warning to fly from the wrath to come. But then the people were not pointed to the solution for their distress. Why?

Here Calvinism comes into play. For Edwards the elect would hear this message effectually and know to flee to Christ where the benefits of the limited atonement would apply to them. For those who were not of the elect, there was no chance anyway. And hence, he did not want to lead them into hypocrisy. That is into fooling themselves that they were among the elect. And so he did not point them towards the means of their salvation.

And here is a basic pastoral problem within the Calvinistic system. It is simply this: That as the pastor comes into the pulpit and looks out at the congregation before them, he immediately will divide them into elect and reprobate. And for himself, there remains that question mark. Which ones are the elect? Which ones are reprobate?

He himself may have an inkling, an idea of the divisions. But cannot know for sure. And as a result, he preaches with great care so as not to lead the reprobate into a false hope. Yet at the same time, pointing those who are the elect in the direction of their salvation.

Contrast this with what we do as Lutheran preachers. Going up into the pulpit we look out into the congregation knowing that each one of these people has been redeemed by the blood of Christ. That the work of Christ is sufficient for the sins of all the world. That in fact, that penalty has been paid once and for all. And that we can proclaim the sweetness of that Gospel message to all who hear it. All who need to hear it, which is every single person.

The basic pastoral difference is striking. For Calvinists, there's always a question mark. Which one is elect? Which one is reprobate?

For Lutherans, always an exclamation point. Christ suffered, died and rose again. He reconciled man to God by his suffering, death, resurrection and ascension.

Perkins' Golden Chain, supralapsarian double predestination, Calvinism, leaves you with that question mark. In contrast think of how we Lutherans confess in the Augsburg Confession. In fact, set the TULIP over against the Augsburg Confession.

Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints. The problem of sin being answered by the hidden decree of God in election. Over against the Augsburg Confession which talks about God in Article I. Original sin, Article II. Then Christ, justification, means of grace, ministry.

We agree with the Reformed, with Calvinism, as to the nature of the problem. That we human beings are born into a state of sin. That we all commit actual sin. And that this separates us from God. The solution to the problem couldn't be more radically different.

For Calvinists, it's the hidden will of God in the decree of election. For Lutherans, it's the revealed will of God in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ. No more question marks, only exclamation points.

Do you want to know how God views you? Do you want to know what God desires for you? Then look at the cross. See his Son suffering once and for all for your sins. Rising again for your justification. And the answer is settled once and for all.

It really is a striking difference. And in fact, the results have a profound impact on the shape of Christianity in America. Calvinism, the Calvinist churches, tend to dominate the American scene through the 16- and early 1700s. Even many of the Baptists are what are called Particular Baptists during this time. That is they believe in God's predestinating activity.

Presbyterians, German Reformed, Dutch Reformed, the Church of England more modestly speaking all have their roots in the Calvinist system. The result will be ultimately a change of theology that will continue to effect the shape of American religion. But this early Calvinistic basis has its own impact that's still observable today.

Well, David, that's a long answer to a question about Calvinism and its overall impact. But I think what you see is just how important it is to understand this. For so many of the church bodies that make up the American religious scene have their roots in this. And those that come along later also have their roots in rejecting this. As we'll see as we move our way through this particular course.

But one thing remains sure and certain. This is of paramount importance for understanding the shape of American religion. And I hope you've found this answer helpful.

No. 34.

>> Thanks very much for that answer, Professor. "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" must have been quite a sermon. Americans seem so callous to sin today. I wonder if any proclamation of the law could bring 21st Century Americans to such a point of fear that they would beg a preacher to stop because they could take no more.

Now, if I wanted to know more about the groups you've mentioned, what are some of the official documents or confessions I could read?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Nick, as I mentioned earlier, there are in the Reformed tradition a lot of local confessions. And I mentioned just a few in passing. And a couple in a little more detail.

For example, the Westminster Confession has been a normative document for the Presbyterian Church in Scotland as well as English Presbyterians and Puritans, as well. The Synod of Dort, which we looked at in some detail, has its five Heads of Doctrine as they are called. And those are normative for the Dutch Reformed tradition.

But there are also then these more obscured texts, as well. A number of confessions. For example, back in the 16th Century there is the Consensus Tigurinus, which was a document signed in 1549 that established a basis of agreement between two branches of the Reformed tradition. Namely, the Zwinglians in Switzerland on the one hand and the Calvin -- the followers of Calvin on the other hand. Both, again, in Switzerland.

There has been the London Confession. There have been the Helvetic Confession. There are any number of these localized confessions that have characterized the Reformed tradition. And that's one of the things that led me to ask a little while ago whether it is appropriate to talk about "the" Reformed tradition or maybe it might be a little better to talk about "a" Reformed tradition.

In other words, the Reformed Confessions, local in character and specific to their circumstances, don't have the same kind of breadth, if you will, and character in terms of defining and producing an identity within the Reformed tradition. Like say the Lutheran Confessions do for Lutherans.

Now, that's not to minimize the importance of any of these doctrines. The Synod of Dort was extremely important and its conclusions continue to be normative. The Westminster Confession was an enormously important document and was especially so for the Presbyterian Church not only in England and Scotland as I've mentioned, but also for the Presbyterian Church here in the United States.

In fact, as Presbyterians began to organize here in the United States, what became the United States, they began to ask themselves about normative confessional statements. And the Westminster Confession function has that normative statement.

However, they did have a bit of controversy in the first part of the 1700s over just how that confession would function. What I mean is this: The question was: Do we accept the Westminster Confession unconditionally or conditionally?

They use two Latin terms to describe the two ways of subscribing to the document. Namely, do we subscribe ***queau, that is because the Westminster Confession is a faithful exposition of Scripture, or do we accept the Westminster Confession quatenus or quatenus, you'll hear it pronounced both ways, that is insofar as it agrees with Scripture.

A more than 20-year argument proceeded from 1710 on through 1730 and beyond, in fact, over this point. And this question was determinative for Presbyterians here in the United States. Would they accept all of the teachings without reservation as they were outlined in the Westminster Confession? Or would they reserve to themselves the right to disagree?

A minority group held to them vigorously and unconditionally arguing that queau, because the Westminster Confession agrees with Scripture, it must be subscribed without any reservation whatsoever. However, most Presbyterians in America held to a more modest confessional subscription saying insofar as, quatenus, the confession agrees with Scripture, we accept it.

What that then allowed certain Presbyterians to do was to modify or moderate their theological position. Saying that not all things in the Westminster Confession were absolutely binding. Therefore, there was a certain fluidity and flexibility that they were allowed as they interpreted just how it would be applied in American circumstances.

Now, a little earlier in the course I brought up the case of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. When that group simply argued that they were accepting the Westminster Confession quatenus, that is conditionally, they were rejected by other Presbyterians who argued for a more vigorous position. They said: This isn't consistent with where most of our church has been for the last almost 100 years now. This is about 1810. And as a result, withdrew themselves to form a new Presbyterian Church.

Since that time, most Presbyterians in America have adopted the Westminster Confession in a more modest or moderate fashion. Seeing it as a key and important historical document. But not necessarily normative. At least from a subscribing sense where they would say all points are absolutely necessary to be held.

As we look at the text of the Westminster Confession in our studies in class, we'll see there are significant points of divergence among various American Presbyterians on this particular issue. But one thing that comes clear throughout that particular document is the centrality of this decree of double predestination.

You know, I find your remarks regarding "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," the law that's proclaimed there, the ruggedness of that proclamation, and the manner in which it affected people, whether that would still be the case today. I often wonder that myself. But without that vigorous preaching of the law, proclamation of the law, in a lot of ways, the Presbyterian emphasis on the double predestinating act of God loses much of its punch, as well. And that's been one of the things that that particular tradition has struggled with as it's defined itself here in what's become the United States.

There are other texts, as well. The Dutch Reformed communities around Holland Michigan, Northwestern Iowa and other places continued to look back to their Synod of Dort as well as to the Helvetic -- Second Helvetic Confession and also the Westminster Confession. In American Puritanism, the congregational church produced its own confession of faith. Namely, the Cambridge Platform.

In that platform there is little to distinguish them from the general theological perspective that characterized the Reformed Church in the mid part of the 1600s. In fact, when it was adopted in 1648 by the congregational churches in New England, it made a little splash. But not much.

Most people simply accepted it for what it was. At least in terms of its specific theological position. Where it would be a ground breaker was in its polity. That's in terms of the way the church was organized. For the Cambridge Platform would be a distinctively congregational document. And we'll talk more about that later.

But again, what you begin to see is that even with the accepted documents and then adding into that this plethora of other Reformed Confessions, you see that it's very difficult to point to one particular text that becomes normative and descriptive of the entire Reformed tradition. Rather, each local geographical church tended to develop its own. Its own text. Its own meaning of that text. And application. And then used that to define itself.

At the same time there was sufficient commonalty across these confessional boundaries. So that one can talk about at the very least a Reformed tradition. And in most of these cases, Nick, people would talk very specifically about "the" Reformed tradition.

But the one question that would linger and the one question that was especially brought up by these two mid 17th Century documents, the Westminster Confession and the Cambridge Platform, the first in England, the second here in America, was the question of polity. And that is: How should we organize our churches? And that would be the next pressing issue for the Reformed.

No. 35.

>> One thing I notice from your answer is that some of these church bodies seem to put a great emphasis on structure in their names like Presbyterians and congregationalists. Is that a fair assessment?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Josh, you're right on the money. In fact, as I was alluding to just previously, this came more and more to the forefront with these particular church bodies. And part of the reason for that I think to be fair was the profound emphasis they all placed on the Scriptures.

One point I haven't made sufficiently up to this point or at least not repeated enough was that one thing all of these groups held in common, whether Presbyterian, congregational, so forth within the Reformed tradition was that they it held to the same formal principle. The Scriptures are the Word of God and they are the basis for what they believed, taught and confessed.

However, one thing they were convinced of was that the Scriptures taught a particular way of structuring the church. Now, this has been a characteristic of English Christianity from at least the 1530s. In fact, the Church of England, what we today call here in America, the Episcopal Church, had as its material principle the principle of Apostolic Succession centered in the office of bishop. When the Puritans came along and began to talk about purifying the Church of England, they intended to do so on a couple of bases.

One was to purify the theological position of the Church of England. They wanted to make the English church more vigorously and specifically Reformed/Calvinistic. William Perkins was an English man. Grew up in the English church. Who wanted to make the theological position of the English church explicitly Calvinistic in terms of his supralapsarian predestination. Others believed that, as well, and worked very hard to make that a reality for their church body.

Another matter in which the Puritans intended to purify the church was in it's liturgical practice. And we'll say a little bit more about that later, as well. But in brief now, they believed that any remnant of the older Roman Catholic practices had to be excised from the church's practice. Some went so far as to say if it is not specifically commanded in Scripture, then we must not do it. And if it is being done, we must remove it. Purify the church's practice.

But a third component of Puritanism argued for a purification of polity or structure. And they argued that the office of bishop was, in fact, not a biblical office. Now, there was not agreement on this point among the Puritans themselves. Some argued that the office of overseer, as it was articulated in the Scriptures, meant Presbyters. You can hear the roots of the word Presbyterian in this particular statement.

In fact, they would say in the Bible we find two kinds of Presbyters. Two kinds of elders you might say. We have ruling elders and teaching elders.

Ruling elders would be laymen, well recognized in the congregation, members of the church who had leadership potential and were carrying it out. Who had long-term commitments to their particular local church. And we were recognized by their peers. These were set apart to rule. That is take care of the basic matters of the church to ensure that the building was functioning and usable. More importantly, to make sure that there was a teaching elder present to serve the congregation.

Another way of describing teaching elders is to say pastors or preachers. It was basically synonomous.

So ruling elders, laymen and background, who took care of the mundane matters of the church. And teaching elders who were there to explain the Scriptures and to teach. That was one significant component within the Puritan tradition. And in fact, that group later on was primarily responsible for the production of the Westminster Confession.

They held that the Scriptures taught this as a specific form of polity that had to give Scripture to the church if we were to be faithful of the principle of sola scriptura.

But not all agreed, as I mentioned. There were also congregationalist Puritans largely in America who began to argue that, in fact, the Scripture teaches specifically that it is the local congregation that is responsible for all matters. It's not a Presbytery or a small group of people who oversee the affairs of the church. But rather, simply the local church on its own as an autonomous unit.

Back in England with the Presbyterians there was the question of how do we interrelate with one another? How do we function as one congregation over against another? And the way they handled this as Presbyterians was to say: Well, then on top of the local congregation we'll have another layer of bureaucracy, if you will. That is to say the classes. And then after that we'll have another level, the Presbytery. And beyond that we'll have the General Assembly. And finally, Synod as a whole.

You will find the order different, depending upon the particular church body. But there was this from the many to the few. And the Presbytery, the final kind of meeting and large gathering of the total group, would have oversight for the whole.

So say you had a conflict between two congregations. It would step its way up the pyramid until finally coming to the absolute adjudicatory group that would make a determination over who was right and who was wrong.

None of that in congregationalism. The local congregation was an intact autonomous group that was not necessarily answerable to any other group. It could, if it so desired, enter into relationship with other congregations. But it was responsible for its own affairs. Responsible for its own church property. Responsible for calling its own pastor. And responsible for discipline in its midst.

Thus, if there was a conflict in the congregation, it would not be appealed beyond the congregational boundaries. But it had to be handled within the group.

Now, some would say: How do you get to that -- how do you handle that kind of a polity? What if there is a terrific outbreak of controversy among the groups? The manner in which they addressed this was to covenant with one another. And each congregational church in New England had its own personal covenant. And when you became a member of that church, you signed the covenant. You owned the covenant for yourself saying that you recognized the principles upon which the church was based. You recognized that it was a biblical church and taught the truth of God's Word. And you submitted yourself to the congregation as a whole stating that this would be the community in which you lived, worshiped and worked.

That worked to a point. Until you had too many congregational churches. And then the question became: How do we deal with say a town in which there's more than one congregational church? That is to say initially in New England it was to have the -- the typical practice was to have one congregational church in town to which all would at least attend and most would become members. But when towns became too large and there was more than one congregation in town, what if you had a bitter rivalry emerge between the two congregational groups? How then might you handle it?

Here their congregationalism was stretched. And congregationalists also organized themselves into what were called Synods or gatherings of independent congregations.

Though they didn't have a formal confessional statement that bound them together, they did have recognized practices among them. One of the most basic of which was one congregational church would not accept a member from another congregational church without the approval of the pastor and of the elders of the other church.

That worked for a time within New England. In fact, it worked so well that many people called life in New England the New England Way. But as people began to move west, as folks made their way over the mountains into New York state and beyond, those bonds that tied the various congregational churches together began to loosen.

Furthermore, there were theological changes on the horizon that would test congregational commitments in basic ways. And as the 1700s gave way to the 1800ss, it simply became more and more pressing for American Reformed to hold together as one. And in this respect, their lack of a single confessional text I think once again proved to be a particular weakness.

On the other hand, their polities, their structures, continued or in fact, increased in terms of the way they defined them. Presbyterians became more Presbyterian. Congregationalists became more congregationalist. Very, very carefully safeguarding what they believed was biblical truth. As a result, stilled today the arguments go on. What is the biblical form of church polity?

Now, here is a question for you: How would a Lutheran respond? For Lutherans there was a lot more freedom, shall we say, when it came to this matter. In fact, in the Church of Sweden, the official polity is an episcopacy. They have an archbishop and sola Sweden. You have bishops, as well, beyond that.

In Germany during the 17th, 18th, 19th Centuries, it was typical for a consistory to run the churches. That is to say a consistory, which was a department of state, would take on the responsibility for organizing the mundane affairs of local congregations. In fact, owning church property, ensuring pastoring service and so forth.

Then there were the American Lutherans. And when they got here to American soil, how did they respond? They found themselves in the midst of Presbyterians, Episcopalians, congregationalists. In fact, in many of the early cases, the independent congregations tried to keep a form of the polity they used back in Germany, most often a consistorial form. But as time went by, they increasingly became more autonomous units and became more congregationally oriented.

In fact, two church bodies come to mind in this regard, who specifically made that part of their life. The Tennessee Synod, which was formed in 1820. And the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, formed in 1847.

In both cases, however, these groups said: We're not doing this out of any sense of compulsion or necessity. We don't believe that there's a church structure that is defined by the Scriptures. But given the circumstances in which we find ourselves, a democratized independent America, an episcopacy will not work. A consistory is too tied to the state here in America where people are free. We will adopt a congregational form of church government.

It shows that Lutheran freedom in the Gospel to respond to circumstances according to our human wisdom as we see best within our given place and within our given time. Whereas the Reformed would say Scripture mandates this, we as Lutherans have a certain freedom.

As a result, still today the arguments regarding polity go on. Presbyterians and congregationalists still hold to their roots arguing that these things are derived from Scripture. Their arguments won't go away any time soon I'm quite sure. At the same time, it does show interesting responses on the part of Christian traditions to the unique circumstances of the American frontier where they actually had the freedom to develop these polities without interference from the state. And that I think is really rather interesting.

No. 36.

>> What makes the Episcopal Church different from the other Calvinist churches? What makes it different from the Lutheran Church? I recall a Time magazine article some years ago which argued that the differences among the Lutherans, Episcopalians and Catholics were not all that great. Would you concur?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Ah, that's a very well put question. And in fact, Eric, one of the things that I always struggle with is where to put the Episcopal church. To put it another way: Is the Church of England part of the Reformed tradition that we've been talking about? Is it a Reformed Church or is it something else? Is it closer to the Lutherans? Is it closer to the Catholics? Where does it fit?

And one of the things that I think you find within the Anglican church itself, as you'll see as we discuss it a little bit, is some question regarding that in terms of its own self identity. So to that end, let me tell you a little bit about the early history of Anglicanism and how it came to be. And that might help begin to set the stage a little bit.

As you may know, the Church of England as a church independent of Roman Catholicism came about during the 1530s largely due to the interest of Henry VIII. Henry had sought an annulment of his marriage. The Roman church had refused it. So he convinced the parliament to have him named supreme Governor of the Church of England and to cut all formal ties with the Roman Catholic Church.

However, when those ties were cut, theologically the English church remained largely the same. In fact, in terms of the structure, the archbishop of Canterbury functioned in a manner somewhat similar to that of the bishop of Rome. But the king or later on the queen himself or herself functioned more like the Pope.

So to put it another way: Henry had not really broken all that much theologically with Rome, though he had broken in terms of structure and day-to-day life of the church. Afterall, Henry had been named Defensor Fidei back in 1520 -- that means defender of the faith -- for a writing he produced against Martin Luther.

Luther had attacked the Roman Catholic sacramental operations in his tract "The Babylonian Captivity of the Church." Henry responded defending the traditional Catholic position. And so was rewarded by the Pope with this title: Defender of the faith.

He gives little indication he ever changed his theological standard. However, he did shut down the monasteries in England. Raided their treasuries. Used those to supplement the funds of the English crown and to support the monarchy. And in effect, put him in the position the Pope had previously enjoyed. He also put the clergy into an interesting relationship with him, making them largely dependent upon his good favor.

To enjoy the king's favor was to have a fruitful ministry. To have the king's ere was to lead to difficult times. In some cases later on in other monarchs, that meant death for clergy.

So Henry's theological reforms were modest. When he was succeeded by his son, Edward VI in 1547, however, theological reform became the order of the day. Edward apparently had been influenced by some of the Reformed thinking that was going on. And here by "Reformed" I mean broadly Reformational thinking.

There were some Lutherans who were present and active in England at this time. There were also more and more Reformed thinkers, a few coming over from the continent and having a significant influence on the shape of the English church.

The result being that you have a modicum, a small amount of Lutheran thinking and a fermenting within England at this time. Largely around Cambridge University. You have a traditionalist Roman Catholic perspective. You have a traditionalist Catholic perspective in Anglican garb. And you have also the Reformed tradition.

The result was a church body that held together a number of different perspectives. None of which was absolutely determinative. And the manner in which the English church responded was to be somewhat open and broad in terms of the way it embraced these various cultures within itself.

So for example, when the first Book of Common Prayer was published in 1549 under the authority of Edward VI, we have the statement regarding the practice of the Lord's Supper. In fact, the service itself has several titles.

It is called the Mass. Thereby appealing to the traditionalist Catholic element within the church. It is called the Sacrament of the Altar, appealing to the Lutheran perspective. And it's called the Lord's Supper or Communion giving a more generic Protestant tinge to things. Kind of covering all of the bases, if you will.

And this will be part of the genius of Anglicanism. It will see itself decidedly as a via media. A middle way.

Now, what that means will take on different forms and expressions, depending on times and circumstances. But at various times it has seen itself as a middle way between more rigorous Calvinism and say Lutherans. At other times it has seen itself as a middle way between Protestantism generally and Roman Catholicism. Circumstances have been determinative in specifically how it arranges itself.

But this becomes one of the characteristics of this particular tradition. It is wider in terms of its scope. More embracing in terms of what it allows for in terms of theological stances. And above all, will seek to express its unity in its worship. And that's perhaps what we should talk about next. Because for Anglicans, worship is the center.

No. 37.

>> Does they Episcopal Church have an official doctrinal statement? If so, where can I find it?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Very good, Eric. It does, in fact, have an official doctrinal statement. But it has two components to it, if you will. Let me give you the more Lutheranesque answer in the first place and then we'll move onto the real thing.

Namely, the 39 articles of the Anglican church are it's official doctrinal statement. However, those are largely seen as important historical witnesses to the practice of Anglicanism. One of the things we'll do in class as we read through the 39 articles is think about them within the broader theological tradition. In fact, you'll see why I was struggling earlier over where to put them. Namely, should they be classed as Reformed? Are they closer to Lutherans on certain things? Or are they something unique and to themselves?

To make a long story short, however, the Thirty-Nine Articles, which were a revision of the earlier Forty-Two Articles, are the official statement of theological positions for the Anglican communion. They are a modestly Reformed Calvinistic text.

Simply put, they intentionally broaden the points of discussion in order to incorporate a variety of viewpoints. Let's do a comparison and contrast here.

With Lutherans you have the Augsburg Confession written for a very specific purpose. Namely, to try to encourage unity on the basis of the Catholic substance of the church which is shared in the perspective of the Lutherans by themselves and the Roman Catholic leaders. It is an irenic document. It tries to bring peace to the church.

However, as time went by, the divisions within western Christendom became largely operative and visible. And by the time you have the Formula of Concord of 1577, those divisions are very well settled. And so within the Formula, one finds a much more strident Lutheran critique. Both of Rome, certainly, but also of the Reformed.

The Thirty-Nine Articles, on the other hand, tries to broaden the discussion to be embracing of a variety of perspectives. Where the formula oftentimes is so specific that it does not allow for any variance, the Thirty-Nine Articles strives for generality to be as embracing as possible.

The result is discussions of significant topics into which a variety of traditions can read their perspective. And the result being the hope for unity.

Take, for example, the article on baptism. It is described as a sacrament. It is also described as a sign and a seal. It seems to have forgiving power. But that is not explicitly made, that point. Nor is it spoken of as being regenerative.

Nonetheless, sacrament, active, forgiving sins, the general language is there. As is the more covenantal language of the Reformed tradition. If one desired, one could invest the text with a Lutheran meaning, if you will. On the other hand, a Reformed reader would find themselves very acclimated to the perspective there, as well. Hence, the via media. In this case between Lutherans and Reformed.

Much the same kind of language is used in the article regarding the Lord's Supper in the Thirty-Nine Articles. And given the fact that these were adopted in 1571, a key point in time as cryptocalvinism is ripping at the Lutheran Church, the intentional breadth of the Thirty-Nine Articles attest to the desire of the Anglican communion to be embracing.

At the same time the Thirty-Nine Articles do not function in the Anglican communion as the Book of Concord does in the Lutheran. Where there's a theological argument in Lutheranism, everybody turns to the Confessions and begins to page through them to make their point. For the Anglican communion, the Thirty-Nine Articles are largely important historical witnesses. And if you would like to find a copy of them and read them for yourself today, you can either look in a collection of church confessions or go to the Anglican communion's Book of Common Prayer where they are incorporated as just that, important historical documents.

And that leads us to our second point. Namely, the real thing in terms of Anglican unity. Its Prayer Book, the Book of Common Prayer. I already mentioned how Edward VI had published the first Book of Common Prayer in 1549. And that this was a very via media approach to liturgical worship within the Anglican church.

It is formal. It is structured. In many ways it shows the influence of the Lutheran tradition having excised some of the more pronounced Roman Catholic rites. Some would have called them superstitious. Yet at the same time retaining the basic structure of the western rite. Very easily recognizable in -- for any Lutheran. Even if they had been speaking German, they would have been at home in going through the structure of the Anglican service.

However, as the reign of Edward moved along, the Second Prayer Book was a radical departure from what had come before. In fact, as the Prayer Book -- the Second Prayer Book was heading to the printer in 1552, there was a last-minute adjustment to its liturgy for the Lord's Supper.

The so-called Black Rubric, which forbade people at communion from kneeling to receive the Sacrament of the Altar. The reason being, kneeling at communion was seen as a confession of the true presence of Christ's body and blood. By forbidding this practice, the English church took a strong stance saying: We are taking on a much more, shall we say, Calvinistic posture at this point in time. A spiritual presence was allowed. But that presence was excited by faith in the action as one feasted upon Christ, who was seated at the right hand of God.

The spiritual interaction of the believer with Christ happened by faith. Christ was not seen as sacramentally or corporally or bodily present in the Sacrament of the Altar. A decided Reformed move in that regard.

And the source of that move is very well known. It was John Knox. A man what had studied in Geneva. Under Calvin. Knew him as a friend. Had gone to Scotland. Had transformed the church there. And now was influencing the official practices of the English church.

However, Edward VI was a sickly king. And he soon passed away to be succeeded by his half-sister, Mary Tudor. Mary Tudor is better known as Bloody Mary. And upon her ascension to the thrown, she attempted to turn the English church back to Roman Catholicism.

She drove out a number of Protestants from the realm. They became what were called Marian exiles. Made their way to the continent. Many to Geneva where they lived under Calvin and in the Calvinist churches more generally. Before returning upon Mary's death in 1558. Those who remained did so at risk of their lives. And the reason she's called bloody Mary Tudor is for the many executions of Protestants that occurred during this particular time.

But her short and violent reign was brief and was -- and upon her death she was succeeded by her half-sister, Elizabeth I. When Elizabeth took the throne, she immediately tried to establish the Anglican way, avoiding the extremes of either Mary or Edward. In the Elizabethan Settlement of 1558-59, she established Anglican practices for much time to come.

Specifically she established the Third Prayer Book, the 1559 Prayer Book, which shot the gap, provided a middle way between the Reformed practices of Edward and the more Roman Catholic practices of Mary. Elizabeth retained many of the liturgical practices of Rome. Such as burning candles during the daytime, which was seen as superstitious by Protestants. While at the same time avoiding some of the more overt Roman Catholic practices such as ringing bells at the communion, et cetera.

Pastors were to wear vestments. Pastors were to be dignified in the way they carried out the service. But at the same time they were not invested with a priestly character that would elevate them above the rest of the people. Indeed, that couldn't be the case can. Because Elizabeth herself was supreme Governor of the Church of England. And all clergy were under her, therefore.

Yet, with the Elizabethan Settlement, with the establishment of the Prayer Book, an Anglicanism, via media, a middle way for the Anglican church was well defined that would characterize it for some time to come.

In fact, it's in reaction specifically against Elizabeth that the Puritans we talked about before emerged. They believed she kept too much of the older Roman Catholic practices. That she had failed to purify things theologically. And above all, that she had not adopted the biblically prescribed polities for the church.

Elizabeth's response to the challenges of the Puritans, was to regulate liturgical practice. Insist that pastors preach in a dignified and proper manner. And that above all, that the church adhere to the customs that she had approved.

That did lead to tensions. In fact, Edmund Grindal, who had been appointed archbishop of Canterbury in the 1570s, spent most of his time as archbishop imprisoned in the tower of London for his refusal to give up what was called prophesying.

Prophesying was simply expository preaching on a variety of biblical texts. Grindal said: This is what it means to be a pastor. To be free to preach. Elizabeth responded by responding that specific sermons be read on specific days out of specific books.

When Grindal resisted, he was imprisoned. That kind of hard lined leadership that Elizabeth provided carried itself into the 1600s and continued to characterize Anglicanism as it took root here in what became the United States.

In the American colonies the Anglican communions continually worked to maintain their identity specifically in terms of their liturgical practice. Yet they found themselves hard pressed on several issues, not the least of which was the necessity of the episcopacy, making it difficult for men to become priests in their community.

Let me put it another way and explain it a little bit. In order to become a priest, you had to study and get a theological education, Oxford or Cambridge oftentimes. Then upon your examination at the end of your studies, you would be ordained by the bishop under the authority of the archbishop of Canterbury and ultimately the queen.

However, with the fact that there were no bishops in America, that meant that candidates for the ministry had to return to England for their ordination, oftentimes for their schooling. And then return to the American colonies. The unfortunate thing was for the Anglican communion that oftentimes they went to England, but they didn't come back. And as a result there was consistently a lack of Episcopal priests to serve the various Anglican communities here on the American scene.

That was a challenge they faced that they would not be able to overcome until after the American Revolution when at a general conference in 1785 they then sent Samuel Seabury over to Scotland where he was ordained bishop by Scottish bishops. The English were still harboring a few bad feelings after the American Revolution.

But that's all to say that you have a very strong centralized character and identity building in the Anglican communion from its Book of Common Prayer. And while the Thirty-Nine Articles are an important historical witness to the Anglican via media, perhaps the liturgy provides even a better indication of that. And perhaps in no better way than in the liturgy of the sacrament itself.

When after a long Eucharistic prayer that is in many ways transubstantiationist in character and mirrors the language of Hyppolytus from the early church, immediately prior to the distribution, the priest will say: Now feed on Christ in your hearts by faith.

And there you have Anglicanism. Strong, early church. Catholic like language. Suddenly tempered by a very strongly Calvinistic statement.

I happened to be at an Anglican service one time and heard that part of the service. And afterwards I spoke to the priest. He had asked me: What did you think of the service? And I said: Well, it wasn't that interesting. You had this Hyppolytan transubstantiationist language suddenly followed by John Calvin. I wondered which one was going to pop up next. To which he responded: Only a Lutheran would have noticed that.

Well, the priest was a good friend. Nonetheless, it did illustrate a point. In Anglicanism the breadth is there as long as the Prayer Book is used and used faithfully. That will hold the church together. And therefore, if you want to look for your confessional statement, turn to the Book of Common Prayer.

No. 38.

>> That helps things make sense. But I want to ask another related question. I've been to several Episcopal churches and their services all came from the Book of Common Prayer. However, even though they use the same book, the feel of the services was very different. Some of the services were very similar to a Lutheran service. But one service I want to seemed like I was in a Roman Catholic Church.

With one book, why is there such variety?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Well, Eric, you've put your finger on something very important within the Anglican tradition. And that is, again, this breadth. And that is also to say that while there is the book, there is a certain variety that is not merely allowed within Anglicanism but expected and even encouraged within the broader tradition. And that gets you back to this via media notion one more time.

That is to say with Anglicanism you identify -- what they have tended to do is identify those things that are basic. Those things that are constitutive of who and what they are. To put those into liturgical form and into practice. And then to carry them forward while allowing for a certain fluidity or flexibility on the part of the people who then practice.

And this has expressed itself in a very, very interesting way within the Anglican tradition. I already mentioned how under the Elizabethan Prayer Book of 1559 things were largely set. And Elizabeth liked to have control. The book was set. You used the book like this. End of story. You wear your vestments if you were a pastor. You read the sermon out of the book. And bang, bang, bang, just like that.

However, as the 16th Century ended and the 17th Century opened and moved on, there emerged greater varieties in how that would demonstrate itself. Puritanism pressuring the Episcopal hierarchy required or at least resulted in a certain change of perspective. Maybe better yet, change of feel and practice in the way the service was carried out.

In fact, one group within the Anglican communion that was not ready to go as far as the Puritans, especially in terms of their polity, but also in terms of their theology, retained a practice of the book that was, in fact, much more evangelical. Much less -- how shall we say? Much less formal. Much less stiff. And in many ways it would come to look like and even feel like in the practice of the service like that of the typical Reformed liturgical service.

Yes, there were more parts to the Anglican rite. But the manner in which it was carried off was much more evangelical and free rather than stayed and formal as Elizabeth would have liked it. As time went by, this particular stream within the Anglican communion came to be referred to as the low church or evangelical branch of Anglicanism.

Evangelical was the typical designation. Low church became the rather pejorative designation after the emergence of another group. Namely, the high church group. If you would have a low church, it would seem to stand you would also have a high church group.

And this group especially emerged in the late 1820s and early 1830s around Oxford in England. Oxford University was the center of a movement called the Oxford Movement, sometimes also referred to as Tractarianism.

The leaders of this group, John Henry Newman, Edward Pusey, and others were very interested in recapturing a golden age for the church. In fact, in some of their most extreme statements, people like Newman would say: The Reformation was an aberration. It was a necessary aberration. But it was temporary in character. And simply designed to knock the Roman Catholic Church, the medieval Catholic Church, off its stayed and fixed position. So that it could continue to develop, grow and mature.

But once it had accomplished that purpose, it became incumbent upon the church, the Protestant churches, to reengraft themselves into the broader Catholic tradition. That, they said, is what the Oxford Movement is all about. Recapturing our lost traditions.

They went so far as to specifically reject the more evangelical or low church practice of many of their colleagues. Pointing out that it was more Protestant in character. And it was Catholic. And hence, not acceptable within this particular movement.

In fact, said this group, the via media for Anglicanism should be between the accesses of medieval Rome and radical Protestantism. Retaining the best of the sola scriptura principle for Protestantism. The best of the practice from the medieval church.

Reengrafting these together producing a new synthesis that would lead the church on into a new age. Having accomplished this, then there would be a greater opportunity for Christian union, meaningful interchange, ecumenically speaking. And also finally the possibility of bringing back together fractured Protestantism and alienated Rome. That would be Anglicanism's great contribution.

But they did so from this perspective of having a very high value on the historic liturgies and historic practices of the church. They invested a great deal of authority in early church practices. And brought back certain practices that had been discontinued during the English Reformation.

For example, praying to Mary was one of the things that they did. They also surrounded the celebration of the Sacrament of the Altar with the highest possible formalities, ringing the bells, elevating the host, having prayer and eucharistic chapels in their churches and reserving the hosts in the tabernacle. Even in some cases having Corpus Christi Processions.

All of which were typical of medieval Rome. And all of which alarmed those in the low church evangelical segment of the church.

In the midst of this dichotomy would come the Broad Church Movement. And the broad church simply said: Well, we'll find a new middle way between the extremes of the high church and the low church movement. A more embracing, a more open kind of stance on the part of Anglicanism that finds a place for all of these things without falling into the extremes of either one. So once again, that via media principle coming to the forefront.

Well, within the Anglican communion there's a way of referring to these particular streams. It's a bit of a joke. But it helps people remember them. It is high and hazy because of their passion for using incense. Low and lazy since they don't involve much formality in their liturgical services. And broad and crazy because they will go for anything.

Now, that might be a bit pejorative. But that's how Anglicans refer to themselves, interestingly enough. Thus, the question becomes: Where do you find some kind of center? Where do you find something to hold this together?

I've argued already that's in the practice in the use of the book with understandings that there will be a variety resulting. In the latter part of the 1800s within the Anglican communion, the material principle of the church was articulated more and more in terms of the historic episcopacy. And the Episcopal Church as such began to feature more and more its office of bishop.

This would find its most pronounced expression in the so-called Lambeth Chicago Quadrilateral of 1888. In which it was said there are four things that are necessary for the unity of the church.

First is the acceptance of the Scriptures. Second is the acceptance of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds. Third is the acceptance of the two sacraments, Lord's Supper and baptism, as dominical institutions. And the fourth they said was the recognition of the historic episcopacy along with an affirmation of Apostolic Succession.

Well, much of Protestantism would be happy to affirm, sola scriptura, the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds and certainly the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper. Where the rub came in, as we've already noted, was with the historic episcopacy. And specifically with the demand for recognizing Apostolic Succession.

That is to say by virtue of the Episcopal ordination with the laying on of hands that places a new priest into the line of apostles so that they can be assured that their ministry has apostolic character by virtue of this specific ordination.

Now, here Lutherans would critique that, or at least some Lutherans have, by saying when you talk about being in the train of the apostles, you're not talking about a specific ordination rite with the laying on of hands. But rather the fact that we are upholding and passing along that which has first been given to us. Namely, the apostle's teaching and the apostle's doctrine.

To affirm that, to uphold that, to pass that along means, to be apostolical. And hence, Lutheran ministers are, in fact, in that apostolic train. That's not enough in the Anglican community. It must be a recognized Episcopal ordination by an existing bishop who by himself or herself, as the case, has the Apostolic Succession and has been granted the right to ordain by the church by elevation.

To me that seems as though we've seen a shift in terms of the of the Anglican principle. Yes, they would say formal principle, sola scriptura. You look at the Thirty-Nine Articles, one of the first things it does is to articulate the books of the Bible, to point out what the canon is and to have a strong statement regarding the Word of God.

To hear the Prayer Book practiced is to be surrounded by readings from the Scripture. And the liturgy itself in many ways is simply based upon the Scriptures and permeated by it. The sola scriptura principle is very prominent within historic Anglicanism. However, the material principle has taken a bit of a turn. And has become located more and more in this notion of the historic episcopacy. So that if one recognizes the bishop who does have the Apostolic Succession and worships according to the book that he and his colleagues have provided, that if one does these things, that if a congregation does these things, then one is considered to be within the Paul and within the Anglican fold. And thus, in the right way of doing things.

It's subtle. But it seems to me, also, a very significant shift. And it does have certain implications for ongoing ecumenical discussions between Anglicans and others. In fact, the ELCA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has recently entered into a full communion cooperation with the Anglican church. To do so, however, demanded that a special arrangement be provided for recognizing the ordination and ministries of the Lutheran pastors.

Here there was a question about whether their ministries were valid. And something of an exception was invoked. The assumption being that in the future, Episcopal ordination should be delivered to these future pastors to correct what they lack. That seems to me as rather problematic.

Better to go back to understanding what being part of the Apostles' Doctrine is all about. Namely, upholding the teaching, confessing it faithfully. For in that we always see not the center as the man or an office. But the center always been Jesus Christ crucified and risen again. For he is the one who gives us meaning, identity and gives us a reason for our proclamation of that good news so the world may come to know of the salvation he has prepared for us.

No. 39.

>> Out here in Wyoming, there aren't that many Lutheran churches. But there sure are a lot of Baptists. They seem to be the most popular church around. I've talked to many Baptists over the years. And I know what they believe about baptism, that it is for adults and that you must be immersed. Are those the only things that make them different from the Lutherans?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Josh, I know exactly what you mean. I was a pastor in Tennessee. And there were an awful lot of Baptists. In fact, sometimes we felt like we were completely surrounded. And that we as Lutherans were such a distinct minority that we would never get out of that kind of situation. So it can be very challenging.

But what it also did was force us continually to be on our toes, to be ready to give an answer for the hope that was within us. Because honestly speaking, Lutherans hadn't been in middle Tennessee all that long. In fact, my congregation was formed in 1959. And it was the third oldest Missouri Synod congregation in the middle Tennessee area.

The old congregation had been formed about 20 years previous to that. So we, Missouri Synod Lutherans, were Johnny-come-latelys to that part of Tennessee. The Baptists had gotten there very early on.

And they had been very effective, I might add, in terms of the way that they had reached out to people, particularly in the American south during the 1700s and 1800s. In fact, during the 1700s, no church grew faster than the Baptist churches. More congregations were added to the Baptists per capita than any other of the Christian churches in America during that time.

They would be passed by the Methodists in the 1800s. But during the 1700s and very early 1800s, they were growing very quickly.

Now, why is that? And what does that mean over against Lutherans? Well, you mentioned that you know the difference between Lutherans and Baptists on who should be baptized. They say adults. Of course we would say children and adults. And how one should be baptized. They would say only by immersion. We would say simply using water with the Word. Those are important differences. But there are other differences, as well, that come into the mix. And let's talk a little bit about those.

First off, where did the Baptists come from? Well, Baptists as Baptists have their roots, interestingly enough, once again, in the Church of England. In the 1600s there were Baptist communities that became more and more convinced of the need for adult baptism. Not necessarily immersion at that point in time. But for adult baptism. As indicative of one makes one a Christian. That is to say that baptism was understood as the public profession of an already existing faith.

Those communities, as I said, are already evident in London and other areas around London by the first part of the 1600s, 1610 and following. But here they are taking a bit of a cue from an earlier movement. We need to distinguish between the two carefully. But also note the linkages.

That earlier movement was called Anabaptism. And already at the time of Zwingli, Luther, Calvin and so on, there were those people who were saying that it was not enough to have been baptized as a child. This illustrated the unhealthy relationship between church and state where one became a member of the church basically by default. And baptism simply made that happen.

No, said these Anabaptists. One becomes a Christian by choice. By willfully taking upon oneself the responsibility outlined in God's will and God's Word, particularly in the keeping of the law. And baptism then becomes a public profession of one's willingness to work with God in this respect.

Many of these early Anabaptists were persecuted because of their confession. Several were drowned. Several were murdered. And there were instances where they fell into some of the most unhelpful kinds of excesses. Even taking over a city in Germany and proclaiming that the new Messiah had come and the me Lillian age had dawned.

In the wake of such tragedy and destruction ultimately in that particular case a movement was made to redefine Anabaptism over against the state, shall we say. That is to not try to take the state over by force. But simply to withdraw from it into passivist communities. And Anabaptists would say those who are willing to work with us in these particular ways, to recognize and to testify through their faith by their adult baptism, these will be part of our community.

That particular theme, the adult baptism, is picked up later on. The necessity of personal responsibility and personal faith are the elements that are picked up by the English Baptists in the first part of the 1600s. And they as begin their work, they, too, are persecuted. Driven out of the churches. And in some cases they simply remove themselves as separating dissenters saying the Anglican church is not capable of reform.

However, given that relationship between church and state, it's very are difficult for them to find a place for themselves within the Church of England. Some escape to the Netherlands. Although, life is not ideal for them there, either. And so some begin to make their way to the American colonies.

Interestingly enough, one of the earliest Baptist communities grows out of one with of the Puritan communities. Namely, the Massachusetts Bay Colony. And the manner in which it happens is really quite fascinating.

A Puritan divine by the name of Roger Williams comes over from England with some of the first settlers to establish the Massachusetts Bay Colony. While he's here and beginning about 1636, a terrific scandal rocks the community. A woman by the name of Anne Hutchinson is involved in teaching and even preaching services one might say in an informal way among members of the community. Initially women. Later on women and men.

She's accused of creating disorder in the colonies. And particularly for her rigorous criticism of the existing clergy. She says they have ceased to teach salvation by grace and are teaching salvation by works.

As a result, she is brought up on charges of false doctrine and is examined by both the church and the governing authorities of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Now, Roger Williams, who is one of the Puritan preachers, has no problem with the church disciplining its own, but he says the state, the governing authorities, have no business in overseeing a heresy trial within the church.

To make a long story short, Anne Hutchinson is driven out of the colony. She moves to Long Island. Roger Williams then finds himself in the situation where he is accused of being a troubler of Zion. He's accused now of being guilty of disorderly conduct because of his own criticism of the way that particular trial was held.

In the end he simply removes himself from the Puritan colony in Massachusetts, moves to Newport, Rhode Island. And there establishes a new community. One of like minded professing believers who see themselves as independent of the state. And that will be one of the first Baptist communities here in the American colonies.

Others will begin to sprout up in of all places Connecticut so that by the early 1700s, the areas of Baptist strength here in America are in the northeast. Particularly Rhode Island and Connecticut.

However, the old problem seems to be repeating itself here in Rhode Island and Connecticut, as well. Especially the latter. For the Puritans who were so critical of church and state intermingling in England now have repeated that particular form in their own polities. That is to say in Massachusetts, in Connecticut, for example, to be a member of the church guarantees the one the right to vote. Without church membership, one cannot vote.

However, even without church membership one must pay taxes that go to support the church, both its building and its pastor's salary. So the intermingling of church and state. An established church in the state. Baptists become increasingly vocal over against this intermingling. And as a result, they increasingly experience the anger of the members of the established church.

The result is they begin to push west and south. Areas that are more fruitful, if you will, for them to worship freely and to worship according to their conscience. So western parts of Virginia, western North Carolina, western South Carolina, Baptist congregations begin to appear, Baptist associations begin to develop. And from within these emerging Baptist communities, we see the first expressions of the later dominance of the Baptist tradition in the south.

Now, Josh, one of the things you asked was: Is the subject and mode of baptism, are those the only things that make Baptists different than Lutherans? No. One of the other things that makes them different is their insistence on a particular kind of polity for their churches.

They emerged in the setting of the congregational churches of New England. They pick up that church from the congregational churches. They insist that the Bible teaches a specific form of church polity. And it is congregational in nature. That means every independent local congregation is a coherent unit. Has an integrity as church. Therefore, has all the power of the church that is described within the New Testament.

Hence, preaching, administering the sacraments, these things should and must be done only within the context of the local congregation. Establishing the office of the ministry done within the local congregation.

Who should be a minister determined by the local congregation. And that gets us to a second point -- interesting point that the Baptists differ on the Lutherans with. Namely, how do you get to be a pastor?

From Luther's time, it's been a rather typical order for men who enter the office of the ministry. You begin your studies as a -- typically as a fairly young man. 12, 13, 14. Maybe even younger in some cases. You go to university. You finish out your studies. At which point you are a candidate. You're examined by your peers. You must pass your -- more than one set of ordination exams. Very demanding. Following which one would then be affirmed for receiving a call and being ordained.

Education, examination, call and ordination. Those four. It often took ten years or more for a person preparing for the office of the ministry to enter it in the Lutheran tradition.

Among Baptists, particularly Baptists on the American frontier, that process was entirely compressed. Where if one felt compelled to preach, felt moved by the Spirit to share the Word of God, then one should simply stand up and share. Speak. Preach. And if one enjoyed a certain success in this preaching endeavor, then that was an indication of the favor of God, the presence of the Spirit.

One didn't need a theological education. One didn't need examination by some kind of adjudicatory. One did need, however, examination by the people of God. So what's your examination? The Word of God. Pick up the Bible.

Here you see the formal principle of the Baptists coming out very strongly. The Word of God, sola scriptura. Once again. However, the material principle, as I mentioned some time ago, expresses itself in the autonomy of the local congregation. The people of God gathered around that Word, who then become normative, if you will, for the life and activity of that particular church. Which is to say if that group of people examines you, finds you biblically based and agrees that you have the gifts of the Spirit and you should be a preacher, then that community ordains you.

And in the most classic examples of Baptist ordination, it's not the other clergy who come and lay hand on the candidate for the ministry. It's rather, the people of the congregation themself who do the laying on of hands and the sending of the candidate. Very much unlike what we saw with the Anglicans in our discussion of the Apostolic Succession just a little while ago. Thus, a very, very different understanding of how one enters the ministry.

At the same time theologically there are some differences, as well. Given the fact that the Baptists emerged from the English church and that particular tradition, we shouldn't be surprised -- and we're not surprised -- to see that they are influenced by the Reformed tradition. From early on there are two emphases within the Baptist tradition in respect to theology.

One group tends to emphasize God's electing actions. They are called Particular Baptists. That is to say God has made a particular choice regarding individuals for election or reprobation. Particular Baptists.

On the other hand, you have those who are called General Baptists. That is God makes a general call to all people through the Gospel. And they, having heard that Word, moved by the Spirit, are enabled to respond and to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior.

It's a bit of an oversimplification. But it gets the point across. The early history of Baptists in the American colonies especially features Particular Baptists. As time goes by, namely through the 1800s, General Baptists become more and more typical of the variety of Baptists who are here in the United States.

But there are a lot more varieties of Baptists than that. And in fact, one of the things that always strikes me is just how many different Baptists there are. Maybe that's another question for us to address.

No. 40.

>> One of the things I read about the Baptist churches down in Cheyenne is that they often describe themselves in interesting ways. There are Foot-Washing Baptists, Free Will Baptists and lots of others. How did there get to be so many?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Josh, that's really a good one. I'll tell you, one of the things I've found, again, during my ministry in Tennessee, was it could be bewildering trying to figure out all of these different Baptist communities. And they would have the funniest names.

In fact, we had on our street -- on Old Hickory Boulevard we had one group that was a missionary Baptist church. And then right next to it was a group that had split from it that was called an anti-missionary Baptist church. Well, I thought: Good grief. Anti-missionary? What's this mean?

And what they meant by this was they were opposed to any kind of centralized authority outside of the congregation. That is to say a missionary society which would have its own treasury, which would not be answerable to the local congregation. But in fact, would operate independently of the congregation.

This group said: No, congregations are missionary societies in and of themself. Therefore, we have anti-missionary Baptists. They really meant anti-missionary society Baptists. But you get the point.

Well, it took a little bit of time to begin to get the feel for that. At the same time, there were all of these different communities that were approaching things in all of these different kinds of ways. And it really did provide me with challenges but also opportunities. To clarify in my own mind and to clarify for the people of my congregation just what was going on in Baptist theology.

And again, like I said before, I saw that as one of the great blessings of being in the area where we found ourselves. That is to say we had repeated opportunities to confess the Gospel in the most clear and repeated fashion by virtue of the fact that we simply found ourselves in these kind of circumstances. Challenging, yes. But tremendous opportunities there, as well.

But to do so effectively required us to become familiar with these varieties of Baptists. And I talked about one big distinction a little bit earlier. Namely, the distinction between Particular and General Baptists. And I mentioned the fact that oversimplifying perhaps a bit, Particular Baptists were characterized in the early colonial history of America. And since that time there has been a transition to the point now where General Baptists tend to predominate.

What do I mean by that? Well, again, Particular Baptists tended to emphasize election. Predestination. They had strong Calvinistic themes in this respect. The difference for them was when you were judged likely to be one of the elect, you indicated that then by your willingness to be immersed as a public profession of your sin. That was the general pattern for many of the early Baptist communities here in America.

But, as time progressed, the character of the Baptist communities began to change theologically. And in very important ways. Specifically the move towards the General Baptist position. Later on many of these would be called Free Will Baptists. And the effect of the Arminian movement and the shift from Calvinism to Arminianism will become very apparent on its influence on the transition of the Baptist churches in this respect. We'll talk about that in some detail a little bit later on. But at this point let me make it clear within the context of the Baptist tradition.

What happens is that people begin to ask a very basic question of the Particular Baptists. Namely, why do you teach election? The answer: Because the Scriptures teach it. It talks about God's choosing of some and leaving of others.

The response often given in this context is: If that is the case, then why is it that there are so many places in the Scripture where a response is called for on the part of the human subject? For example, when Peter preaches at Pentecost, the people are cut to the heart and they cry out: What must we do to be saved? To which Peter replies: Repent and be baptized.

They take this as the pattern for the Christian life. It's not that they deny double predestination initially. It's simply that they don't see it as useful in preaching and moving people to the point of baptism.

Let me put that another way. Election as a hidden act of God as we've already discussed always left people with a big question mark. Am I one of the elect or am I not? If I am one of the elect, when will God come to me with an effectual call?

You know, that was a real problem for the Calvinists. And it continued to be a problem for Baptists, as well. When will God call me? How will I know when this happens? What can I look to give me some sense of assurance that this has happened?

Again, all these questions, questions, questions. What the General Baptists began to say is: Don't worry about the election. Don't worry about that question of predestination. It's not functioning, shall we say, in your hearing of the Gospel and what happens within that context. Rather, simply listen to the message that is preached. Repent and be baptized.

If you hear that, you understand it, you accept that, then simply assume that having been baptized, that is repenting, being baptized, that your sins are, indeed, forgiven. And you can be considered one of the elect.

Let me put it a different way again. They take election out of the front end of the conversation and they move it to the back end of it.

Within this contextual still find many Baptists who hold to this kind of position. In fact, they'll say: When you hear the Gospel preached, when you have accepted that Gospel, when you've repented and been baptized, your sins are forgiven, you then will persevere. That is to put it a little bit differently and perhaps in a little more familiar fashion: Once saved, always saved. This is within the context of this transition from Particular to General Baptists.

On the other hand, there were those as time moved on who began to say: Why speak of election at all? What is the necessity of this speculative theological technical point when, in fact, simply look at what the Scriptures say? For example, once again, in Peter's Pentecost sermon. What does he say? If you are elect, repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins? No.

Does he say repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins and you will be one of the elect? No. He simply says: Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins. Therefore, said these folks, it is simply the matter of the presentation of the Gospel in the clearest possible terms, appealing to the hearing subject to act, to do something.

Here we have a key move. This is the origin of the Free Will Baptists who say human beings are morally neutral subjects who have the ability to choose between good and evil when those are presented with equal clarity.

Why, you say then, do so many people fall into sin? Why does everybody fall into sin? The answer of the Free Will Baptists: Because of the prevalence of evil. We are born into a situation in which we learn to sin. And our propensity always is to sin. Therefore, we need the proclamation of the Gospel, repent, in the clearest possible terms to snap us out of ourself absorption. To hear the demands of the Gospel. And to respond by virtue of our own free act.

If it is not a free act, say these people, then it is not binding. And that is much true in terms of reprobation as it is in terms of election.

To put that another way, they would say: Election, reprobation are neither -- neither of them are valid. Because they are both compelled by virtue of a higher force. And no one can be held culpable when they are compelled to carry out something by that higher force. The higher force being, of course, God and his election. Thus, say the Free Will Baptists, the key to the transaction of salvation is the free human act of accepting the offer of the Gospel. That is the heart of it.

How does one then seal the deal, if you will? By submitting obediently to the Lord's dominical command. Namely, to be baptized. And thereby publicly to profess that you have faith in what the Scriptures say regarding him. And that you have willingly placed yourself under his authority.

Now, what I just described to you there, that transition from Particular to General Baptists, takes a mere 250 years. It's a slow transition. With much overlap. And the lines of division are not clean at all. There are even General Baptists who still have particular emphases. There are Particular Baptists who are moving towards the general emphases. There are Particular, General, Free Will, Foot-washing, all of these different kinds of Baptists. And at various points in time they will write down their faith. They will articulate it. And they will make confession of that.

In fact, there are a number of Baptist confessions. Which is always a surprising thing to a lot of my Baptist friends. In church they are told: We have nothing but the Bible to which we turn. When, in fact, over the course of Baptist history, there have been any number of different confessions that have appeared that have made their way to a greater or lesser extent into the Baptist tradition. And to which a greater or lesser extent continue to be upheld today.

What they do demonstrate, these Baptist confessions? What they do demonstrate is this theological transition from an older Calvinism Particular Baptist thought to a more General Free Will Baptist thought. Largely completed in terms of that transition by about the year 1900. So that today in most cases you may -- you would find in Baptists an appeal to the will, an appeal to a person's will that they make the decision to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. But still there is that remnant, that remnant of the old Particular perspective. That at times says: And then once you've done that, you can never lose your faith. Once saved, always saved.

It's an interesting mix. And that's part of the Baptist way. Again, the principle of autonomy. Each community putting together its confession within its community within its context. Great variety, great distinctions, even to the point where sometimes you have missionary and anti-missionary Baptists not only on the same street but right next to one another.

It really leads to some interesting conclusions. And ones that always make it a difficult thing to keep track of all of the different Baptist churches. And no doubt in Wyoming you've seen the same kind of thing as I've seen it in Tennessee, as well.

No. 41.

>> I'm surprised to hear that Baptists have confessions. The ones I've talked to here in LA have always said that they have only the Bible. This is very intriguing to me. Can you tell me a bit more about Baptist confessions?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Your experience is very similar to mine, Nick. When I was a kid, the friends that I had who were Baptists were oftentimes very critical of us Lutherans for the various creeds and confessions that we had.

For example, I would bring them to church with me. And we would read the Nicene Creed or read the Apostles' Creed. And they would be stunned. Well, they were kind of stunned that we were reading the liturgy in the first place and that it was so formal. It seemed very Catholic to them. But the use of creeds was very surprising.

And when I would introduce them to my Augsburg Confession and show that to them as we discussed theology and religion and so forth, they would always say: But that's a humanly authored document. It's not binding. It doesn't have the same import as the Scriptures.

To which I would always respond: I agree. It's not equal to the Scriptures. It doesn't have the same import in and of itself. But what makes it a useful document is, of course, the way it accurately reflects what the Scriptures teach.

And that was a very difficult point for them to grasp. And we would always struggle on that particular point. I didn't get their position. And they didn't get mine.

And then later on when I was in college, I did a little more study of the Baptist story. And I began to find that the claim that there were not Baptist confessions of faith was, in fact, not accurate. And that over time a number of different texts had been introduced by the Baptists for use in their various churches.

And those uses were of a variety of purposes. For example, in some cases when Baptists were being persecuted, they would articulate their confession over against the established churches. The London Confession, for example, is an example of this. It says: This is who we are over against the Church of England. Years later that confession is picked up by Baptists in Philadelphia where it's used with a two-fold thrust. One is to define themselves over against the existing churches, particularly Lutheran, Presbyterian and Anglican in Philadelphia. But also then to tie them in historically speaking with the earlier Baptist communities.

And this I find to be a very, very interesting development. For again, the argument oftentimes, as you've heard it, Nick, is we don't need creeds. We simply have our Bible.

Now, that to me introduces an interesting element into the whole discussion. One I've thought about a little bit over the years. The plea and appeal to the Bible and the Bible alone has an ahistorical character to it. That is to say we can kind of do away with everything that's happened in the history of the church, leap completely over it and make a direct return to the Scriptures and what they say and what they describe in the First Century.

Well, that seems to me to be a very nearsighted and parochial attitude. Namely to say that we don't need the history of the church. We know everything we need to know. And we can ignore the way God has been at work in his people throughout time.

One of the most important things I've learned from Luther over the years is respect for the church. And the Holy Spirit's continued working in the church through time, even with all of the fallibilities and foibles that characterize human existence.

For example, in a very important document that appears in the "American Edition of Luther's Works", Volume 41, Luther takes up the theme of church history. It's in a little piece called "Against Hans Worst." And in this document he takes on the Roman Catholics and lays down a challenge.

He says this: You have accused us of being innovators and disrupters of the church and its history. Its theology and its practice. He says: Let's put that to the test. Let's see who is the innovator in this and who is not. Then he steps through the development by the Roman Catholic Church of a whole series of new teachings and practices. I'll give you a couple of cases in point.

He says: What about the practice of clerical celibacy. Does the Bible demand this? If you look back at the early church, it's not a demand that the early church required its priests to be celibate. However, later on in the history of Roman Catholicism, suddenly that is decreed to be a requirement.

If the early church was wrong on this point, then why doesn't Rome condemn it? In fact, what they are guilty of is an innovation in this respect. They've come up with something new. Other examples would be things like the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, which demanded that the laity not receive the chalice. That the laity in the Holy Communion only receive the host.

Now, Luther says, you look at the Scriptures. They say very clearly: Jesus said take and eat. Take and drink. So in this case, the Roman Catholic Church goes against the very words of Christ's institution. Who is the innovator is his question.

What do we find in the Lutheran Church? We do not demand celibacy of our priests. We allow them to marry as the early church did. Why? Because there is no prescriptive command in the Bible that says priests must be celibate. Thus, in Christian freedom, our priests may be single or married. The same thing is true of the Lord's Supper. Even more intensely in this respect. We Lutherans commune in both kinds because the Lord says himself: Take and eat. Take and drink. Who is the innovator? Who is the one departing from the church?

Well, within the Baptist tradition you do have this ahistorical perspective that sometimes can creep up. And which sometimes can allow for the development of all sorts of unusual practices and perspectives. And some of the confessions that we'll look at here in class will indicate that.

In fact, the argument I was making in your previous question, namely, what is the difference between General and Particular, Calvinist and Free Will Baptists, that there was a transition over time. In fact, perhaps has as part of its roots in the ahistorical, acreedal perspective that some Baptists have. That is to say without a mooring, an anchor to which you can attach yourself, your boat can float all over the place, which sometimes does happen.

And so we'll look at how that happens. Whether with the Philadelphia Confession, the New Hampshire Confession of 1831 where you see a very mild Calvinism. You can see them beginning to compromise on their theological principles. And then into specific statements of faith by the Southern Baptist Confession in the mid 1850s. And then later on in the 20th Century where you see the transition being completed.

So that the confessional statements of the Baptist tradition actually demonstrate this drift from Calvinism to Arminianism. From Particularism to Generalism. It's a fascinating process. And I think you'll find it very interesting.

No. 42.

>> Dr. Rast, your discussion of the development of Baptist thought makes me wonder something. The Baptists started out as Calvinists and then changed over time. Did that happen to other Reformed Calvinistic groups?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Well, you've anticipated where I'm going very well, David. Excellent question.

Indeed, many of the churches were affected by the shifts in theology and practice over time. The Baptists certainly were not alone. In fact, in some ways, the Baptists lagged behind other Christian groups. We'll take a couple of cases in point here.

But one group that really experienced a tremendous theological shift over the course of the 1700s here in America were the old Puritans or congregational churches. They had a fundamentally different look by the end of the 18th Century than they had had at the turn of it.

Another group that experienced significant change during this period of time was the Church of England as a particular group within the Church of England emerged as an independent church. Namely, the Methodists.

Now, what happened in both of these cases? Well, in the first case with the congregationalists, over time people began to be more and more overt and to express their unhappiness with the rigid Calvinism that had been the tradition. And as they expressed this concern in more and more vigorous ways, the theology of that particular tradition began to change.

What I mean by that is if you had a New England way, it was very Calvinistic, double predestinarian, supralapsarian in the 1600s. As the 1700s dawn, that theology began a century long decline. So that by the time you entered the early 1800s, it was less and less prominent on the American scene.

What were the concerns? Well, there were several. One was the basic issue of church membership. It was difficult to become a member of a Calvinist church. You had to pass through a rigorous examination on the part of pastors and elders before you were admitted to church membership. That passage was characterized by a series of steps through which you went which pastors and elders then would determine as to their veracity. Did these things really happen to you or not?

What they were looking for were basic things like knowledge of the Bible, knowledge of the content of the Bible and then the application of that knowledge to one's life. That is to say did you know about the law of God? Had you heard the Gospel? Had you passed through a crisis point that really was life changing in which you absolutely despaired of your own ability to please God? And then had you moved onto a sense of a relationship with Christ? A mystical union in which you and he had come together as one.

Now, all of that is very difficult to quantify, if you will. And so in the Calvinist system they began to look for evidences of this more mysterious relationship. And hence, over the course of the 1600s, the sanctified life came to be emphasized more and more and more.

The fruits of faith became evidence of one's election. Therefore, if one did have the fruits of faith and one was working hard to keep the moral law of God as revealed in the Bible and one was being blessed in one's life, then perhaps that gave an indication that one was a among the elect. And therefore, one should be admitted to church membership.

Now, most of the time that process took some time. It was typical for folks not to join the church until their late teens, early 20s. Though in same cases this would push into 30s, 40s and we have evidence of this finally occurring in some people's life when they were in their 60s or 70s.

Here you have these Calvinists waiting and waiting for the Holy Spirit to give them an effectual call so that they can be truly converted. Patiently going to church each week, attending, hearing sermons. But not being admitted to the Sacrament of the Altar, participating in the communal meal, the Lord's Supper, and thus, not being considered a part of the church. And thus, also, not one of the elect. Desperately waiting always for the Spirit to render that effectual call.

Well, there was a pastor in western Connecticut. A man by the name of Solomon Stoddard. And right around the year 1700 he began to say: Why do we do this to people? Why do we keep them from the Lord's Supper, hold that out in front of them like a carrot in the hope that at some point in their lives they will finally move to true church membership and have conversion?

He said: Why don't we admit them to the Lord's Supper in the hope that this ordinance as he called it will convert them? In other words for Stoddard, the Lord's Supper was a converted ordinance. So the rigorous standards of church membership, that is only members attend the Lord's Supper, were challenged by Stoddard in a basic way. And that did change then the effects of the growth of his congregation.

In fact, his congregation grew significantly. More and more were added to church membership. And the question among many Calvinists was: Well, here is his congregation experiencing a quantifiable blessing. Could he be right?

Well, certainly some folks answered yes. Those were the ***Stoddardians. Then there were others who said no. They tended to be located more back in Boston. More traditional Puritans. And were very antagonistic towards Stoddard. A division emerged within and among the Puritans themselves in this respect.

Stoddard was succeeded at his congregation by his grandson, Jonathan Edwards, whom we've already met. Edwards, interestingly enough, in the mid 1700s tried to change his grandfather's practice to close the communion table once again. The congregation removed him from his office and sent him out as their pastor. The result being he later on was a missionary -- Edwards was a missionary to the Indians, the Stockbridge Indians in western Massachusetts. Later on he moved south. And for a brief period was president of what is today Princeton University immediately prior to his death.

What it shows, what this instance shows, are divisions within the Puritans themselves about who is part of the church. And within that there's a deeper question. Namely, what is the church? It's an Ecclesiological question. And Puritans were struggling with the definition of that. And once again, the struggles tended to center around that question of who is the elect, who is not?

In the wake of this struggle -- and there were plenty of others. We've already talked about some of the issues regarding predestination and the theological pressures that that caused. But in the wake of this transition in Calvinist thinking here on the American scene, another group comes along and begins to proclaim a perspective that says this focus on election, this total consumption with it, points people in the wrong direction. It leads to no assurance. Instead, causes them consistently to question whether they are people of God or not.

In the Scriptures, said this other group, we see nothing of the sort. In fact, there are clear witnesses in the Bible that say the message of the Gospel was presented to people. And then they were challenged to accept it or not. This group, of course, were the Methodists. And Methodist preachers beginning in the very late 1730s and then on through the century came more and more to the forefront in America.

They challenged the assumptions of the Reformed tradition across the board. Congregationalists were affected. Presbyterians were affected. The Church of England, the Anglicans, were affected. All were affected by Methodist preaching.

Now, this movement began right around the year 1740 in the British Isles, especially in England. And it centered around a number of young priests within the Church of England who began to preach in all kinds of places in very contemporary ways. And in such a manner as to challenge people to take responsibility for their eternal destiny.

Most of the time these preachers -- and we'll talk about who they are in particular a little bit down the road. But most of the time these preachers would emphasize this message among those who had been largely dispossessed. That is to say the state and stable Anglican churches were not the most fruitful ground for this preaching.

In fact, many of these churches were closed to these gentlemen. They were not allowed to preach. Even though they were priests in good standing in the Church of England.

And so they went outdoors. They went to common places. And they preached to whomever they could gather together. Oftentimes the lower classes. And the message that they preached to these people was very simple. There is no eternal election that puts you in a particular path. Rather, the Scriptures present to you the way of death and the way of life. Choose the way of life.

Now, think about the setting for this socially speaking. Dispossessed, poor English people had often been told that their setting in life, the place in which they found themselves, was the result of God's action. Your vocation -- say you're a coal miner where you spend 12 hours a day at least in the pit. It was something God had given you to do. Therefore, do it and stay there and don't complain.

To seek to move out of that kind of setting was to say: I'm not content with what God has given me. Socially speaking then to move from the lower class to an upper class was virtually impossible. To do so was to work against the will of God.

Much of that thinking was transferred into theology, as well. If you were one of the elect, it was God's doing. He had placed you there, you could rejoice in that. If you were one of the reprobate, God had placed you there, don't complain about it. And there's certainly nothing you can do about it. Leave it at that.

Imagine the empowering character of this message as these preachers come along and say: You may not be able to do much about your social setting. But you can do everything about your eternal setting. Your destiny, heaven or hell, is not set as it were by an external authority who has forced you into any kind of mold. Rather, the choice is yours. Choose life.

Not surprisingly this is an explosively powerful message within this context. And people flock to hear these preachers who empower them and who give them a sense of hope where all else is hopelessness.

We call this new theology Arminianism. It takes its name from a Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius who died in 1609. Arminius had made his impact by challenging the Calvinist thinking of the double predestinarians in the setting of the Netherlands. In fact, his challenges had led to the Synod of Dort that we had spoken about a little bit earlier.

And on each of those old five points of the Calvinists, the old TULIP, total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and the perseverance of the faithful. On each of those points Arminians challenge the reigning Calvinism.

He certainly agreed that human beings were sinful. Though he tended to locate sin as action. Sin as total depravity, as original, he did not overtly deny. But he tended to locate his discussion of sin in the actual acts that people carried out.

When it came to matters of election, we have the most important element of early Arminianism. Namely, election was carried out in view of faith, ***intutu fides. And what that simply meant was God, on the basis of his foreknowledge, knowing all things, looked into the future, saw who would ultimately come to faith and on that basis elected them in eternity to faith.

Now, the Calvinists accused Arminius of being a synergist for that reason. Namely, saying human beings triggered, if you will, God's electing act. That is to say God was passively moved by the human action. Waiting for human beings to act. And then finally acting himself.

But the Arminians said the other side of the coin is far worse. Namely, God being the cause of sin, which is precisely what they accused the Calvinists of doing. Clearly, different theological perspectives at work. Different material principles one might say coming forth from a similar reading of the Scriptures.

But in respect then to the other elements of the TULIP, the Arminians went onto say the atoning work of Christ is not limited. It is for all. Grace when it comes is not resistible. But in fact, human beings have the willful ability to say no to God's offer of grace and to accept the offer of grace as it is revealed to them.

And finally, in terms of perseverance, there is no guarantee that one will stay firm to the end. It is a possibility that one can fall from faith.

So those five points, once again, become the context for early Arminian preaching. But where things begin to focus, where they begin to take on a particular point as time goes by, is in that issue of then -- of how does one come to be converted? And as the 1700s play themselves out, more and more the focus is put on the choice. God lays before you the way of life, the way of death. Choose life. Choose life.

It is a tremendously significant theological shift that occurs in this respect. And it impacts all of the churches, particularly here on the American religious scene. In fact, from the reigning Calvinism of the 1600s we see a century-long decline. While at the same time Arminianism is on the rise.

And as we move from the 1700s into the 1800s, Calvinism will continue to struggle. Will become a decided minority here in the United States. And this new Arminian branch of the Reformed tradition will come to dominate. I can't underscore enough just how significant this transition is. It changes everything about American Christianity.

No. 43.

>> Thank you, Professor. I wondered whether people really bought Calvinism. It seems harsh. Making God into a tyrant who enjoys sending people to hell. I can really see why folks would reject it. But why did Arminianism become so prevalent in America?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: That is a very astute question, David. There was more to it than simply theology. Now, for our purposes, of course, that's what we focus on. But there were other things at work on the American scene during this time that contributed to this decline of Calvinism and the rise then of Arminianism.

Think about it, if you would. In fact, historians have talked about an overall shift that occurred in American thinking, a paradigm shift, that occurred during this period of time. Especially beginning about 1790 and then moving on through 1830, 1840, perhaps as late as 1850.

One historian in particular has called this period the Period of the Democratization of American Christianity. Nathan Hatch wrote a book, published it in 1989, by that very title in which he traced the theological shift from Calvinism to Arminianism and said, in fact, that theological shift was the driving force between a basic change in the way of thinking for all Americans in regard to theology. But also politics and economics.

Very briefly what he argued here was that at the same time this theological change occurred, which moved the focus away from God as predestinator, either to heaven or to hell, to God who waited upon a person to make a decision or a choice of heaven or hell, at the same time that theological shift occurred, there was a change in economics. As people moved from the older Agrarian republicanism to now a more vigorous market capitalism. And simultaneously in politics there was a move from the older republicanism to a new kind of radical democracy.

Now, briefly what were these two big shifts? In terms of economics, what Hatch traces is that in the Revolutionary -- preRevolutionary period, there was a kind of mutual dependency that characterized most working relationships. Many times you had out on the frontier and among the farms folks having their little plot of land that they would carve out for themselves. And then sharing a large area of common land. And there was an interrelationship and an interdependence between the various settlers on the frontier as they developed their farms.

Their farming was characterized by subsistence. That is they simply produced to feed their families and survive. What little extra they may have been able to produce, they then used to barter with other farmers and with an emerging merchant class.

However, as time went by and as the farms grew and as techniques improved, what farmers were able to do was more and more to produce for the market. To grow larger crops. To sell them at key times. And then to take in trade for them money that they then used to purchase goods and services. No longer subsistence farming. But producing for the market.

In the cities there was a move at this point in time from the older arrangement where oftentimes some kind of tradesmen would have a few employees. They would work making shoes as an example or barrels or something of the sort producing a significant number of items for use for sale, for barter and the like. But as time went by, increasingly they simply produced these wears for the market.

What Hatch argues is that in this transition from producing for self or for modest barter and sale to simply producing for the market was to demand technological innovation and to create new relationships that were competitive in nature. So moving from the old interdependency and community oriented scheme to a much more individualized kind of arrangement.

Thus, in the old system if your crops failed on the frontier, oftentimes your neighbors would help you out. Give you a little bit to get by in the difficult circumstances. Later on, however, in the new market, if your crops failed, oftentimes your neighbor would then buy your farm and put you to work for him. Changing inherently the relationship you had.

Politically things shift, as well. In the early Republican period under the leadership of the likes of Jefferson you have a very stratified idea of who should lead. The early Republicans believed that not all men, while they may have been created equal, not all men were given to lead. And therefore, only those who owned land, who were educated, who had succeeded in life, only these should take on responsibility for leadership.

A good case in point of this way of thinking might be the Electoral College where you have a popular vote of some sort leading to choices of electers for President that then ultimately would make final decisions regarding leadership in the American nation. As time goes by, this gives way to a much more radical individualized democracy. Best characterized by Andrew Jackson and his coming to the Presidency in 1828 by arguing one man, one vote. That is to say each American citizen, male citizen, white American male citizen, should have the right to control his own destiny.

Think about then what's happening concurrently in this overall perspective. The older Calvinism saying: Your eternal destiny is determined by a distant God who has made some determination over your eternal future in a hidden past. In terms of your relationship with others economically, community oriented. And in politics giving responsibility over to those whom God has apparently called to lead.

To now in Arminianism that your destiny is up to you and your choice. Your economic future is largely up to you and your savvy. If you succeed, you can take credit. If you fail, it's your own fault. And in politics saying: I want my voice to be heard. The vigorous individualism and democratized thinking of the American scene. This will transform the churches. Moving from this older notion of the elect community to the radicalized individual democratized churches. And it's those churches that succeed in this particular Synod. The way it plays itself out is utterly fascinating.

I'll give you a story. The story of the great Cane Ridge Revival of 1801. One of the most significant events in American religious history. In fact, Professor Paul Conkin has called this America's Pentecost.

What's he mean? Go back, if you will, to the immediate post Revolutionary period. The Constitution is being developed. The frontiers are being opened. The markets are beginning to emerge. But all is in transition between 1785 and 1800.

As Americans move west, they tend to locate themselves initially in Kentucky and Tennessee. Following the routes of either over the mountains from Savanna in Charleston, down the Shenandoah Valley and through the Cumberland Gap or making the arduous track over the mountains to Pittsburgh and catching the Ohio River making their way west that direction.

As they move into Kentucky and Tennessee, initially there are very few churches. And there is always, always a lack of clergy.

Now, many who make their way west have their roots in the Scotch-Irish Presbyterian tradition. And as they get into the west, the older community seems to be fraying at the ends. Little to hold it together.

What held the Presbyterian communities together back east and back in Scotland was the kirk, the church. But now it seems to be struggling to hold things together. How shall we address this?

As Scotch-Irish Presbyterians struggle with this emerging reality, they go back to an earlier practice that characterized the Presbyterian communion in the early 1600s when a significant number of Scotsmen made their way across to Ireland. Isolated there and not part of the official church, they struggled to maintain their communities.

They were always lacking clergy. And so what they did was to develop what came to be called sacramental seasons. And basically what these were were large gatherings of a variety of smaller Presbyterian communities all coming together at one time over a span of days. The purpose of which being the celebration of the Lord's Supper.

Practice and reception of the Lord's Supper was an important and central part of the Presbyterian communities' experience. And they were determined to maintain this as a way of creating and sustaining community among them. And what they then would do would be have a number of pastors get together who would preach, prepare and finally celebrate the Lord's Supper for the sake of the Presbyterian community.

Now, as that Presbyterian community stabilized in Ireland and congregations were formed and settled, pastorates emerged, it typically was the case that sacramental seasons declined. However, they were remembered. And as a result, on the American scene during the 1790s, they began once again to appear in significant numbers.

Basically what you had was this: A four-day event running from Friday to Monday. The clergy would get together from the scattered -- the scattered Presbyterian clergy would get together. Determine a series of dates for these. Usually one early in the summer. One later in the summer. And then advertise them throughout the western areas. Saying: All Presbyterians gather together at X place on these days for the celebration of the Lord's Supper.

People would begin to arrive Thursday. And then on Friday the event proper would start. It was characterized by almost constant preaching. From morning until well into the late evening. There would always be somebody preaching. One pastor would preach for several hours. He would be succeeded by another. And another. And another.

People who were present at the event would come and go. Having set up their tents or their wagons in the woods surrounding the particular area that have been chosen.

The preaching followed a very typical pattern. On Friday the theme would be thanksgiving. Thanksgiving that another year had past. The winter had been conquered. And the people of God were coming again once again to celebrate what they held together in Christ.

On Saturday, the theme shifted. The theme was preparation. And in this particular theme, the pastors would preach largely focusing on the Westminster Shorter Catechism. And then announce to those who were gathered together that if they desired to take the Lord's Supper, to receive the Lord's Supper on the following day, they should present themselves to the preachers for examination.

So as the preaching went on, other pastors were examining potential communicants in their knowledge of the Scriptures, the Catechism, and as to the character of their moral life. If they were deemed prepared, worthy and well fit, they were given a small token, a communion token.

It didn't cost them anything. But what it did give them was the means by which then they would be admitted to the Lord's Table on Sunday. Only with the token could one come to the table.

So again, that goes on all Saturday. Preparation, examination. And then on Sunday, the focal event of the larger gathering finally occurs. The celebration of the Lord's Supper itself.

It begins with what is called the fencing sermon. When literally the pastor who was preaching puts a fence around the Lord's Table, the gathering area, saying things like: If you have not been examined, if you were not deemed prepared, do not approach the Lord's Table. If you are of another tradition, if you are not a Presbyterian, do not approach the Lord's Table. You will not be admitted.

If you had been examined and you had been deemed well prepared yesterday but now you've fallen into some gross sin last night -- there was always a rum wagon at these events -- you drank too much rum, don't come to the Lord's Table. But if you've been examined, you're considered worthy and well prepared and you haven't fallen into gross sin, then comes to the Lord's Table.

Now, obviously the sermon was a lot longer than that. But once it was completed, then as preaching continued, again, preparing people and underscoring the basics of the faith, then beneath the preaching stand, the central pulpit, there would be pastors who would meet with 12 -- initially with 12 congregants at a time who would receive the Lord's Supper, reenacting the upper room and Maundy Thursday.

That became too much as time went by and they would have larger gatherings as the pastor went through the communion liturgy. Then distributed the Lord's Supper to the faithful who had been prepared. It usually took all day, particularly as the crowds increased.

In fact, over the 1790s, the numbers continued to grow at these large gatherings of the Presbyterian faithful. Sometimes up to 2,000, 3,000, 5,000, 6,000. They just keep getting bigger and bigger.

On Monday things draw to a close. Preaching continues. Again, the theme being thankfulness. But in this case thankfulness for having been gathered together with the faithful to receive the Lord and his gifts. And then preparing for folks to make their way back to their homes. And slowly things would break up. These were the sacramental seasons.

And they were a pastoral way of addressing the lack of community on the American frontier. A way of drawing the faithful together around the Lord's dominical institution. Namely, the Lord's Supper itself. As Presbyterian clergy tried to be faithful to their scattered sheep.

But as already implicit in what I had described before, is that these, while they may have been designed for the Presbyterian faithful, did not only attract Presbyterians. In fact, they were significant social events on the frontier. And everybody showed up. It was something to do. And so all would be present.

And as a result, you oftentimes had people of different traditions who would participate in one form or another at these particular gatherings. In fact, an early Lutheran missionary on the frontier, Paul Henkel, was present at several of these and described them in his own journal.

Initially he thought maybe these are acts of God, good things. But as time went by, he became increasingly suspicious of them. And finally came to the conclusion that they were against the Spirit of God rather than for it.

Why did he make that conclusion? Well, the sacramental seasons themselves change in character over time in fundamental ways. In fact, they move from being largely gatherings of the Presbyterian faithful to over time becoming what we today know as camp meetings and revivals.

What happens? Very simply, Cane Ridge. In 1801 a Presbyterian sacramental season is held at Cane Ridge in Bourbon County, Kentucky, a little bit northeast of today's Lexington. There a Presbyterian pastor by the name of Barton Stone has announced with his co-clergy that they would be holding a sacramental season in August of that year.

Everybody shows up. Everybody shows up. The low-end estimates for Cane Ridge are 12,500 participants. The high end estimates that I've read are 30,000 people. Regardless of the exact number, it's a lot of folks. But it's not the numbers that make Cane Ridge unique. It's what happens there.

That is to say we've already noted it's a social event. Everybody participates. The rum wagon is there, which greases the skids for certain kinds of activities. In fact, oftentimes people are critical of the Baptists for bringing the rum. This is previous to the temperance movement.

Be that as it may, what we find is that American democratizing principles come to the forefront here. That is to say while the Presbyterians may have organized this event, what's to keep somebody else from participating in this event officially or unofficially? That is to say why can't I set up my own preaching stand or pulpit in competition with the Presbyterians?

Say I'm a Baptist. I disagree with Presbyterians as to the subject and mode of baptism. That they baptize children and do so by sprinkling I think is absolutely contrary to the Bible. Therefore, I feel compelled to stand up and preach. Maybe not formally in a pulpit. But I'll find a stump or a wagon and stand up and begin to preach against the Presbyterian preacher.

Well, what does that do to the Presbyterian? If I'm say 50 feet away preaching against him. Correcting his errors even as he speaks. What will his response be?

He has to address my concerns. He has to respond to what I'm saying. And the basic character of the event changes. No longer the Presbyterian faithful being prepared for the reception of the Lord's Supper. But now an apologetic enterprise as I attack and he is forced to defend.

It changes the fundamental dynamic. And what if the case is that I'm a really good preacher and he's not so great? He's a reader. He has his manuscript in front of him and drones on. While I, on the other hand, happen to be very quick on my feet. Engaging. Clever. Who would the people rather listen to?

Then throw in the mix other traditions. Maybe you have a Methodist preacher who is present, as well. You could also have a Lutheran. Although, it didn't really happen much. You could have an atheist. There were more unchurched people in Kentucky in the 1790s than any other part of the American nation at that point in time.

The dynamic changes. And what it does is begin to create a real sense of competition between the preachers. In fact, there's a story of one of the great Methodist itinerant preachers at the time. A man by the name of Lorezno Dow preaching in the context of one of these mixed gatherings. And he's interacting with his audience. Hanging Calvinism and its fatalism. It's a horrible theological system with a tyrannical and evil God.

And one of the participants who is there shouts out to him and says: Do you even know what Calvinism is? And Dow without missing a beat comes back and says: Of course I do. Calvinism is this: You can and you can't. You shall and you shan't. You will and you won't. You'll be damned if you do. And damned if you don't.

Well, the entire audience breaks into hysterics at that point as does the preacher. And the challenger walks away in shame.

Dow has captured the essence of Calvinism. And more than that, he has connected in a basic way with his audience. Yeah, you'll be damned if you do and damned if you don't. There's the fatalism of Calvinism. So what's the option?

Dow says: The choice is yours. A powerful message once again. And one that fits well with these democratizing tendencies we've been discussing.

Back to Cane Ridge. Put together these kinds of clever, sharp and well-spoken preachers. All in a mix at a place like Cane Ridge. Working against one another. But also having a profound effect on their hearers. Bringing out laughter. Weeping. Sometimes shouting. And a whole series of what are called remarkable evidences of the Holy Spirit begin to emerge. And here we return to our friend, Barton Warren Stone. He describes what starts to happen at Cane Ridge and the results of it.

Simply put: The hearers of the various preachers respond in physical ways and emotional ways to the preaching. He notes several of these evidences or exercises as he calls them. He says the main one that most people noted were called the shakes or the jerks. And what these were were not just a little shakiness on the part of the hearer. But violent shaking on the part of the hearer. As Stone describes it, going almost all the way back so the head nearly came to the ground. And then nearly all the way forward so that the head nearly touched the ground once again. Violently shaking back and forth like this for several hours on end. And the person experiencing this being unable to stop. Not being able to control these manifestations.

The second exercise he describes are the barks, which are, he says, simply the jerks or the shakes characterized by a person moving far back and then as they come forward, as air exhales from their chest cavity across the vocal cords, a woof comes forward. But you do this repeatedly and quickly over the space of several hours and it sounded to many like the barking of a dog. In fact, as Stone describes it in his autobiography, he says people called this the barks very pejoratively. Particularly due to one instance where a man who was taken by the jerks ran out into the woods, grabbed onto a tree. And as he was shaking, a man found him and said that this first gentleman was barking up the wrong tree. He said it in the biography.

Beyond that there were the running exercises, as they were called. Where a person with the jerks would then have them manifest themselves in the legs and the person would run, again, for hours on end, and not be able to stop himself or herself.

Perhaps one of the most striking examples of the visitation of the Spirit in Stone's mind was the falling down exercise. Where a person would simply collapse with a loud cry. And then lie motionless for hours on end, once again. First giving evidence of a kind of painful continence in their face and grimaces and the like. Slowly giving way to a very peaceful look. And when they finally came out of this state, saying that they had experienced the presence of God. And they spoke to all of those around them about the love of Jesus. Others were the singing exercise. And the laughing exercise. The variety of manifestations that exploded on the scene at Cane Ridge.

Now, people have wondered: What was at work here? At the time the event was interpreted one of two ways. The more conservative traditional Presbyterian clergy saw it as the work of the devil. And they ceased to hold their sacramental seasons. They stopped almost immediately upon the events of Cane Ridge. Others, however, viewed these, as we've been describing Stone's language, manifestations of the Spirit of God. Now, if they were that, in fact, manifestations of the Spirit of God, if a pastor was convinced of that, if a hearer was convinced of that, what were the effects?

Well, let's take a hearer first. Imagine you're a Presbyterian Church member or that you've been attending Presbyterian sacramental seasons over the course of say six or seven years. And you've been hearing from the preachers Calvinism. You're either elect or reprobate. You're either in the kingdom of God or out. And at some point the Holy Spirit will give you an effectual call. An inward call. That you will be able to experience and be able to point to as a point at which God has made things real for you. And you would then be admitted to church membership. But until that happens, you must be considered one of the reprobate.

You've heard this preached. But now suddenly you're in the midst of this preaching. The preachers are proclaiming their message. And you are suddenly ceased with one of these manifestations of the Spirit. The question about your election disappears. Because the Spirit has visited you. And you have responded. You have given yourself over to this. So that now you can locate the point at which you moved from unbelief to belief. From being outside the kingdom to being one of the converted. From being reprobate to being elect. You can point to the place. You can name the place, the time and the circumstances surrounding it.

Now, what about if you're a preacher and you accept these as visible manifestations of the Spirit? You then begin to preach in a way to encourage these things to occur again. And in fact, what the preachers do is ask themselves: What was I preaching about? What was my manner when I proclaimed this message and the people began to show these manifestations? And they developed specific techniques to make them recur.

One of the great questions will be: Should we encourage these excessive responses? Or were these simply necessary on the frontier? A unique outpouring of the Spirit that got the movement going, that moved us away finally from the older Calvinism. But then can be channelled, shall we say, into a more technical presentation of the Gospel that accomplishes the same end without the radical kinds of behaviors that are demonstrated. That is to say not to reject out of hand the more spectacular manifestations of the Spirit. But at the same time to look deeper for the content, the substance of the experience.

Those who came later tended towards that latter position. And in this respect there was no one more important than Charles Grandison Finney. Charles Finney took what had been happening on the frontier for 20 plus years at this point, put it together in a systematic fashion, a programmatic fashion and then promised that if one preached according to these principles and in the proper ways, that one would achieve results.

Finney was born in Connecticut. Grew up in New York state. Entered into law practice as a young man. And intended his whole life simply to be a lawyer because it paid well. He was young, handsome, vigorous and extremely successful. And as such did not see much need for the church. But he always stayed rather on the fringe of it. He was impressed by preachers who could affect their hearers. And so struck up friendships with several of them.

One young preacher consistently pressured him: Join the church. Join the church. Join the church. Finney said: I'm not sure of the use thereof and how it would benefit. But after pressure -- continual pressure from friends, he finally said: What I will do is take the evidence for and against Christianity. Consider it and then make my decision. He worked hard at it. Finally he came to the decision himself in the early 1820s and said: I have done this now. I've weighed the evidence. And I have rendered a verdict. The Christian witness is true. And I submit myself to it. As such, I am now a Christian.

His friends were delighted. And the church encouraged him to think about entering the ministry. He himself said: Yes, I think I have an inclination that way. But when they then encouraged him to attend seminary, he said: I don't need to. I have read the Bible. I know what's in it. And I'm prepared now to present that evidence to others. He always thinks like a lawyer throughout his entire ministry. And I'm ready to argue with them as to the way they should choose.

He does that. And he does it in a particularly successful and effective fashion. There is no greater revivalist on the American scene than Charles Finney. He has significantly impactful revivals.

In the mid 1820s in upstate New York, Rome, Utica, central New York. 1831 in Rochester, New York, he makes an enormous impact. His reputation grows to the point where finally in the mid 1830s he moves to New York City itself and there at the Broadway Tabernacle carries out his revival meetings.

He is best remembered for his techniques at moving people. And that is to say when pressed with this question: What is the essence of moving a person from unbelief to belief, for Finney it is the willful action of the hearer. The choice of making Christ their personal Savior.

As such, he will develop his techniques, vernacular preaching, publicity and the like. But most importantly what he calls the anxious or mourners bench. As the place where one makes the decision.

Thus, the preacher's purpose is to present the evidence. What God has done for you. What the devil desires against what God has done. The way of life. The way of death. The way to heaven. The way to hell.

And then to drop into the sinner's lap the choice. Now the choice is yours. Everything he preaches, everything he does in his revivals is geared towards moving that sinner to get up out of their seat, come forward to what is now called the altar area and to there sit on the bench, make the decision for Christ and come into Christ's kingdom. Everything is geared to make that happen.

Finney puts these techniques together into an enormously important book called "Revival Lectures." And in it he distills what he believes religion is all about. He takes Arminianism to its radical extreme saying: Religion is a work of man. It consists in this: Obedience. Sinners are to be made to feel that they have something to do. That is what religion is all about. The anxious bench, he goes onto say, simply holds the place that baptism did in the early church. It is the public profession of an already existing faith. What you as a preacher, therefore, need to do is call sinners to the altar and then help them make their way through to that choice.

This revivalistic Arminianism would take on its most extreme form finally in the preaching of preachers like Finney as they would talk about human conversion and salvation. They would say an important election is at hand. The question is: Will you be saved? God has voted yes. Satan has voted no. A tie. Your vote must decide the issue.

That's a long way from the older Calvinism where God is in control of all things. Where God has determined whether you will be elect or reprobate. Where God in the end will judge on the basis of that earlier decision. Now God has made his decision. He would like for you to be saved. But Satan has come along and has cancelled out the vote of God. It is up to you. You must decide the issue.

Again, think about this in the broader American setting. And the impact that this would have on a country that is emerging from the older republican Agrarian ideas to a more radical democracy to a market driven economy.

The older Calvinism simply doesn't fit. It's fatalistic, deterministic. The new Arminianism says you will decide the issue. And as such, it largely sweeps Calvinism from the scene. And in that context a whole new series of church bodies appear on the American scene and come to dominate its thinking in ways that still affect us today.

No. 44.

>> Wow. That's quite a story. Did any church or churches benefit from this shift in perspective?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Good question, Nick. In fact, several traditions really benefitted from this development over the course of the early part of the 1800s. A few were older church bodies. But most of them really found their first expressions here in America during this period of time. Simply put, this theological, political, social, economic transition that occurred between 1790 and 1850 let's say had a special impact on the development of the Baptist churches, especially on the Methodist churches. But then also allowed for the emergence of other traditions like the Disciples of Christ and Church of Christ.

So it did have recognizable impact on some of these church bodies here in America. Let me give you a case in point. Way back in this class we talked about the development of church bodies here on the American scene. And in the colonial period we noted that the big three, if you will, were the congregationalist church, always the largest, followed by the Church of England. And then following that were a variety of groups. But by the late 1700s, the Presbyterians had fitted themselves into the third position and relatively comfortable there. Beneath that, there were a variety of others.

Between 1790 and 1850, things change in some very basic ways. And I would like to go back to the Gaustad Atlas once again through the congregations that they count there simply to get the bigger picture as this transition occurs.

You'll recall that in 1780, the Congregational Church was the largest with 749 local congregations. It was followed by the Presbyterians with 495. The Baptists with 457. The Anglicans with 406. Lutherans, 240. German Reformed, 201. Dutch Reformed, 127. And Roman Catholics with 56. 1780 the colonial pattern still largely held. Though things were about to change. In fact, in that period between 1780 and 1820, everything would change. So then by the year 1820, the numbers go this way: The Methodists have 2700 congregations. The Baptists, 2700, as well. Presbyterians, 1700. Congregationalists, 1100. Lutherans, 800. Episcopalians, as they are now called, 600. The Quakers are keeping records for the first time. And we have 350 of their congregations. German Reformed, 300. Dutch Reformed, 180. Unitarians, 150. Universalists, 200. And Roman Catholics, 124. There is some dispute about actual Universalist numbers.

And in fact, I should offer a proviso at this point about various numbers. Different traditions count a congregation a different way. That is to say all of these Methodist congregations include the many, many, many tiny churches, two or three families. In some cases perhaps only one. On preaching stations on a larger circuit. So there is some variety there. The Baptists, to form a Baptist congregation, doesn't require a Constitution. Rather, simply requires a covenant between one or two people it at the very least. And thus, many of these Baptist congregations are extremely small.

Presbyterian and congregational churches tend to be larger. 200, 300 people perhaps in those. So one has to be cautious in how one counts the numbers here and invests the numbers with a certain weight. Nonetheless, what this does show is just how rapidly some of these church bodies grow.

By the time we push on then to 1860, another 40 years down the line, the numbers read like this: The Methodist Church has nearly 20,000 separate faith communities. 19,883. There are 12,150 Baptist congregations. 6,400 Presbyterian. By now Roman Catholicism has 2500. Congregational Church, 2200. The Episcopalians, 2100. Lutherans, 2100. Disciples of Christ, another new church body on the American scene, has about 2100. Quakers, 726. German Reformed, 676. Universalists, 664. Dutch Reformed, 440. And Unitarians, 264.

Of course, what is most striking about these numbers is the growth of the Methodists and the Baptists. Everybody grows, as we see from these numbers. There are more congregations in America every year, every month, every week literally during this period of time that we're looking at. But nobody grows as quickly as the Baptists and the Methodists. And the Methodists are clearly out in front of everybody else.

So why is that? Why do these two groups particularly enjoy such rapid growth in this period?

Let's take the Baptists first. They come to the American scene with a very clear message. Their material principle, as we've already discussed, is one of the autonomy of the local congregation. The freedom of the local congregation from external adjudicatories, externally ruling groups.

Thus, when it comes to populating Baptist churches and providing them with pastors, the Baptists have a leg up on many of the other Christian traditions here in America because their message, freedom and liberty, resonates very well with much of what we hear on the American scene at this point in time. Not just in the church but more broadly speaking.

To become a Baptist congregation simply requires a covenanting of two or more people. Thus, if one feels compelled to begin a new congregation, one doesn't have to go back east to appeal to a Synod or to a bishop or something of that sort for permission to form a congregation. One simply does it. And it's accomplished.

Thus, many of these Baptist churches, as I mentioned before, are very small. But they also have a profound sense of ownership on the part of the people who create them. People who are absolutely invested in the organization and sustaining of this particular congregation.

Now, one of the things that they want and demand is biblical preaching. And hence, the question regarding how do you get a pastor.

Now, if you went back to the Presbyterians, the Lutherans, Episcopalians, the traditional Reformational churches, the manner in which you received a pastor was, first of all, you had to have a candidate. And before a man became a candidate for the ministry, he had to receive a theological education. Then he had to be examined by his peers. Then call and ordination upon that.

And call and ordination generally were overseen by Synods. Within the Lutheran tradition the Pennsylvania Synod formed in 1748 specifically came into existence for this purpose. To train and to examine and to call and ordain pastors for Lutheran parishes. But it was an external group, if you will. An outside authority that acted as gatekeeper.

Within the Baptist tradition, there was none of this. If a person felt compelled to preach, then they had that freedom. And the proof of their call was not within the educational system. The ordination certificate did not become a seal of approval in that respect. But rather, the effectiveness of the preacher indicated whether or not he had the gift of the Spirit.

When the Spirit gave that indication, it was sealed or recognized as the congregation laid hands on and ordained that con date for the ministry. All of that could happen within the context of the local congregation.

There was no need for seminaries. There was no need for external adjudicatories. It simply happened in the autonomous local church.

And because of that where some of the traditional church bodies struggle to meet the needs of the American frontier, the Baptists were well positioned to provide congregations and pastors for emerging community of people. Very quick. Hence, their growth.

Also, theologically we could note that they did have that transition occurring, as we've already discussed, from the more particular Calvinist position to the more general Arminian position during this period, as well. So they had a message that resonated as well as a method for developing congregations and dividing pastors. And they enjoyed tremendous success.

The Methodists enjoyed even greater success. As a church body, they jumped into the camp meeting revivalistic scene with more vigor than any other tradition. In fact, in many ways it defined their experience here in America.

The Methodists were decidedly and pronouncedly Arminian in their theology. And unashamedly so. Holding up the results that they were able to achieve as proof of the substantially correct position of their theology.

But they also had a method for getting the word out and for forming congregations. Different in thrust than that of the Baptists. What the Methodists did was to develop an intentional itinerant ministry.

Where a Baptist preacher would be set aside by his peers for ministry in a settled place, and while he would likely spend most of the week farming and then be the preacher on Sunday, the Methodists did have a committed ministry. Men set aside to simply do the work of the ministry.

But they were not to be settled. They were always on the move. Hence, this language of itinerancy. Traveling consistently to take the Word out. We came to call them Circuit Riders. They called themselves that, as well.

A Circuit Rider was assigned a given area, geographical location. And in that area he would develop points on a circuit. Usually a kind of a rough circle. Although, it wouldn't always look that way on a map. In which there were these communities that he would organize. And then would simply continuously ride to them. Riding the circuit. Reaching these people, these communities every six to eight weeks or so.

It seemed there would be long absences of the ministry. And in the interim what they did to provide cohesion among these various communities was to use similar devotional materials sold by the Circuit Rider. That's how he made the salary. Which then were used in his absence by lay readers or lay preachers.

By the way, some of these Circuit Riders were lay preachers themselves. Not all were ordained. Nevertheless, there was a sense of cohesion and unity through the use of similar worship and devotional materials that held these scattered circuits, points on a circuit together, even in the absence of the Circuit Rider.

So the presence of the Circuit Rider was not absolutely critical to the community's existence. But it certainly did underscore and help to achieve a sense of utility and identity under these certain groups.

Now, the Circuit Rider would continually ride the circuit developing these congregations and others consistently. And if it got to the point where there were too many points on the circuit, then the circuit would be divided. And another minister raised up to ride the circuit.

By virtue of this, there's consistent and explosive growth among these Methodist communities of faith, as we've seen in the numbers from Gaustad a little bit earlier. True, many of them are very small initially. But over time they grow into large and driving congregations. And interestingly and ironically enough over time, they begin to take on the character of the more settled congregations around them as the 19th Century progresses.

In fact, one of the really interesting points about Methodism is that after its initial explosive growth, that levels off somewhat to the consternation of many who say: We've lost our other worldly character. We've lost the true biblical message. Which then does in the 20th Century especially lead to some severe tensions within Methodism as it grapples with these internal tensions.

But in the 19th Century, it's growing like crazy. What is perhaps most ironic about Methodist growth is the fact that it does so from an Episcopal polity. There is a bishop. And the bishop makes certain decisions. That's still true.

And one of the decisions the bishop makes is who will serve where. Now, in a democratized setting that seems awfully strange to have a bishop making determination about a man's ministry and whom a congregation will receive as their preacher.

But in Methodism given the explosive growth, its rapid expansion, it proves to be an extremely effective polity. And albeit one with a certain tension built in.

I read a book a few years back called "Taking Heaven By Storm," which is the history of Methodism in the early national period that we've been looking at here. And it says we shouldn't overestimate the authority of the bishop. He was largely an administrator. And administrators oftentimes have to deal with the criticism of those whom they are leading.

And in fact, said the author of this book, the manner in which assignments were made reflects certain democratizing principles. That is to say the Methodist preachers would come together for their three- or four-day conference. And in the conference they would talk about growth, numbers. They would enter into matters of discipline, theology and the like.

But the last and the most looked forward to part of the conference was the assignment. When the bishop would post the assignments for the coming year. And generally what would happen according to this author the bishop would post the assignments as the last thing, building up the tension until the last moment, before the assignments for the coming year were revealed.

He would post them and move out the door as quickly as possible to leap on his already saddled horse and ride away with all possible haste before the men had a chance to complain about where he had assigned them. They would all be clustered around the post of the signings. Then they would have to try to find the bishop who was already out in the woods somewhere if they had a complaint.

Now, that's probably an extreme example. But you get the point. There are bishops and there are bishops. These are not like the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church who are absolutely responsible for the activities of the church. This is a give-and-take.

And if the bishop should provide responsibilities and assignments to a man and to men and to more men than he could effectively hold off politically, he could find himself very easily no longer the bishop. He had to play that side of things.

Nonetheless, we see here an intentional missional strategy on the part of the Methodists to provide as many points of contact on the American frontier. In this respect, they adapt themselves more quickly than anyone else to these remarkable circumstances. As Americans push west in huge numbers, they are perhaps the best poised initially to take advantage of the unique circumstances on the American frontier.

Now, Nick, the last of this bunch, the Disciples of Christ, Church of Christ group, I'm sure you have questions that would probably emerge about them. Maybe we could hold off on them for the time being. And come back to them a little later. Because they fit into a little bit different group than the ones we've been talking about.

But I think it is important to note at this point in time that part of this overall revival, Methodistic, Baptistic growth in the American frontier, which is all to say in this period, 1780 to 1860, Christianity in America undergoes a fundamental change. And the manner in which that is expressed are monistic, revivalistic, continues to influence the church today. And I think we'll see that play itself out over the remainder of this course.

No. 45.

>> It seems like the Methodists were the big winners in all of this. Could you tell us a bit more about their history?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Sure, Josh, I would be happy to. The growth of Methodism, as we've already seen, is really a remarkable story. And one of the significant events of the post Reformation period that has had key influence on the shape of American Christianity.

But like everything else, it doesn't happen in a vacuum. It emerges from a series of processes and events within the context of the Church of England.

We typically identify three names with Methodism. The most frequently recognized is that of John Wesley himself. But he was joined in this work by two others of significant import. One was his younger brother, Charles. And then also the great itinerant in England and America, George Whitefield. These three were significant figures in the development of American Methodism, Methodism generally.

Where did they come from? Well, they had common roots. All part of the Church of England, born in an England church. And had the intention of becoming priests in the Church of England. To that end, all three of them attended Oxford University. And while there, they were distressed over the character of so many of their fellow students. Specifically students who were studying for the ministry.

They seemed -- those other students seemed lax in their moral life to the Wesleys and Whitefield and unconcerned about fulfilling the prescriptions of Scripture when it came to their sanctified life. As such they formed what was sometimes derisively called a holy club there at Oxford in which they and like minded students cultivated an intentional morality over against the more profligate life of their fellow students.

Nothing surprisingly their fellow students would often mock them. Make fun of them. But they said: Nonetheless, we will continue to work hard at full filing the revealed will of God in the Scriptures.

The problem they oftentimes found was that was not always an easy thing to do. Especially for a young man studying at Oxford in the 18th Century. There were many, many temptations to turn one away from one's studies and plenty of temptations into the way of the world. And because of their struggles in this regard, each one of these young men went through crises as they wondered and asked themselves the question: Am I really truly a Christian? That would be most pronounced for Wesley himself. But all three of these men experienced that.

Let's take a look at them in turn. And I think to break the mold a little bit here, let's look at Whitefield first because he I think is a key transitional figure. And there would be a falling out, an important division, between he and the Wesley brothers later on in their careers. Where they would ultimately triumph theologically, shall we say. And Whitefield, having provided a method for them to follow theologically, would largely become less meaningful.

What do I mean? Well, just this: When Whitefield finished his studies, he prepared for the ministry of the Anglican church. Was ordained. Became a priest. But he was a restless young man.

In 1739 he made his first trip to America. And while here began to preach in a variety of places. And as he preached, he found -- and others found, as well, that he had a remarkable ability to influence people in terms of simply using the spoken word.

Now, part of what contributed to this was the fact that he was an itinerant. That is he moved constantly in his preaching. The he didn't have a settled ministry. And what that allowed him to do was preach the same or similar sermons over and over again. So that he could hone these sermons and bring them very tightly together to achieve certain results.

As he did this, he found that he could actually construct the sermon in such a way as to move people to a certain emotional state by the end of it. To do this, he said, we need to make some important and fundamental changes in the way we preach.

For example, much of the preaching of the time was very technical. It was long. It was demanding of its hearers. And it used theological terminology. Words like imputation and the like. It was very demanding of the hearers. In fact, required them to be very familiar with a variety of theological terminologies and meanings.

Now, in a place like Puritan New England that had such zeal for the truth, working always to purify the theological position of the truth, that resonated. But in other places, folks weren't as wound up and bound up in this way of speaking and talking. And as a result, Whitefield said if you had used the word imputation in the sermon, people won't know what you're talking about. Instead, use plain and simple language. Tell the people what you mean.

Say: Your sins have been placed on Christ. And Christ's righteousness has been placed on you. Rather than a technical term like imputation.

Beyond that he said: Speak in a very direct and forceful manner. Don't retreat to fuzzy kinds of words, ambiguous terminology. But speak directly to a person.

And in this respect one of the most important moves that Whitefield makes is to shift from the first person plural in his preaching to the second person singular. That is to say in much older Puritan preaching, Calvinistic preaching, you find discussion of us and we or more generically of the elect. The elect will see the face of God. The elect will experience his presence.

Whitefield says in much more dynamic and direct terms: You are a sinner. Not just you all. But you individually. And you have the gates of heaven opened unto you by the working of Christ.

Now, the import of that cannot be underestimated. From us and we to a much more direct you. I should say a word at this point about Whitefield's theology. He is a committed double predestinarian Calvinist. He believes that only the elect can come to faith. But he doesn't preach like it.

He preaches in a such a manner saying that through this very direct kind of preaching, the Spirit will render an effectual call upon the elect. They will come to faith. And I'll leave that division up to God. I'll simply be the means by which the message is presented.

Other Calvinists criticized him saying: Some people will come to think that they are saved when they are actually not. Which Whitefield said: Not my problem. God will sort out the weak and the tares.

So very direct preaching linked with very common kind of language. And then coupled with, in Whitefield's case, an unbelievable voice. He is said, as the story is recounted, to have been able to move an entire audience to tears simply by saying the word Mesopotamia.

Well, I haven't found that I have that gift up to this point. But apparently Whitefield did. He could use his language, his voice, his words in such a way as to be incredibly compelling. And beyond that then he did so within an a unbelievable power and capacity.

In fact, he made seven trips here to the American colonies between 1793 and 1771. And during those, he became a friend, an acquaintance of Benjamin Franklin. Franklin one time while Whitefield is preaching literally paces off the area around the group that is listening to Whitefield. And in fact, the farthest distance he goes that he can hear his voice, he notes that, and then figures out the circumference and area that is involved and comes to the conclusion that Whitefield is speaking or could speak at the very least to 10,000 people outdoors without a microphone and still be heard well. An incredibly powerful voice.

Well, Whitefield brings these elements together in one person and becomes in many ways the first star preacher. What many call an evangelist.

Now, when I say that word, evangelist, what comes to mind? If I were to say, for example, to you: Name me one person here in America who is an evangelist. And I would suspect somebody like Billy Graham comes to mind, a person like that.

If you were to ask say John Calvin or Martin Luther: Name me one evangelist. They would say: Well, there are one of four, Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. In the Reformation period, an evangelist was seen as one who writes the evangel, one of the gospels.

But by the 18th Century, we're talking about evangelists in different terms. A new kind of office in the church. An itinerant preacher who has the special ability to affect his hearers in a powerful way. Nobody does that better than George Whitefield.

However, some people noted the inconsistencies in his approach. They said: You preach like all are saved. And yet you hold theologically that not all are. This is where the division between he and the Wesleys will begin to emerge. And to that we turn to our next subject. Namely, John Wesley.

Wesley himself is, again, born into an Anglican family. Church of England. His father is a priest. His mother is apparently a very pious woman. He discusses later on in his life how he was not a very good Christian young man. And as he begins to move into some of the later years of his life -- he was born in 1703. Died in 1791. As he enters into his studies at Oxford, works with his fellows in the Holy Club, he comes to the conclusion that perhaps he is not truly converted. In fact, he will struggle with this mightily.

Having completed his studies at Oxford, and still uncertain about his status as a Christian, he makes a mission trip to America, to Georgia in particular in the mid 1730s. And while there tries to come to grips with his future ministry. Should he enter the ordained priesthood? Should he commit himself fully to the life's work that his father and his mother so desire for him?

Well, his experience in Georgia is not particularly positive. He has an episode with a young woman regarding betrothal. He believes they are. She betroths herself to another man. He excommunicates her. That is to say he won't commune her at a church service. This causes extreme controversy within the community there. He's sent back to England.

While on the ship, he experienced troubles in his own conscience and worries about his salvation. In fact, as the boat threatens to sink on several occasions, he himself is convinced that if it goes down, he will find himself in hell.

At the same time on board ship, there is a group of Moravians. These Moravians are welcoming the thought of the close presence of Christ. They say that should the boat sink, we'll find ourselves with Jesus. And what could be better?

Their witness is tremendous law against Wesley who is utterly fearful of looking into the face of the Lord, assuming that he will be judged unworthy. And it simply drives him into utter despair. He spends several years uncertain of his circumstances, hangs on the fringe of a Moravian community in London. And finally in May 1738, as he's gathered at a Moravian meeting and the Moravians are reading Martin Luther's preface to the book of Romans, his comments on it, he feels his heart strangely warm. And everything changes for him at that moment. The uncertain goes to being certain for him. And he's convinced, utterly so, that he is God's own dear child. And what was timidity before now expresses itself in great boldness and vigor as Wesley goes out into the world to preach.

Like Whitefield, he itinerates. He will preach anywhere he can. As increasingly the case is that he is not allowed to preach in certain Anglican churches, he then speaks in fields, in coalmines and in the pits. In some of the more hospitable areas of the towns, speaking to the poor. To anyone he can. My parish is the world he will ultimately say.

And the message he brings in these circumstances is one that should sound very familiar to you now. His one of empowerment. You may find yourselves in dire circumstances socially speaking, struggling to survive. But your eternal destiny is open. And by virtue of the work of Christ for you, you have the ability and the possibilities of spending eternity with him. Simply choose to follow him. Make him your personal Savior. And you will be in the right way to be saved. Pursue his ends and you will see the face of Christ.

Wesley and Whitefield would find this quite a point of division. For Wesley would increasingly emphasize the necessity of willful choice on the part of the hearer at the conclusion of the message being presented. Whereas Whitefield would return again and again to the necessity of the effectual call of the Holy Spirit upon the elect.

Listening to them, there's not all that much difference in their sermons. But theologically, the underpinnings have changed entirely. And the direction this will go is enormously important. We'll talk about that in a moment.

But lastly, we should mention John Wesley's brother, Charles. His dates are 1707 to 1788. He contributes to the church in an enormously important way as one of the great hymn writers in the history of Christianity. And what he is effectively able to do is take the message that's being proclaimed in sermon and reduce it to hymnic form so that what has been preached by the preacher now can be sung, memorized, integrated into the life of the individual hearer through song.

Those songs can be sung anywhere, any time. And the hymns of Charles Wesley begin to be sung in the minds. And they come forth from the mouths of the dispossessed and the poor in England and in America. And provide one of the most important ways for extending Methodist teaching.

So what is it that becomes central to the Methodist mission? Well, in terms of its formal principle, that is the Scriptures. That is the source for what they preach and what they teach.

In terms, however, of their material principle, an important shift will occur. Particularly the personal experience of John Wesley will be seen as many ways normative for all Christians. That is to say a great emphasis will be placed on the personal conversion experience of the individual sinner. That is that you have that moment in time that's locatable. That's identifiable. When you went from being uncertain to being assured. When you went from darkness into light.

That personal religious experience will be seen as the beginning of one's walk as a Christian. But that personal experience then will characterize one's entire Christian life as one walks in a life of sanctification, seeking to fulfill the revealed will of God at every point. And making that quantifiable progression and sanctification the real telltale sign of whether a true conversion experience has occurred.

In this respect, we see a movement beyond the older Calvinism in vastly important ways. No longer this locating things in the hidden will of God. But rather, identifying and quantifying a person's Christian reality in terms of their experience, both in conversion and then in sanctification. So that in sanctification we see the reality of whether or not one has been converted.

In this respect, the method will play itself out. A method for cultivating piety. A method for cultivating sanctification will become central to the Methodist experience. Thus, formal principle, Scripture, material principle, experiential conversion and sanctification. That's what Methodism would be all about.

No. 46.

>> Thank you. I always wondered where the Methodists came from. Now I have a better idea. Please permit me to follow up with one more question, if I may. Could you tell me, do the Methodists have a confessional statement? And what is it like?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Yes, they do, Josh, as a matter of fact. The Methodist Articles of Religion are their official doctrinal statement. But they don't function like say the Lutheran Confessions do for a Lutheran. They are more demonstrative in terms of the perspective of Methodists than they are normative for a Methodist theological position.

Afterall, a theology that has as its material principle the conversion and sanctified experience, it's a little difficult to reduce that to hard, cold, systematic theology. Nonetheless, they do have their Articles of Religion, which are largely based on the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles.

So if you were to go back and take a look at the Thirty-Nine Articles and then read the Articles of Religion, the first thing that would strike you is the profound similarity between the two documents. Afterall, Methodism grew out of the Church of England. And in fact, a point I should have made earlier, John Wesley remained a priest in good standing in the Church of England through his entire life. The same is true of Charles.

So Methodism had that very close connection with the Anglican communion. And if you recall, the real character of the Anglican communion is summed up in that notion of a via media, a middle way.

Methodism simply saw itself as a new kind of via media. That is to say that Anglicanism had dropped too much into a dead and cold formalism. And on the other side, you had some more extreme examples of radical conversionists. Methodism simply said: We bring together the best of both.

And the Articles of Religion reflect that in a very clear and powerful way. As such then it, you have a consistent statement in that respect. But there are other texts, as well. And some of the more important ones are Wesley's sermons where he unpacks what he means by conversion experience. Where he talks about what he means when he uses the word sanctification. And in which he also begins to introduce an enormously important topic for the Methodist tradition. Namely, the idea of sinless perfection.

There is a theme within Methodism that emphasizes the ability of human beings to make the choice for God. Arminian theology afterward puts great emphasis on choosing to follow Christ. It is not a large step then to go beyond that and to talk about the ability of human beings to continue to choose the good. And to pursue the good to the end that perhaps it is theologically appropriate, if not existentially appropriate to talk about sinless perfection. And within the Wesleyan tradition, you'll find those who are what we call perfectionists.

Now, that goes beyond the theological statements of the Articles of Religion. That is a point of theological development that characterizes the Methodist tradition. But it's one that becomes central not only to a portion of the Methodist tradition, but to others who then follow in the wake of Methodism, specifically in the wake of Wesleyan perfectionism.

No. 47.

>> Perfect? In this life? That is an amazing teaching. I know some Methodists. And they don't talk that way. Can we be sure about this? Oh, and how does this teaching of sanctification among the Methodists compare with that of the Nazarenes? The father of one of our children is a devout Nazarene. And I have overheard him commenting on clean living.

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: You put your finger on an extremely important point, Eric. There is a divergence of opinion on this particular point within the various components of the Methodist tradition. As well as those that have followed in the wake of it. Those we call part of the Holiness movement or the Holiness bodies. Groups like the Nazarenes, for example.

To take a very complex topic and reduce it to a manageable frame, what Wesley talked about as I alluded to before, was the implications of perfection. That is to say he believed that a Christian person who was indwelled by the Holy Spirit, who had been truly converted and experienced that and was nurturing that through a methodical attempt at fulfilling the revealed will of God could see advancement or progression in sanctification. And that, in fact, one in a way could measure this progress in sanctification over time.

The law of God became the standard by which you judged whether or not you were fulfilling that requirement that God had outlined in the Scriptures. The Scriptures became a book for life, a book for the moral and sanctified Christian experience.

Now, what this meant in very practical terms was that while you might not be entirely free from actual sin, existentially speaking, your desire, your wills, your love, were perfect, that is you desired and loved God with all your heart, with all your soul, it may not show itself in an absolutely perfect life without the occurrence of actual sin. But those things were more attributed to the continuing reality of life in the flesh.

Now, that doesn't mean you could be moving along in your sanctified life, progressing to the point where you could be quantifiably seen as sanctified and then suddenly fall into overt drunkenness or some other sin against the Ten Commandments in that respect. Denying God and denying service to one's neighbor. That would be seen as a case of falling away, of outright sinfulness that then would require a return to God, a commitment to his will and work at returning to the sanctified state that one had vacated by virtue of these actions.

Now, what I mean by this is the occasional word that is out of place. The occasional thought that is misdirected. These things in and of themselves do not compromise one's perfection. But rather, they show that one is still living within the flesh.

Now, here is the question: How do you determine when one is guilty of simply an occasional action and one has fallen into overt sin once again? Now, the standard, of course, is the -- are the actions of the individual person. What does your life look like? What characterizes it?

And here again the method comes into play. One of the things the Methodists do is develop classes or groups of people that are mutually accountable to one another with a leader who oversees the progress and sanctification on the part of the whole group. And one is accountable to one's peers within this group. So that your actions are watched by your compatriots. And you, in turn, watch theirs.

There's a mutual sense of accountability here. So that one maintains the will of God as revealed in the Bible. And practices it in a very concrete way. The assumption, you can hide certain things from certain people. But you can't hide everything from them all the time.

You can see what might happen here. With these different groups of people. What if one group is not convinced that another group is actually carrying out their sanctified life to the extent that they should. There their leadership would be criticized in that particular little group by the leader in the population of the other group.

And what this does then is begin to encourage a certain competition between various groups. Are you truly sanctified? Or are you only partially sanctified? Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior? Or have you simply accepted him as your Savior?

What emerges over the course of the 19th Century is an idea of a second work of grace. That is to say there is a general or prevenient grace, this is what Wesley taught, that characterized the experience of all human people. God in his grace through the Book of Nature reveals himself so that all people should know, should seek the one true God.

Now, one doesn't come to knowledge of that one true God until one hears the message of Christ crucified and risen again preached. At which point one must make the decision, must have the experience, that initiates the Christian life.

However, at that point, said later Methodists or Wesleyans as they came later to be called, at that point one has simply received Christ as Savior. It's true. Your sins are forgiven. You do have a place in heaven. But that place in heaven will be limited in terms of its scope. That is to say you can get in on the lowest level or be at the seats that are in the farthest back. But you're in. So that's good. But the truly Christian person desires to fulfill the will of God in if their life. To seek progress and sanctification. And so will pursue the revealed will of God with all possible intent.

The result from that is that the Spirit visits with a second work of grace that kind of bumps the person up to a new level of sanctification, a much more purified, sanctified, and one might even say in this case perfect life. The result is that there's a distinction made between Christians, non-Christians on the one hand, and then within Christians, those who believe in Christ as Savior but those who have experienced him truly as Lord. And the ones who have experienced him truly as Lord are then enabled -- particularly enabled to fulfill the revealed will of God.

Now, as the 1800s go on, many Methodists say: That goes too far. That's well beyond anything we're intending. What we're looking for is conversion. What we're trying to do is bring about the inclusion of as many people into the kingdom of God as possible.

What Wesleyans or Holiness leaders began to say at this point is that that does not finish what God intends. It starts it, yes. But it doesn't finish it. And the division emerges between a more main line Methodist and the Holiness thinkers, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, who put tremendous emphasis on the necessity of this clean living or right living in accordance with the revealed will of God. And policing and disciplining those who do not fulfill the revealed will of God.

The manner in which then you can see and quantify whether a person has received that second work of grace, whether the Holy Spirit is truly at work in their lives, is their sanctification. Not surprisingly, that becomes the great goal for many of these people. The all consuming reality for many of the folks within this particular tradition. And the emphasis will increasingly be on that particular point, fulfilling the revealed will of God and disciplining those in love and in the hope that they will pursue these things all the more. But nonetheless, disciplining those who have not achieved that particular state.

It's an important shift, an important move. It stratifies the churches and leads to the emergence of certain new traditions here in the American Christian scene. And it will continue to have an effect not only within the existing denominations but in the emergence of even other denominations here in the United States.

No. 48.

>> You know, Dr. Rast, this whole discussion of a second work of grace sounds so much like what I've heard from Pentecostals and Charismatics. Am I right in this?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Nick, you're absolutely right. You're right on the money in this respect. This movement, the charismatic Pentecostal movement in the 20th Century is a direct outgrowth of the Holiness movement before. And the Wesleyan Methodist movement previous to that. There's a real development over the course of about 200 years that leads finally to the Pentecostal movement and then its impact on the more main line churches through the charismatic movement.

But what's the difference? Well, you'll recall this discussion we were just having, Nick, of this second work of grace. That one has Jesus as Savior by virtue of one's conversion experience. But then a second work of grace, a second experience moves one up to a -- to another level. Another level. Where Jesus becomes one's Lord, as well. The Lord of one's life. And that then is demonstrated through this sanctified living.

Well, in the Pentecostal tradition, this takes on a somewhat different character. And the manner in which it expresses itself is really quite remarkable. In the year 1906 at a little tabernacle revival church on Azusa Street in Los Angeles, California, there was an outbreak, a remarkable set of evidences, if you will, of the presence of the Holy Spirit. And if that language sounds familiar, mainly in terms of Cane Ridge, I hope you do make that connection. It should.

But what you have is a new interpretation of the second work of grace that emerges from the great Azusa Street Revival. Namely, that the initial evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the believer's life is evidenced by speaking in tongues. ***Glossa lang.

Now, this is a move from the older notion of complete sanctification or entire sanctification being the result of the second work of grace. This instead, locates one's move to having Jesus as Lord by virtue of the presence of the Spirit, which then is given evidence by actions on the part of the human subject. Particularly in terms of receiving this heavenly prayer language as its sometimes called. Now, like the earlier Holiness movement, this is not the last of the Spirit's gifts necessarily. It's simply the initial evidence that one has received the second work of grace.

People who have experienced this describe it in a variety of ways. Pat Robertson, for example, we talk about how he was one day simply enveloped in a gold like cloud following which he had this ability to speak in tongues and to commit himself to the Lord in a new way, in a powerful way. Others would put it with different kinds of imagery. But what became the touch point, the key moment, was this giving of the gift. So that one could speak in this unknown language.

Other gifts might then follow upon it as one nurtured and sustained this gift of the Spirit that had been given to miraculously. Gifts like discernment, prophesying and others would come to characterize the person who was cultivating this life in the Spirit.

The greater the cultivation, the greater number of gifts. And those with particular gifts, healing, for example, would then become evidence of the possibilities that were laid out before all Christian people. But that few achieved. It became a way of encouraging others to follow in the footsteps of those who had gone before.

Now, there would also be the downside to it. That is, there were those who simply didn't receive the gifts. And the law part of this then begins to come out: Why haven't I received the gift of tongues? Or if I've received that gift, why not the other gifts? How do I pursue these? How do I cultivate them? How do I see them to be realized in my own experience, in my own life?

One of the unfortunate results is kind of an inward turning that characterized many of these folks. And as a pastor, I did deal with people who had gone through this very difficult reality. That is to say they received a first work of grace. They believed the teachings of the Scripture. They believed that Jesus Christ had died and risen again to take away their sins. But they had been desperately waiting for this second work of grace, the initial evidence of which was speaking in tongues. And in never seem to come. It never came; it never came.

And I would oftentimes hear them appeal to me: Pastor, I just want to hear God speak to me once again and give me this kind of language that others seem to have. To which I would turn them back to the Scriptures and say: Hear the voice of your shepherd. Here it is. He speaks to you a Word of grace and comfort. Your sins are forgiven. You are my own dear can child. And I have gone onto prepare a place for you.

It's really a matter of drawing the attention out from themselves and putting it onto Christ. But what oftentimes became the case in the 20th Century and in many of the churches was a new kind of talk. Namely, that where we had seen great emphasis in the early church on God the Father and in the Reformation period on God the Son, the Holy Spirit had not been given his proper due over the course of church history. And that as we moved into the 20th Century, this was the century of the Spirit and emphasis upon him.

Some of the great preachers of that century were folks that had committed themselves deeply to this message. I could use any number of them. But two that come to mind. Aimee Semple McPherson, preacher and founder of the Foursquare Gospel Church. Her point was the church had preached Christ well over the ages but had not given the four square Gospel, the full Gospel, of healing, of gifts, of life in the Spirit. She said the preaching had been sufficient to create Christians. But insufficient to make complete Christians.

Others would emphasize this in a different direction. The Seed Faith movement was often tied in within the Pentecostal churches. So that the idea was that if one made a deposit well beyond what one was able to provide by virtue of present day gifts, then one would, in fact, receive a super abundant gift in response.

With a do I mean? Well, Seed Faith would say you must exercise your faith if you would go to the next level. You must exercise your faith in order to release the abundance of the Spirit in your life.

The way it played itself out was usually in terms of financial gifts. So for example, the TV preacher, Robert Tilton, would say over and over again: If you have $1,000, that's not enough. Give 1500. You must give more than you have as an act of faith to release the ultimate gift of the Spirit. If you do, said these Seed Faith preachers, you will receive in turn double. The covenantal action of God demands that he respond at least double in terms of what you have given.

Well, there are plenty of other ways that we can take a look at this. There are more how shall we say main line Pentecostal denominations that have experienced tremendous growth and have connected with people in profound ways over the course of the 20th Century.

The Assemblies of God is simply one that comes immediately to mind. Others are evident, as well. The Church of God, for example. Cleveland, Tennessee. But also the Church of God in Anderson, Indiana. Plenty of different denominations that it find themselves in this particular extreme, particular tradition.

What's especially difficult with these groups to identify is a single common confessional statement. It's simply not there. What emerges, however, is a common practice, a common experience. And a common vocabulary describing God's work particularly through the presence of the Spirit. And from that we extrapolate then, the centrality, the material principle of the Pentecostal movement, which is the experience of the Holy Spirit evidenced through speaking in tongues.

But think about it in the bigger picture, if you would. In terms of what we've been discussing over -- well, a long time with Calvinism and then Arminianism. Calvinism with its fatalistic predestination that sets a person in their track. And always leaving them with that question mark: Where am I?

And the answer of the Arminians saying: The choice is yours. You can make the decision about where you end up. But when you will evidence that decision on the basis of your sanctified life. We can quantify, if you will, the workings of the Spirit in the carrying out of the sanctified life.

And then the Pentecostals say that we can even identify that more firmly through the spiritual gifts that attend the presence of the Spirit, the main one being speaking in tongues.

In many ways the message that's been brought forward does carry forward the Gospel of Christ. Does bring his atoning work forward so that the Holy Spirit can work through that.

What I often find tragic in this particular case, though, in these developments, is the manner in which the determination of those who are in or out or those who have made the right choice and, therefore, are converted is often so inwardly turned using the referent point as the individual subject. Rather than the objective and clear Word of the Gospel. The message of the Scripture that comes through clearly at every point that God so loved the world that he gave his Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

The great gift we have as preachers in the Lutheran Church is to clearly proclaim that unconditional Gospel trust. That he has fulfilled God's law in every point for us, more clearly, for you and for me. That he has suffered the penalty for sin once and for all. For me and for you. And that he is risen triumphantly for our justification and ascended to the right hand of God. From whence he will come again to raise the quick and the dead to gather us to himself as his own dear children.

The clear Gospel of Christ. And as those engrafted into him, connected to Christ the vine, we have the assurance of life everlasting in his gracious presence.

No. 49.

>> Please forgive me if I'm taking us in a new direction too soon. But I have a question that has piqued my interest for quite some time. Most of the churches in Cleveland have what they call an ecumenical thanksgiving service. Some of the pastors involved appear to place great emphasis on being ecumenical. Even the ELCA pastor speaks with great enthusiasm about there being only one church. Suggesting the old lines of denominational distinction are passe. What does ecumenical really mean? And what are the dangers involved?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: No, David, it's not too soon to ask that question. In fact, in light of the discussion we've been having here recently, I think it's exactly the right kind of question to ask.

You look at all of these different denominations that emerge in America by the middle part of the 1800s. And you say: How do you keep all of these straight? And does each one of them claim to be the only true church? And if you're not part of that church, you're not part of Christ's church?

It really began to create a problem for Christians here in America, this division of Synods and church bodies. And traditions. And confessions that began to overwhelm things by the middle part of the 1800s.

So some folks began to say: Maybe we should take a step back at this point and think a little more broadly about what's involved in being church. And in fact, it's during this period of time that the word denomination really comes to the forefront.

Afterall, think about the word. We've discussed it before. But denomination. Name. How do you denominate yourself? What do you call yourself?

And some folks within the Christian tradition more broadly speaking began to say as differently named parts of the church, perhaps we should look for ways to work together. To recognize one another's ministries. To recognize the common faith that we all share. Rather than emphasizing the differences that drive us apart.

Now, this was nothing new in the Christian church. In fact, going back into the 1600s, we even see evidence of this concern in the Lutheran tradition. And certain Lutheran theologians, probably the most famous of then all being Johann Gerhard would make a distinction between what they call fundamental and non-fundamental doctrines.

Fundamental doctrines being those which were clearly taught in the Bible and which were necessary to be known and believed if one were to be saved. And non-fundamental doctrines, doctrines about which there was some diversion of opinion and which were not absolutely necessary to be known to be saved.

Now, Gerhard would say, the Lutheran church holds both fundamental and non-fundamental doctrines in their entirety and in their purity. So that the Lutheran Church does confess the one true faith as the Scriptures teach it.

But, he would say, there are other churches that teach fundamental doctrines, as well. And as a result, there can be Christians in other confessions, in our traditions. In other words, Gerhard wanted to avoid saying only Lutherans could be saved. And he was right to do that.

But in the wake of Gerhard, particularly in the wake of the Thirty Years' War where you had a war that was fought over confession, over belief, among and between Christians. In the wake of the Thirty Years' War a certain Lutheran theologian by the name of ***Gaorg Kolext said: Let's approach this distinction a little bit differently.

That is to say if you are willing to recognize that other traditions hold to fundamental doctrines, then shouldn't that be enough for you to recognize that they are, in fact, Christian? And that there should be some kind of recognition, some kind of interrelationship between the churches that hold to these fundamental doctrines.

While it's true we may not agree on the non-fundamental points, they remain just that. Non-fundamental. Thus, focusing on the fundamental, perhaps we could find a way to work together at the very least, even if we weren't able to achieve union. That is to bring back together the Lutherans, the Reformed and the Roman Catholics. He chiefly thought in the terms of those three traditions.

In other words, to recognize one another's ministry, one another's sacraments, even if we did not explicitly practice fellowship with one another and didn't remerge immediately. But rather, offer opportunities for ongoing discussion that would allow for reproach between these various traditions.

Some welcomed Kolext's emphases. Others were resistant to them saying he was compromising the faith. But his themes began to be picked up once again in the mid 19th Century here in America. And one of the people who picked up these particular themes was a well known Lutheran theologian. His name was Samuel Simon Schmucker. 1799 to 1873 are his dates. He taught for many, many years, 1826 to 1864 at the Lutheran theological seminary at Gettysburg.

Schmucker wanted to find a way for Lutherans and other Christians in America to relate to one another. In fact, he is -- his hopes were more pronounced than Kolext's two centuries earlier. What Schmucker hoped for was literal reunion of the various Protestant churches here in America.

But unlike Kolext, Schmucker did not include Roman Catholics within the scope of his works. He thought that they were beyond the pail of what should be recognized as Christian. He simply rejected out of hand.

On the other hand, said Schmucker, we should find a way for us to recognize one another both doctrinally and in practice. And in doing so we will bring about the reunion of the church and he believed, also, the dawn of the millennial age.

Now, that's quite a purpose to have in life. And he attempted to achieve this by two means. First off, in 1838, he published a book, a little book. It came to be referred to by the title of "The Fraternal Appeal to the American Churches." And in this booklet he described the process of recognizing one another noticing amongst one another the fundamental doctrines that were held in common. And then affirming one another and fellowshipping with one another on the basis of those fundamental doctrines.

In other words, he said we hold the basics together already. Now let's identify what those are, affirm them with one another and practice fellowship on the basis of them.

To help achieve this, he actually developed a new document within this book, "The Fraternal Appeal." He published what he called the Apostolic Protestant Confession. And basically what he did in this text was to take statements from a variety of Protestant confessions, from the Reformation and post Reformation periods, and string them together in such a fashion as to develop one unified confession that had elements from a variety of confessions.

So for example, he would take a statement from the Lutheran Augsburg Confession on the doctrine of justification. Follow it with a statement on justification from the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglicans. The Westminster Confession of the Presbyterians. The Methodist Articles of Religion. The Moravian confession, et cetera.

Thereby allowing each reader to recognize their own doctrinal heritage in the confession as well as affirming statements of their confession from other Protestant confessions. Thereby demonstrating we're all in fundamental agreement.

He was not received all that well in this respect. Simply because it was said: You've produced yet another text. We don't really need another text. We have lots of texts already. Perhaps it would be better simply to focus on what we already have at hand.

In response, Schmucker turned to the Apostles' Creed as the basic statement of the church's faith. And then looked at the other creeds of the Protestant churches as supplemental and explanatory discourses on that Apostles' Creed.

However, what he also recognized was that in these other creeds, there were a variety of things that were taught, some of which were already agreed upon. Some of which diverged dramatically.

And so in his later work, he began a series of comparative symbolic works in which he would simply take one confession and place it upon another. In fact, ultimately what he did was to take all the basic confessions of the Protestant traditions, like the Augsburg Confession, the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Westminster Confession, Cambridge Platform and all of these various texts that we've been discussing at various points in this class, place them on top of one another and then point out that in these texts there was already a tremendous amount of agreement.

Here comes the fundamental move for him. For these points upon which there is pre-existing agreement, these points, said Schmucker, are fundamental. And they are biblical. Points of agreement are fundamental and therefore, biblical.

The points of disagreement between the various Protestant churches are non-fundamental and, therefore, not biblical. And as such, he said, every tradition should take a look at its confession. Find those points where it is teaching distinctively and differently from the other Protestant churches. And work to correct its confession. To bring it in line with the fundamental teachings of Scripture.

Thus, for example, he would say to the Presbyterians and taking their Westminster Confession: Your teaching regarding double predestination is unique, distinctive, to you. And as such, it is neither biblical nor fundamental. If you would like to be a biblical and fundamental church, and most did in the mid 1800s, then you should correct these errors.

Baptists with their emphasis on the subject and mode of baptism. Adult subject. Mode being immersion. Schmucker said the other churches baptize infants and use a variety of methods of applying water. All of which are valid. Therefore, the Baptists should correct their errors in their confession. If, again, they want to be a biblical and fundamental church.

Now, not surprisingly folks said to him: Well, what about the Lutherans? What are their issues? And he answered there are five problems Lutheranism has.

It does not teach the divine requirement of the Sabbath. And so that should be added to Lutheran doctrine and practice. And then in terms of four further points, he said these should be rejected. Namely, the Lutheran teaching of the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar. Baptismal regeneration. Private confession and absolution. And fourth and finally, the ceremonies of the mass or the use of the older liturgical forms. These, Schmucker said, should be excised from Lutheranism. So one point added. Four points removed. For a total of five.

Schmucker's approach I think is the key point as we talk about ecumenism. He was struggling to find commonalty. And having identified that, he said in regard to the secondary or the non-fundamental doctrines, it's not necessary that these be excised immediately or corrected on the spot. But rather, that the churches all be working towards purification and correction.

In the interim, on the basis of the already shared fundamental doctrines, said Schmucker, we should declare church fellowship between ourselves. Since we already have that doctrinally speaking, let's simply put it into practice.

At a meeting in 1846 of the so-called evangelical alliance, Schmucker is present. Other theologians from around the world are present, as well. And they begin to make this argument: Many see this meeting of the Evangelical Alliance as the beginning of the Modern Ecumenical Movement. Trying to find a way, a variety of ways, of commonalty and expression of that commonalty in practice.

Now, as the years proceed, there are any number of further expressions of this ecumenical posture. That is a general acceptance of the various churches on a variety of platforms. And we'll talk about a few as we make our way through the next bit of questions.

But for our purposes here, let me just draw this further to the present. Schmucker was trying to establish ecumenism on the basis of shared fundamental teachings. Over time what emerged was that most churches were not ready to give up their distinctive teachings and doctrines. And so as the 20th Century proceeded, Schmucker's fundamental doctrines approach was often and ultimately replaced by a perspective that was called reconciled diversity. In which churches recognized the basic agreement they shared. But allowed for continued diversity in a number of other points.

That is to say they were allowed to read the Bible as they saw fit simply reconciling themselves as those in the faith. But allowing for diversity of opinions. In fact, as the modern ecumenical movement developed, many people would say: It's impossible for all to believe or think alike. And in fact, it's necessary that we have a variety of churches to fill the niches, if you will, of the various human perspectives that emerge as people read the Scriptures. So reconciled diversity became in many ways the order of the day.

Still there are efforts towards some kind of resolution of this ongoing division within the church. And leading up towards the year immediately following World War II, there are strenuous activities on the part of many, including many Lutherans, to try to bring about some platform for there to be agreement and work together within the various churches.

In 1948 this finds fruition, especially in the World Council of Churches. An important organization that has functioned as the ecumenical front for helping the churches recognize one another and work together. Oftentimes the WCC, as it is called, has downplayed the doctrinal differences between the various traditions. And ultimately has reduced these to very few saying that it is enough for the various traditions to recognize the baptism of the various churches, its application and practice of the Eucharist and the fact that there is a ministry present. These things being present, that is recognizably enough within the broader scope of biblical tradition and teaching for there to be church fellowship.

Now, obviously not everybody agrees. There are a variety of ecumenical postures that we see in the present. In fact, here in the United States the evangelical Lutheran Church in America has worked very hard at developing relationships with a variety of other Christian bodies.

In 1997, the ELCA declared fellowship, for example, with several of the Reformed churches. The Presbyterian Church USA. Reformed Church in America. And the United Church of Christ. It also later on entered into a fellowship agreement with the Moravian church. A few years after that, the Episcopal Church. It was very active in dialogue with the Roman Catholics in respect to the joint declaration on the doctrine of justification. And continues to work with Methodism in regard to trying to establish a formal relationship there, as well. Very active ecumenically.

In one respect, however, and as you ask the question: What are the dangers of this? I think this comes out particularly in two of the relationships I described before in the ELCA. Specifically in the joint declaration on the doctrine of justification with the Roman Catholics. And also the formula of agreement with the Reformed.

In JDDJ -- if you've not had an opportunity to read it, you will soon. In JDDJ, the language of justification being the central article of the faith, the article on which the church stands or falls, the material principle, if you will, that language is compromised by the ELCA as it talks about justification by grace through faith as "a" way of talking about salvation rather than "the" way of describing it. There the Lutherans have given up an enormously important point in terms of their own biblical and doctrinal heritage. And that we'll need to discuss at some length.

On the other hand, when it comes to the Formula of Agreement with the Reformed, there are some problematic elements of that document, as well. For example, differences within the two traditions as to the nature of the presence of Christ in the celebration of the sacrament are recognized and simply taken as such. That is to say here we have an example of reconciled diversity.

A fundamental doctrinal consensus -- those are direct words out of the Formula of Agreement. A fundamental doctrinal consensus is recognized. But that is not seen to extend to the manner that Christ is present in the Eucharist. The result being that the document will say in order for there to be fullness in terms of the church's witness, we really need both positions. So in a way in the Formula of Agreement, you actually see the remnants of the old Schmucker fundamental consensus coming forward as well as the reality of reconciled diversity. So those old patterns continue to impact the way the church functions ecumenically.

Our own Missouri Synod has been much more strident in the way that it relates to other church bodies. Lutheran and otherwise. Stating that prior to there being fellowship with another church body formally decreed, that it's necessary to be agreed fully in doctrine and practice.

Many have said that that shows a certain arrogance on the part of the Missouri Synod. I hope that we don't fall into that. Or into some kind of triumphalistic idea that we alone are the church. That's not what we are hoping for to occur on the basis of our actual positions in this regard. But what we, indeed, hope to do is remain faithful in our confession and hold up our reading of the Scriptures in such a fashion as to make a good and faithful confession before the world so that Christ may be held forth, elevated and kept at the center of all things.

I don't know if we've always done the best we can in terms of engaging other Christians in dialogue. And there may be room for us to make better efforts in the future. Certainly that would always be appropriate. At the same time as we go forward making these dialogues and engaging in them, it would be most appropriate, also, to hold faithfully to our biblical position.

It's a difficult thing to do. Very challenging. And to do so in such a fashion as always not to promote ourselves and our own positions. But rather, to hold forth Christ and the truth of the Scriptures. It's a challenging thing, as I said. But one to which I'm convinced our Lord calls us. I hope we can be faithful and aggressive and bold in achieving both of those ends.

No. 50.

>> Dr. Rast, your discussion is very helpful. I appreciate the time you've taken to help us explore ecumenism. While you were speaking, a related question occurred to me. When a pastor from one of the more ecumenical congregations encourages turning a blind eye to denominational distinctions in favor of unity, do you think he completely ignores the high probability of differing hermeneutics? Could we take just a few minutes to review the biblical criticism employed by the groups we've discussed so far?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Now you've put your finger on something exceptionally important here, David. In fact, towards the latter part of my last answer, I underscored the differences of opinion on how to proceed ecumenically among Lutherans. And some of those differences emerge from deeply held commitments on the part of both groups that have proceeded from the way they read the Scriptures in the first place.

Afterall, if we even think back to a guy like Samuel Schmucker, his conviction that the real presence of Christ, the teaching of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament was a mistake reflects his own reading of the Bible. In fact, as Schmucker would put it, he said there were three positions in the history of the church in regard to the presence of Christ.

There was the Roman Catholic position that taught Transubstantiation. That is that the bread and wine were literally changed into the body and blood of Christ. So that bread and wine did not remain. Only the accidents, as we've discussed before. This he said was medieval Rome's position. So he also said it was the position of Luther with a little vocabulary fine tuning.

The second position, said Schmucker, was that of John Calvin. And Calvin's position was such a strange teaching. This ascending defeat on Christ located at the right hand of the Father by faith to feed on his glorified human nature spiritually speaking, Schmucker said: That's so strange, nobody believes it. Even Calvin's followers.

The third position, he said, was the Pauline position, the position of Saint Paul which was best captured by Ulrich Zwingli. Namely, that there was a symbolic representation in the practice of the Lord's Supper that excited the mind, the cognition, of the participant. And that alone, said Schmucker, was the biblical position.

Well, again, he came to those positions in his own mind. I don't think he was right, by the way. But he came to those positions in his own mind by his reading of the Bible. And he read the Bible in a certain way.

He was very much a devotee of Scottish common sense realism that said things are what they seem. Therefore, one could not say if you looked at the host and at the chalice that it was body and blood because clearly, it tasted like bread. It tasted like wine. It smelled like bread. Smelled like wine. Functioned like bread. Functioned like wine. Therefore, it had to be bread and wine. It could not be this it mysterious body and blood. However, one described it, either spiritually, transubstantially or in Luther's idea of a sacramental presence. It just couldn't be. The senses taught otherwise.

And as a result, his philosophical commitments actually ran the way he interpreted the Bible. Thus, the word is, though its clearly used by Jesus at the Lord's Supper, could not mean is for him. It had to mean represents. Even though Jesus never said that. He said that has to be the meaning there. Hermeneutics were, in fact, driving the way he interpreted the Scriptures.

Those hermeneutics have been of a various kind, especially since Schmucker -- and I'll make this point regarding him as clearly as I can. He was a committed Bible believer. He believed the Bible was God's Word. Without error. Without any problem. He simply accepted it as such.

However, there were other interpreters in the 1800s who began to take hermeneutics into a different direction. In fact, especially in the year 1835, an important event occurs in the history of biblical interpretation. A book is published by David Friedrich Strauss called "Leben Jesu", "The Life of Jesus."

And in this book, Strauss says: We must treat the Scriptures as we've received them, specifically the gospels, like any other humanly authored work. That means what we find in them are the perspectives, commitments, philosophies, hopes, dreams of certain human authors.

There's not some mysterious kind of inspiration going on where these are different than other works. They are simply like any other human book. And as such we know authors write in certain ways with certain commitments and with certain purposes.

And in the New Testament document, specifically in the gospels themselves, said Strauss, we see these prejudices and assumptions coming out in various ways. Particularly as stories about Jesus, vesting his life with the unique character, begin to come to the forefront.

So, for example, in order to give Jesus a certain authority, both in the church and outside of it for the sake of its proclamation, early church followers of Jesus began to say certain things about his life and his ministry. That perhaps, and very likely, did not happen in fact.

For example, the story of Jesus being born of a virgin. A miraculous birth unlike any other human being's birth that would immediately set him apart and give him a unique status that no other human being has had in the history of the human race. And then in the Gospel stories themselves, stories of miracles, stories of wondrous events that surrounded him. Stories of him being able to know the hearts and minds of those with whom he interacts.

All of these, again, giving him a certain status and authority so that the words reportedly coming from his mouth will have then, in turn, an authority on those who hear them read within the context of the church. And in the church's missionary proclamation.

The death story, the atoning death of Christ, paying for the sins of the world, the resurrection story, the ascension into heaven, all of these, said Strauss, show the influence not so much of historical fact. But more so of what the early Christians either hoped for in Jesus or had developed on their own in terms of reflection upon the life of Jesus.

Thus, said Strauss, the key to interpreting the gospels is the hermeneutical concept of myth. And what the myths give us are not historical facts. But rather, they indicate what it was that the early church authors. The Gospel writers, hoped for in regard to the Christ. Or invested into him as Messiah and Savior.

To put it just a little bit differently, the gospels are not so much the historical record of the life and ministry of Jesus. Rather, they tell us more about what the early church believed about Jesus or wanted to believe about Jesus. Whether they happened or not was not the point. In fact, in Strauss's mind, they probably did not.

In the wake of Strauss, many picked up this theme. In fact, there were others who had already been working with this theme previous to him. But it becomes a dominant theme in German -- the German educational system in the mid 1800s. And German higher criticism, as it comes to be called, tends to dominate from this point forward. As a result, you can imagine every claim made on the basis of the Bible can then be challenged to a greater or lesser extent. There are a variety of approaches that are advanced in terms of how best to carry this off to get at what Jesus really said. And in fact, by the latter part of the 1800s, there is a search for the historical Jesus that's going on. And a distinction is made between the man Jesus and the Christ of faith. The man Jesus who really lived, worked, being largely inaccessible behind a myriad of mythical stories about him that comprise the story of the Christ of faith.

Well, what do you preach then if these things, perhaps, are true or are not true? Later in the 20th Century Rudolph Boltman would say: Again, that kind of question misses the point. The point is not whether these things are true or not. The key is the kerigma, the proclamation itself. And as long as the proclamation remains intact, it accomplishes who God desires for it. Namely, the message of hope creates hope wherever it is proclaimed. Whether it happened or not. Whether, say, for example, Jesus actually turned water into wine is not the point. But the message of Jesus turning water into wine produces hope and faith in a person who hears it. And that's the key. Not historical fact. But the result of proclamation.

Well, you can imagine then that there might be a diversion of opinion on exactly what this means in terms of the various teachings of the Scripture. In other words, what may be myth for one is held to as historical fact for another. The result, of course, is it's very difficult for the various churches to come to any agreement on this.

For many in the tradition that we share, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, these are, in fact, historical events that are recorded in the Scriptures. And they are kerigmatic, proclamatory, carrying forward the Gospel message. Not as though the two are at odds with one another. But support one another mutually.

And that, in fact, the entire Scriptures are given by God for us so that we may read, mark and inwardly digest them. Convinced and committed to their clarity. That is that the Scriptures speak clearly in respect to the reality of human sin. The work of Christ on behalf of human beings in conquering that sin. And the application of the merits of Christ through the proclamation of the Word and the administration of the sacraments.

A church body like ours with commitments like those can find it difficult to be in conversation with others who do not see these as truth and as fact. And that's part of the reason for the tensions we noted in our last answer as we talked about the ongoing ecumenical process. That contributes to the tension. But it also gives us a great opportunity I think, once again, to hold up that Christ who truly was born of the virgin, lived life perfectly for us, suffered, died, rose again and ascended for our salvation.

Will the differences go away? Not any time soon I don't think. But until we capture the basics of this and understand that we're talking about matters of biblical interpretation, hermeneutics, we will find it very difficult I believe to engage in a meaningful discussion.

However, being cognizant of that, we can approach conversations with those -- Christians of other and differing commitments with a clear confession of Christ. And that we should do always and often.

No. 51.

>> Thanks for that, Professor Rast. I feel like I'm getting a handle on the ecumenical movement for the first time. Please tell me, are there any ecumenical churches in our country today?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Yes, there are, Josh. In fact, there are certain traditions that go back a long way that will define themselves intentionally as ecumenical. One of the foremost in this regard is the Moravian Church.

Now, the Moravian Church has its roots way, way back. In fact, they trace their roots all the way back to the reforms of Jan Hus. Some cases even earlier than that. 100 years before Luther. In which you had a Reforming Movement that was in some ways similar to things that would come along a little bit later on with Luther.

For example, putting emphasis on receiving the sacrament of both kinds. Vernacular preaching and reading of the Scriptures and things of that sort.

Well, the reception of the Hussites or the Brethren, as they came to be called, was not any more positive than what the Lutherans would later experience. In fact, you might even say it was worse. Jan Hus himself was burned at the stake by the Council of Constance in the early 1400s. His followers were in large measure repressed, driven underground. And there they removed for about 300 years. Meeting in smaller groups. Always on the margin legality. And with the threat of the state hanging over them.

Many, many years later there was a change of government. And they were driven out of their homes. And they sought refuge on the estates of a remarkable gentleman. A man by the name of Nikolaus Ludwig, Count von Zinzendorf.

Zinzendorf, as I said, remarkable individual. Who had been born in Saxony. As a Lutheran was baptized. And in fact, his godfather was Philipp Jakob Spener, one of the leaders of Lutheran pietism.

Zinzendorf himself grew up hoping to become a pastor. Studied theology. Was preparing for the ministry in a sense. But also had responsibility to his family and to their vast estate. And as such, was precluded, at least officially speaking, from moving into a formal ministerial position in the particular setting in which he found himself.

The result being he was a bit frustrated. And so when this group of religious exiles, these Hussite Brethren, were looking for a place to stay came to his attention, he invited them to settle on his familiar lands called Herrnhut in Saxon. And as a result, those sometimes called the unitas fratrum, the United Brethren, this group is also referred to as the Herrnhutters. And just to make it all the more confusing, because they had their roots in Moravia, they are sometimes called Moravians.

The point of the matter being, this group has been expelled, settled on Zinzendorf's land. And ultimately they name him as their pastor and their bishop.

Now, this is a tremendous point for Zinzendorf. From early on in his life, Zinzendorf has been seeking Christian unity. And the appearance of these -- the unitas fratrum, these Hussites, these Brethren, opens up new possibilities for him. In fact, over time they name him as their bishop. And he sees within this little embattled community the first opportunities for realizing a truly ecumenical church. What he is most interested in is finding the fundamental teaching, the basic reality of the Christian faith. And for him that ultimately will be the wounds and blood of Jesus. All who trust in the wounds and blood of Jesus as the people are God.

Later on he'll write an enormously famous hymn, influential and rather beautiful hymn on this particular point. "Jesus, Thy blood and righteousness. My beauty are my glorious dress." That's Zinzendorf speaking about this most basic teaching of Christianity. So he's willing to be embracing if peopled hold to that fundamental point. Recognizing that there will be diversity of opinions in other matters. But stating by virtue of the work of the Spirit which draws us together in the context of the wounds and blood of Christ, we can at the very least recognize one another as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Now, he's in Saxony. One of the Lutheran strongholds in Germany. And many of the Lutheran pastors are not all that thrilled about this doctrinal minimalism as they see it. Where is the robust confession of Trinity? Where is the confession of the two natures in Christ? His person. His work. What about teachings regarding the Lord's Supper, the presence of Christ and so forth? To Zinzendorf these are largely marginal. Tangential. To many Lutherans, these are the center of the Lutheran confession. And thus, Zinzendorf, appearing to be a Lutheran of sorts, oftentimes draws their fire.

He actually seeks ordination in order to, if you will, give himself a certain establishment and authority over against the other preachers. But Lutherans in Saxony refuse. He is ultimately approved for ministry by the University of Tubingen. But he is disallowed formal ordination in his home Saxony. In the end he overcomes that problem by arguing that he has been self ordained, or better yet, ordained by Christ by virtue of the responsibility given him by this community of Herrnhutters. But ongoing tensions between you and the other Lutherans, between you and the state, finally lead to his becoming disabused of the notion of believing this can happen in Germany. In fact, in the early 1740s, he actually makes his way to the American colonies.

And there, with other Moravian leadership as they are now becoming called, established several colonies in Pennsylvania and what later is North Carolina. In Pennsylvania, let will he hem and later Nazarite are established as Moravian colonies. In the south, Salem is established, also, as a Moravian colony. And in these they try and welcome all who hold to the wounds and blood of Jesus and trust there in him, downplaying doctrinal differences at every other point. This is enough, says Zinzendorf. This is what is truly essential. And as time goes by, the Moravians will be known for this particular phrase, one they help popularize. Namely, in essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.

Thus, to be in fellowship with the Moravian Church, one need not become a Moravian. One could, in fact, remain in one's current denomination and still be considered a Moravian in good standing. Thus, you could be a Lutheran Moravian, a Methodist Moravian, an Anglican Moravian and so forth. The membership is not the key, as they see it. Rather, the recognition and the visible and practical expressions of fellowship. Those are the keys.

Thus, if you were to visit say the web site of the Moravian Church here in America, you would see them underscoring their ecumenical posture and their welcoming and embracing perspective. This will be, for them, definitional. This will be, in fact, the material principle, their ecumenical posture. Expressed, once again, in that phrase: In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.

But they are not alone. There are other churches, as well, that will pick up that theme. And several of them will have a terrific impact on the American scene. Though they'll take their theology in a little bit different direction.

No. 52.

>> So the Ecumenical Movement has a tie to Lutheranism. I must admit, phrases like "agreement in essentials" and words like unity, et cetera, sound familiar to me. I have a friend here in LA who is a member of a Christian Church. I think the Disciples of Christ is the official name. And he used these words and phrases on several occasions. Would you tell us about his tradition?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: What we find as we look at the history of Christianity here in America and at the American religious scene more broadly speaking is that this Moravian scene of in essentials, unity and non-essentials, liberty, and all things, charity, that this thing becomes pervasive. And that many, many of the churches, even if they don't embrace the Moravian ecumenical program, nonetheless, they embrace that particular theme.

And in one respect there's a group clustered around two leaders that emerges that really carries this to its extreme and makes this definitional for themselves as a group. Though as they develop, they begin to express it in more and more particular and unique ways.

The group I'm talking about is the cluster of traditions, referred to variously as the Christian Church, Disciples of Christ, the Church of Christ and the Churches of Christ. These three groups emerge from the early 19th Century Ecumenical Movement led largely by one name we've already heard. Namely, Barton Warren Stone, who was part of the Cane Ridge Revival. And then a remarkable Irishman who was formally part of the Presbyterian Church but comes to America and transforms this tradition. Namely, Alexander Campbell. These two would give form and shape to this particular tradition.

This movement, which, again, began within the Presbyterian tradition, will later on be referred to as the Restorationist Movement in American Christianity. What they proposed to do was literally restore New Testament biblical Christianity in the 19th Century American setting.

Now, obviously that assumed that none of the existing churches rightly held to the biblical witness. And that was simply a given that emerged as the tradition developed.

Barton Stone with his work early on as a Presbyterian pastor, his participation in sacramental seasons, but then his break with more conservative Presbyterianism largely stemmed from his increasing belief that it was human creeds that had obscured the biblical Gospel. And in fact, that humanly authored texts like the Westminster Confession, in fact, not only obscured the Gospel but denied the Gospel. So that the imposition of any text but the Bible upon the community that is the church, was a sure sign of apostasy.

Not surprisingly, he left his Presbyterian roots. Went independent as were largely in the Baptist tradition initially. But later on was part of this movement, this Restorationist Movement that, in fact, claimed that Baptist creeds and confession had gone beyond the Bible. He wanted a radical New Testament Christianity. Nothing beyond that.

While Stone was very effective at articulating what the movement was not about, it took another man, Alexander Campbell, to articulate what the movement truly was about. Born in Ireland, he later immigrated to the United States. And in the last part of the first decade of the 1800s began to make an impact.

He had been part of the Presbyterian tradition, as well. But like his father, Thomas Campbell, was increasingly frustrated with the constrictions placed upon his preaching by texts like the Westminster Confession.

We should only preach the Bible, he concluded. And one of the main themes of this Restorationist Movement would be just that: No creed but the Bible. But, said Campbell, as he read the Bible, he increasingly found that even the translations in use, primarily the King James version at this point in time, even the English translations in use, did not do justice to the biblical text as it had been originally written. To put it another way, human creeds and confessions had even confused Bible translations so that the King James Bible itself was unreliable.

Not surprisingly then, Campbell, university trained, very bright and articulate, determined to read the Bible for himself without note or comment. Without the interference of any kind of humanly authored confession. And to bring forward the biblical witness in its purity so that the New Testament church might be restored. Believing that, if all human creeds, if all human denominations were set aside, that the truly Christian Church would emerge and that Disciples of Christ would thereby be made, it was his responsibility to bring forward this clear message so that the old confusion might pass.

To do this, of course, he began with the Bible itself, since that was the sole and final authority. But as I said, finding even in the existing translations biases, he began to translate for himself. And where he found the key was in the translation of the word baptizo.

Now, the bias that he noted was that the word baptism was used in so many of the translations. And specifically in King James. For him there was no word baptism. There was simply -- that was simply a transliteration of a Greek work. What baptism meant was immersion. And thus, in his translation of the Bible, every instance of the word baptizo he rendered immersion. So a familiar text to us: Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He rendered: Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all nations immersing them. And in every instance a form of the word baptizo occurred, he rendered it immersion. Thus, in terms of the mode of baptism, he insisted upon immersion as the biblical form.

But immersion was for forgiveness of sins in his mind. Immersion was something that was done by a Christian as the fulfillment of an obligation. The willful acceptance of the revealed will of God that then would result in if forgiveness of sins.

For this he turned to the book of Acts, Acts Chapter 2 specifically. When Peter delivers his sermon on Pentecost, the people at the end asked: What should we do to be saved? And his response? Not repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. But rather, repent and be immersed for the forgiveness of sins. And that became the cornerstone of Campbell's teaching.

Repentance, immersion results in forgiveness of sins. Here you see a particular Arminian twist on things, if you will, in the Campbellite tradition. That is God puts before you the way of death. In his law he shows that you have transgressed his will. And the only way out of that horrible situation, will result in your condemnation, is willful repentance and then willful obedience to the command to be immersed. And once those obligations are fulfilled then and only then does God forgive sins. That, however, argued Campbell, is what the Bible teaches.

Now, he argued this in a particular winsome and compelling way. And was willing to go out into the countryside, into the cities, anywhere he could in the American west and challenge the existing preachers as to their understanding of biblical immersion.

There are a number of famous debates in which he engages with Presbyterians and with others from a variety of traditions in which he bests them with his rigorous logic and his compelling approach. So much though that there are instances from almost every tradition, including the Lutherans, of pastors hearing Campbell's clear teaching and vigorous defense of his position. And these pastors leaving their traditions and joining the Disciples tradition.

In fact, the explosion of the Disciples on the scene to having zero congregations in the year 1820 at least formally recognized to having 2100 by the year 1860 attest to the compelling way that Campbell presented this particular viewpoint. But not all was well within the church. Afterall, there were questions about how far one pressed the biblical principle. Just how far should you take this?

And one of the challenges that would emerge, particularly after Campbell's death, was should there be a formalized denominational organization? And how should we approach those matters in the Scripture that are neither commanded nor forbidden?

Well, for many there was a very pronounced resistance to any denominational formation. In fact, Disciples, Church of Christ, Churches of Christ consistently would say: We are not a denomination. But a fellowship. But as time went by, as the distinctions became more and more pronounced, there were evidently differences that were divisive of fellowship among these groups.

Particularly in the wake of Campbell's death, the divisions really began to emerge. And nowhere more interestingly than in the matter of the use of musical instruments in worship.

Now, in the New Testament we are told to gather together to sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. But we are not told to use musical instruments to do so. Yes, it's true, in the Old Testament there are plenty of instances when musical instruments are described. But, said the Campbellites, the Old Testament dealt with the old covenant. And we live in the new. In the new there is no explicit command to use musical instruments.

How then shall we proceed? Some said in the absence of a specific command, we are left to our best judgement on how to proceed. Others said: Absolutely not. Without a specific and prescribed command from the New Testament, we must not use musical instruments.

Now, the result was a division within the tradition. And the Church of Christ largely adopted the position that musical instruments not be used. The Disciples of Christ, the Christian Church, would allow for the use of such instruments in worship. The question largely driving the whole conversation, however, showed just how tricky it is to maintain that commitment to the Bible and the Bible only. And that, in fact, some kind of additional statement had to be made in terms of what the Bible allowed for, what the Bible actually taught. And the result was in both traditions theological traditions began to emerge. One might call them insipient confessions or creeds. Though folks in those traditions would not like to use that terminology.

Perhaps the greatest example of this need manifesting itself is in Alexander Campbell's own life. When he wrote a systematic theology text called "The Christian System." One would argue with Alexander: If the Bible is sufficient, then why the Christian system? His answer: We don't absolutely need this. But it helps us understand right now. To which my response would be: Exactly. Which is why the church has always written creeds and confessions. And this is just one more example of that.

Well, in the Disciples tradition, there are the presence of these three different streams. The largest of which is the Church of Christ. But the Disciples are a significant participant in that, as well. They themselves arguing for restoration of biblical Christianity have found it difficult to maintain the unity even among themselves even as they pursue such unity in and among the various traditions of Christianity.

It shows, once again, just how profound those tensions are. And it shows, once again, just how difficult it is for us as human beings to find the common ground and to maintain it. And it shows, once again, I think the tremendous blessing we have within the Lutheran Church with our faithful confession of the biblical truth and how God has blessed us in giving us such a confession. So that we may share it with the world in need.

No. 53.

>> Are there any other churches that would fall under the heading of ecumenical?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: There are a number of other churches, Nick, that really do fall under this particular heading. Perhaps the most important of them all is the United Church of Christ. Now, that's not the Church of Christ about which we were just speaking.

The United Church of Christ was a result of a series of merger movements over the course of the 20th Century. And the UCC, I don't think it's too much to say, really exemplifies what the Modern Ecumenical Movement was all about. There's a sense of reconciled diversity within the UCC that allows for the presence of a variety of emphases, a variety of theological traditions and even some expressions that I personally find rather problematic.

For example, acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity is challenged by some within the UCC. But that is not seen as divisive to fellowship. And I find that to be, frankly, very problematic. But that being the case, what is it? What is the UCC?

Well, it brings together a number of these traditions that we've discussed over the course of this class so far. The UCC, when it was formed, brought together the congregational churches, the congregational Christian churches. That was one group from within the Restorationist tradition that had come out from the Disciples. It also brought together the old Evangelical and the old German Reformed churches, as well.

So a number of these groups that we saw in our demographics earlier on from Gaustad like the German Reformed, like the Congregational Church, finally found their home in the unified church body called the United Church of Christ.

Now, how do you do that? How do you bring together such a variety of perspectives? How do you take something like say the Congregational Church which had roots in such a vigorous and strong Calvinism, a double predestinarian Calvinism. And we had that together with a more modestly Calvinistic group like the German Reformed whose interests and whose emphasis, though within the broad Reformed tradition, were still decidedly different. At least in terms of their thrust. How did that happen?

Well, what we see with the UCC I think is a classic example of the Americanization of a variety of church bodies. The early Puritans thought like Puritans and Englishmen. And what they tried to recreate here on the American scene was church life in England purified and put right.

However, over time they found themselves hard pressed to maintain the zeal of the founders. In fact, even by the second generation they were struggling to bring folks into church membership. And as the 1700s and 1800s went on, we saw just how the Congregational Church suffered under the emergence of Arminianism.

One point we didn't make earlier was that the Congregational tradition also suffered from the emergence of higher criticism. There were those who applied higher critical principles to the Scripture and asked questions about the reasonability of doctrines like the Trinity. The reasonability of the idea of two natures, divine and human, united in one Christ.

These sorts of challenges to historic Trinitarian doctrine led to the emergence from within the Congregational tradition of groups like the Unitarians. When it came to other themes like Calvinism's hard lined double predestinarianism, we see other groups emerging rejecting that particular theme.

For example, the Universalists, who teach not that some are elect and some are reprobate but that all, in fact, are saved. It might be that you have to go through a period of purgation following death before you're prepared to see the face of God. But nonetheless, in the end, every knee would bow and every tongue would confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. So congregationalism had its sharper points rounded off, if you will, by the American religious scene over the course of more than 100 years.

The German Reformed Americanized, as well. By the 1840s they had imbibed the revivalistic perspective. And despite the efforts of some more traditionalist professors and pastors, John Nevin, Philip Schaff, for example, had largely given itself over to the American religious scene by the late 1800s.

The Evangelical Church, the ***unarta, the Union Church, had been born out of the union of the Reformed and Lutherans in Germany in 1817 and had simply transferred that perspective to the American scene in the 1830s and '40s. And so it was poised well and prepared perfectly to embrace the ecumenical posture of the 20th Century.

What you see there is the transformation of decidedly confessional groups over a long period of time to the point where their material principle for all intents and purposes becomes ecumenical. That is embracing general in scope reductionistic doctrinally. But above all, committed to being welcoming at every point.

The criticism, of course, was if you'll stand for just about anything, then what do you stand for at all? And that criticism has continued to be raised. But others would say: Without ecumenical conversation, without that kind of engagement, then there is no point in dismissing the likes of these folks. Rather, they must be engaged at a meaningful level.

The upshot of it all is it shows the dynamic character of Christianity in America. And the dynamic experience of the church bodies that find themselves in this particular setting. No church body is immune to change. No church body will go through its existence without facing the unique pressures, tensions that American Christianity and the American religious scene generally offers.

But we can look at those either as negative things or as opportunities, once again, to confess Christ. And I hope what you're beginning to pull out of all of this, Nick, is the sense of the great opportunities that God places before us as Lutheran Christians to confess the unchanging Gospel. What a great privilege and joy that is. Isn't that right?

No. 54.

>> I understand we are coming close to the end of this course. And before we do, can we talk about the quiet denominations in America? Groups such as Amish and Mennonites.

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: That's an excellent question, Josh. In fact, I think it's very apropos to what we've been discussing. They are in a way quiet denominations. You don't see them as overtly presenting themself as other groups. Though if you live in an area with a significant number of Amish, like I do, you can't miss them. But then again the question is: Why are they there? Who are they? What's their particular story?

In particular in terms of the Mennonites, they take their name from Menno Simons, one of the older leaders of the Anabaptist movement in Germany in the 1530s. Menno Simons is a second generation Anabaptist, however. You might recall earlier we talk about those early Anabaptists. And some of them were very radical in their posture. In fact, they went so far as to take over certain cities in Germany. They invoked violent measures to make a statement against the existing church and state. Saying that they had no redeeming qualities and must be resisted and overthrown, if possible, with disastrous results for some of the followers of the early Anabaptist leaders.

However, by the mid 1530s, that particular emphasis had passed in Anabaptism. While the separation of church and state remained as a key point, as a central teaching of this group, it now took its expression in a much more passivistic or withdrawn way. That is to say Menno Simons and his followers would say: To be a part of the church involves a conscious and clear decision on the part of the individual to take a yoke of responsibility upon oneself that is very demanding. That yoke is placed upon oneself in the act of baptism as an adult.

What is involved in being a Christian person is simply faithfulness to the revealed will of God, which is demanding, which demands a certain accountability to one another's colleagues and which expresses itself in such a way that one is either in or out of the community. Discipline becomes a key feature of this particular group.

Now, in terms of making an argument for this perspective, Anabaptists, like Menno Simons, and his followers, who are then called Mennonites, turn to the Scriptures. And in the Scriptures they see any number of exhortations in the Old Testament and especially in the New. Encouraging the people of God to live up to the high standard that God has for them.

Along with that comes a recognition that there will be a price that has to be paid. That in fact, being a Christian, a follower of Christ, will actually cause one's life to be conformed to the life of Christ. So that Christ's characteristics come to characterize you as an individual. The formal principle then of the Scriptures as a textbook for life, code book for existence as a follower of Jesus, come to the forefront.

In terms of material principle, they will extract from that not just following the rules of the Scriptures as such. But rather, identifying a unique interpretation of the doctrine of justification within this context. That is to say to be a justified person in the Mennonite tradition is to be one who passively suffers as Christ himself did. That is not raising one's hand in anger or rebuke. Even if one is justified in doing so. The pattern of Christ, who submits himself to death, in other words, becomes the life pattern for the Christian person. Suffering all things and resisting not. In some of the most extreme examples of this, Mennonite followers of Christ will not defend their own families or themselves, even at the threat of death. Giving their lives as a witness to their faithfulness to Christ.

Now, what comes out of that, of course, is a question of what does it mean then completely to conform oneself to Christ? What is demanded? Does that mean our life should be shaped in every respect like his? Or do we take a general principle and then make that applicable within our given historical contexts?

On this point you have a division of sorts between the Mennonites. And even within the Mennonites and other groups. For example, the Amish who come along somewhat later. Within the Mennonites, Evangelical Mennonites tend towards a more simple and demanding way of life. Whereas more modernistic Mennonites will allow participation in most aspects of contemporary life. But putting the principle of suffering and passivism at the heart of their activities. In other words, it's fine to drive a car. But if somebody runs into your car, don't make a big deal out of it. Suffer on behalf of that. And thereby make the good witness to them.

On the other hand, there were groups of Mennonites who thought that this was going far too far. Even well back into the 1600s. Who said that in fact, most Mennonites had conformed themselves to the world. Had given up the distinctive teachings of the faith. And therefore, they demanded a fair, more rigorous adherence to community standards.

The Amish, as they later would be called, would make much more severe demands of their people in terms of what was appropriate and what was not in terms of conformity to the world. The more rigorous Amish communities even demanding -- going so far in their demands as to not allow the use of any modern conveniences.

However, there's even an interesting diversity there among various Amish communities. And within the hierarchy that develops within these communities. An elder within the various Amish communities here in the United States can determine just how much technology is appropriate for that particular community.

And so the familiar perspective and picture of the Amish using horse drawn carts and horses for farm work and the like sometimes will be seen in a different light, depending on the community. For example, there is one Amish community in Kansas that I'm familiar with that I've seen in which the elders have decreed that it is appropriate to use technology. In fact, tractors, in the running and tilling of soil, the running of a farm. As long as those tractors do not have wheels per se.

And so one will see out in the fields large caterpillars, bulldozers of sorts, pulling very modern equipment, but they are not using wheels. You get my point here, Josh, that this is a variety of perspectives. And the problem, once again being this tempering the sola scriptura principle. That is to say if you really are insistent that you will recreate biblical Christianity, turn the Bible into an absolute rule book, it becomes very, very difficult to put that into practice in such a fashion as to make everyone happy.

Better I think the principle that guides us as Lutherans. That the Scriptures, the Gospel especially, teaches what freedom in Christ is all about. And in 1520 as Luther put it so beautifully in his tract on the freedom of a Christian, he said a Christian is perfectly bound, a servant of all. But that a Christian is also perfectly free, a servant of none. Freed in Christ we are, in fact, freed to serve. Particularly in proclaiming the Gospel. And using the best means that we can have at our disposal to get that message of the Gospel out to a world in need. Afterall, isn't that really what it's all about? Proclaiming Christ and Christ alone.

No. 55.

>> We always struggle to get a child care worker to serve on Sunday mornings in the nursery at our church. On the one hand, if we got a member of our church, she cannot worship with the rest of us. On the other hand, we didn't want someone who has nothing to do with the church. Our solution has been to hire a Seventh-day Adventist. She goes to church on Saturday and so is free Sunday mornings. Frankly, I admit to knowing almost nothing about the Seventh-day Adventist. I would like to talk to her about her faith. But I would love to be better informed first.

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Eric, I commend you for your sensitivity to this person. And I commend you for your desire to speak with her about her faith and to have the opportunity to present the Gospel to her. It's an important thing I think to be sensitive to other people's history and their story. And as I've argued already in this class, that's one way of developing a relationship and providing for non-threatening avenues of discussion. So once again, well done.

And I commend you for wanting to learn about the tradition, the Seventh-day Adventist tradition, which is -- can be a little unusual. A little out of the mainstream of American Christianity. And depending on what part of the country in which you live, there may be a lot or there may be only a few Seventh-day Adventists.

In fact, in my own experience, we had very few in my area of Northern Illinois where I grew up. And I knew effectively nothing about them. But in the area of Tennessee where I was a pastor, there were quite a few Seventh-day Adventists. And I had to become familiar with their perspective. And to that end, I've delved a little bit in their history. And what has emerged is an absolutely fascinating story. Very unusual.

In the first part of the 1800s there was a man by the name of William Miller, who grew up in the northeastern part of the country. He lived in Vermont. And he lived in New York state. And from all indications early on in his life, he was a rationalist. He really didn't have much to do with the church. Really didn't believe that the Bible was God's Word. Simply was a functional unbeliever for all intents and purposes.

But over the course of his early life, he began to read the Bible. And the more he read it, the more intrigued he became with it. And the more intrigued he was, the deeper he delved until some of its mysteries, at least he believed, began to reveal themselves to him. Particularly some of the mysteries revolving and the books of Daniel and the Apocalypse of Saint John, the book of Revelation. And what William Miller began to do -- he was a layman, by the way, he simply began to read these texts and to find a way to reconcile them with world events so that he could begin to know at least the general timeframe that Jesus would return.

Now, in this respect, he very much went against the popular mind. Most Americans in the first part of the 1800s were post millennialists: They believed that the millennium would occur before Jesus came back. Hence, post millennium, the return of Christ after the millennial period. And the manner in which we went into the millennium was by virtue of the sanctified works of the church preparing this world for the imminent return of Jesus.

William Miller, on the other hand, proposed a radical form of premillennialism. That is before any millennial period would occur, Jesus would return. And that return would be striking and sudden. And what it would involve would be Jesus coming back, cleansing the world, gathering believers to himself. And preparing the world himself for the millennial kingdom.

So on the one hand, post millennialism, the church preparing the world for Jesus' return. On the other hand, Miller's premillennialism, Jesus returning and preparing the world for the millennium. Very different idea here. And as a result, not too many people were taken up by his millennial scheme. Until he began to relate it to various parts of the Scripture. Until he began to speak about distinctive texts of Scripture. And to interpret these in specific ways in the light of world history.

Now, the scheme which he ultimately developed was terribly complex in character. And has to be put up in chronological and graphic form for you to make sense of it. And we'll do that on the screen now so you can take a look at it.

But what you'll note in this particular scheme is the manner in which he locates a start date and an ending date. Now, the basis for his claims in this regard are really very simple. His whole point is that if we can identify the beginning of the 70 weeks that are talked about in the book of Daniel, then we can extrapolate from there weeks being a certain amount of time, that when the ending of those 70 weeks finally occurs, we will see the return of Jesus.

Here we see the Year-Day Theory come into practice, as it's called. And then that combined into weeks, as well. A day being a thousand years in the sight of the Lord, prophetic interpreters began to take every mention of a year or a day within the Scriptures as being equal to 1,000 years.

So a day equals 1,000 years. A week equals 7,000 years. 70 weeks equals 4900 years is the way the scheme would work itself out.

So the key becomes the application of the beginning point. And then one would know the ending point. William Miller became increasingly convinced over the course of the 1820s that the ending point was rapidly approaching. And in the 1830s, he began to speak to family members initially that this meant the return of Christ was imminent. In fact, he located a date some time between March 1843 and March 1844.

Afterall, the Bible said: No man knows the day and the hour. But that didn't preclude Miller from concluding the month and the year. At least in terms of the scope.

So some time between March 1843-March 1844 on the basis of his calculations. When he told his family this, they were certainly alarmed in the first place. Convinced of his calculations. And they encouraged him then to share this with others.

Through the late 1820s and then '30s, his influence expanded particularly when he met the man named Joshua Himes, H-i-m-e-s. And Himes took Miller's scheme and put it into graphic form and then plastered it all over the place.

Posters were made. Publications featured it. Tracts went out. Books were written. Until it seemed like by the end of the 1830s, early 1840s, this is all anybody was talking about. The return of Christ was imminent.

Add into this the financial panic of 1837. And Americans were ripe. They experienced an economic disaster. And it looked like things were coming apart. All the hopes and dreams that many had more America now would not be realized.

Maybe Miller was right. He entered upon a series of preaching and teaching tours that were characterized by the use of a big tent. Drew enormous crowds. And as the dates drew closer, the expectations rose to a fever pitch.

March 1843 arrived. But Jesus did not. Nor did he at the end of March 1844. And people wondered what had happened. What had gone wrong?

Miller simply said: My calculations may have been off. I never said this was the absolute date. This is simply my reading of the Scriptures. And he backed off somewhat from his earlier convictions.

However, several of his followers redid the calculations and came to the absolute conclusion that Jesus would return on October 22nd, 1844. This was the date.

They appealed to their leader, to Miller, for his imprimatur, his agreement, he resisted. Until about a month, three weeks before the event itself. Where he finally capitulated and said: Yes, I think this is right.

Again, expectations rose to fever pitch as October 22nd approached. But as midnight passed and Jesus had not returned, the followers of Miller experienced what they call the Great Disappointment. And in many ways, the movement collapsed. Some had said up to 50,000 people were committed Millerites by this point in time. Whether that number is accurate or not is impossible to say given there were no formally structured churches. But it had impacted all of American religious culture.

But in the wake of the Great Disappointment, many said: Well, that's the end of that. And we should simply move on. Forget the rest. But there was a young woman who had been touched by the Millerite message affected by Miller's preaching. And who was interested in terms of what he had had to say.

Her name was Ellen G. White. And she picked up the themes of William Miller. She looked at what he had taught. And developed a unique interpretation of what he had advanced.

Namely, that what had occurred was, in fact, the completion of the work of Christ on that day in 1844. But that it had not occurred in a visible and manifest way here on earth. Rather, the completion of Christ's salvific work occurred on that day as he moved into the Holy of Holies, finalizing the work of salvation in heaven.

When asked how she knew this, she responded: God showed me this in a vision. Thus, as this movement began to coalesce around the earlier millennial teachings, Adventist teachings of William Miller with now the prophetical visions of Ellen G. White, this new movement, began to coalesce and take form in the turns and form of Seventh-day Adventism.

The assumptions about the millennial shift that had occurred as Christ entered the Holy of Holies finalizing salvation for human beings coupled with an insistence that the keeping of the Sabbath is, in fact, a part of the moral law. And thus, the seventh day, Sabbath, as required for all who would be required as true Christians became the marked points of this movement as Ellen G. White continued to have revelations, continued to be the voice piece for God in terms of the present time.

Later on she coupled that with her interest in health care and health cure. Arguing that it was improper for human beings and, in fact, unbiblical for them to be engaged in the consumption of other living animals. Thereby helping develop a whole thrust within the Seventh-day Adventist tradition towards the creation of new kinds of food.

When she and her followers moved their base of operations from the northeast to central Michigan, specifically around Battle Creek, Michigan, in the 1860s, a number of those who were convinced of her position developed their food products in that area. For example, Kellogg's and the birth of cereal as we know it today came about.

In terms of formal principle, the Seventh-day Adventist tradition would turn to the Scriptures. But would also supplement it with the prophetic visions and writings of Ellen G. White. Thus, you have Scripture plus something else in terms of the formal principle of this group.

And in terms of the material principle, you also have a distinct perspective among the Seventh-day Adventists. They would certainly affirm the doctrine of justification as its taught. But rather, they would also talk about the need for conformity with the divine precepts, specifically in terms of care of the body. And the Seventh-day Sabbath. Those who are faithful in maintaining these things are those who are justified.

So a radically different move for this particular expression of faith. And some have said it's difficult to categorize Seventh-day Adventism as a Christian tradition given this supplemental revelation and the way it tempers the clear biblical doctrine of justification.

On the other hand, within the Seventh-day Adventist tradition, there are those who are responsible for reform. That is to say there is a variety of opinion. So it's difficult simply to paint it with a broad brush. There's a variety of perspectives. And among some, Ellen G. White has status as one of the prophets. Among others, simply as a child of her times.

The result is it's hard to pin down. And there is that variety of expression. But what we do see in Seventh-day Adventism is a uniquely American tradition that grows up within the setting of the American context. And expresses its faith in a dramatically unique way.

No. 56.

>> Aside from some of the groups we looked at while we were discussing ecumenism, most of the things we talked about seem common to the fairly traditional Christian groups. Last year I attended a meeting of a Ministerial Alliance in Orange County. And there were some pastors speaking who had some very radical ideas. Their comments reminded me of what one author I read has called classical theological liberalism. Could you expand on this concept?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Well, Nick, now you've opened up a can of worms. Because to try to get a handle on a movement as broad as Theological Liberalism really is a tough thing to do. But let me give it a shot and we'll see how things turn out as we bring this to a close.

Classic theological liberalism. Liberalism as a category was not a pejorative term in the minds of many 19th Century thinkers. In fact, most Americans would have argued that they were, in fact, liberal. Open minded and concerned about matters like freedom. That was pretty much a given. So if that's what liberalism meant, most American Christians would have said: Sure. We're liberals in that respect.

But as the 19th Century pressed on, that kind of typical language of liberal began to be more narrowly focused and to be applied more specifically to groups that held to a certain perspective. And the manner in which that played itself out in the realm of theology took on a very unique kind of character. Although it, again, was a fairly broad movement. And it did incorporate a number of different perspectives. So what do we mean by had this?

Well first off those who later on identified themselves as theological liberals in the classic sense found their historic roots in of all things the revivalism of Charles Finney believe it or not. Now, how can this be you say? Well, one of the components of Charles Finney's theology was a new definition of vice and virtue.

Here again we'll go back to our old theme. It may be a bit tired at this point. But the shift from Calvinism to Arminianism has such broad effects, such wide ramifications. And in this respect we see just one more instance of it.

Namely, Finney talked about vice and virtue in a different way than the earlier Calvinists. That is to say, if you were one of the elect, the works you did would be good, no matter what, as they would all in the end lead to the affirmation of your election, your ultimate salvation. The works that you did if you were one of the reprobate, no matter how good they may have appeared to have been, would you have always resulted in damnation.

With Finney, however, there is much more of a sense of moral neutrality characterizing the individual human subject. As we've already said, he downplayed original sin. Some might say he denied individual and original sin in the sense that a person was born into a state that led to particular sins. Rather, said Finney, we are born in a social setting that encourages us and teaches us to sin. The result being that we fall into actual sins and carry them out.

Those actual sins are learned and confirmed behaviors, if you will, that define our existence. And thus, one of the things we must do if we would be good Christian people is pursue the good. Learn it in the first place. And then cultivate the habit.

So one basic point, responsibility for the church is, in Finney's mind, social reform. Improving the social setting so that people will not have the temptation to sin in front of them. Encouraging them to express the better part of their nature by virtue of social structures, individual education and churchly structures that will serve the individual as well as the broader community.

And as a result, you see within the Evangelical tradition growing out of the revivals a whole series of important institutions geared towards redeeming society. One of the most important is the temperance movement.

The temperance movement grows right out of the Evangelical revivals. No. 1 using it as a biblical basis that we are discouraged strongly, prohibited from Christians, from becoming drunk and pursuing drunkenness. Well, drinking as a problem in the early national period of the United States was a huge issue.

Alcohol consumption was enormous. And in fact, in temperance, alcoholism ran rampant. Part of the message of the revivalists was to be truly a Christian was to abstain from intoxicating liquors, as they put it in the first place, and then later on expanded it to any consumption of an alcoholic beverage. Thus, to be considered Christian, one had to sign a temperance card.

Now, that applied to one's individual Christianity certainly. But also the idea was by virtue of correcting this problem in the case of so many individuals, we would see a corporate result and an improvement in society. Hence, the churches themselves became the main purveyors of the temperance message. And the encouragers of signing the temperance pledge card and abstaining completely from the consumption of alcohol.

On a bit of a side note, that's what leads ultimately to the process of pasteurizing grape juice and the use of grape juice in communion over against communion wine. Which was seen as a way of compromising. If one consumed alcoholic wine in the Lord's Supper, a way of compromising one's temperance pledge. Hence, grape juice begins to be brought in. A little aside.

Other institutions of this sort also begin to emerge. The Sunday school, for example, initially is an intentional effort of educating those less privileged. Because it is assumed that a well educated child will be a good citizen. And a good citizen is a good candidate of church membership. The two largely being conflated into one.

Who does the education for the underprivileged? The church. On Sunday. But it's not the Sunday school that perhaps you think of like today. My memory of Moses going up on the mountain on a flannel board and that sort of thing. Rather, the Sunday school was specifically designed to teach reading, writing and arithmetic.

The primary text, the Bible. So reading out of the Bible. Writing down biblical passages. And doing math out of the Bible. Not unrelated to some of the millennial scheming we've talked about previously.

In addition, we also are aware of other movements. And I'll pass over them quickly. But in addition to temperance reform and Sunday schools, there are those who enter into the cities. And as industrialization increasingly becomes a problem, inner city work, social work, largely growing out of the church's activities.

Prostitution help for women who have come from the farms into the cities and have fallen into difficulties. Social workers addressing that very specifically. Other social kinds of structures characterizing the church's mission.

This ministry of the church, as important as it is to the well being of individuals, over time begins to be conflated with the message itself. And this will be one of the important developments of classical Theological Liberalism. What we'll ultimately call the Social Gospel. And essentially what we have here is the Gospel being identified specifically as works of charity.

Washington Gladden and more importantly Walter Rauschenbusch, leaders of the Social Gospel movement, would say: What good does it do a person to talk about justification by grace through faith? That is a theological abstraction. What we need is something concrete. Something specific. And Jesus for all of his discussions about helping the poor, being sensitive to them, also ensured that they had something to eat.

James himself says: What good does it do a man if you say to him: Be warm. Be clothed. Be fed. And you don't give him anything. Thus, said the leaders of Social Gospel: The church has spoken enough. Now it is time for it to act. And to act concretely and specifically.

Thus, Social Gospel perspective becomes one of the elements of theological liberalists. Other elements are points of biblical criticism about which we've already spoken. The emergence within the American Christian tradition of the higher criticism.

People like David Friedrich Strauss, whom we've discussed. Also theologians like FC Baur at Tubingen and other places, who begin increasingly to discuss the difficulties of biblical interpretation. The difficulties of accepting the words of Scripture at face value. And the necessity of recognizing their character as humanly authored documents produced in specific contexts within specific cultures with specific limitations that then become more descriptive of the author, rather than historical treatments in an objective 19th Century scientific way.

And finally, one other element that becomes part of the tradition. And that is closely related to our question of biblical criticism. In 1858 Charles Darwin publishes "The Origin of Species" and throws the theological world into chaos as the churches have to come to grips with the challenges he's laid out over against what the Bible has taught regarding creation.

And the question becomes: How do you respond to the theory of evolution? Do you simply reject it out of hand? There were plenty of Christians in the 19th Century who did. Do you accept it wholeheartedly? There was a modest group that did that. Do you accept it with reservations? There was increasingly a large group of Christians who did so. So that by the latter part of the 19th Century there were divisions within every one of the denominations over how to accept this teaching of evolution. Whether or not to accept the theory or to challenge it.

It is a very challenging time for the churches. But it is also a very exciting time. For many people, it seems to be a time when some of the older shackles really are finally coming off. That is to say we've seen some of the big changes that occurred in the 19th Century. But now as we're poised on the threshold of the 20th Century, it looks like the church is going to enter a new period that weds together who had for so long been separate. Church and science.

Now we're finding ways to bring the two back together. Whether through a tempered form of theistic evolution, a modest form of biblical criticism, coupling that with an aggressive promotion campaign that takes this newly updated Christian message out to the world. It could, in fact, be that the 20th Century will be the Christian century. The time when we see all things come to their fruition.

The magazine, the periodical, titled "Christian Century," has its roots in that late 19th Century optimism about the theological liberal message. And what it can accomplish in terms of reaching modern man.

However, in a marvelous book, insightful in its character, James Moorhead has talked about how that perspective then ultimately dissipated as the 20th Century moved on. For one thing, there was World War I. And when World War I exploded on the scene, all the optimism about human capability and the correction of cultures dissipates within the span of months it seems. And in fact, is replaced by a pessimistic premillennial imminent expectation of the return of Jesus on the part of many people.

Others simply begin to transfer their perspective in regard to the ascent of man into other channels. That is to say older post millennialists who expected Jesus to return at the end of the millennium begin to transfer their expectations not to a return of Jesus. But rather, to a transformation of humankind that will take a thousand years to enact.

That is to say they press their eschatology out to the point where in praying the collects of their churches and ending them "World without end, Amen," they literally come to believe that. That the earth itself will be eternal. And that the transformation of man is itself the process that will engage humankind as into the unforeseeable future.

Some of those themes continue in the present. There remains a certain optimism that still characterizes Americans even given the realities of two world wars, difficult social circumstances, the decline of morals and inherent social pressures coming in on every side. Even in the face of that this optimism about human capability continues to manifest itself.

And in my opinion, that's probably one of the most lasting features of Theological Liberalism. It's optimism regarding the human condition and human capability. And it's one of those points where Theological Liberalism and the American perspective line up. So that even.in difficult circumstances, you still hear that optimism perspective carried out.

How do you answer that kind of perspective? I think one of the ways is to be realistic about the biblical message that shows human beings as inherently self concerned, self absorbed, and at odds with a God who has revealed himself to them in Scripture. But it also gives us the opportunity to move beyond that message of law to one of Gospel. Namely, that that God, whom we have rebelled against is, in fact, reconciled to us through Christ.

In other words, where Theological Liberalism consistently turns human society in on itself and puts responsibility for its redemption on the individual acting subject. The message we have to share is one of a God so concerned and so involved in our very existence that he himself and the person of his Son visits, redeems us, as his people. The great message of hope. The true and biblical message of hope. That it is our obligation and our great joy to share.

No. 57.

>> For years I've driven by a church near downtown Cleveland called the First Church of Christ, Scientist. I've always wondered what that group believed and what their history is. Could you please help us understand them?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Sure, David, let me see what I can do with the Christian Scientists. They are another one of these very unique distinctively American traditions. And what's one of the things that makes them unique is something we've already seen. Namely, that it is largely founded through the efforts and the teachings of a woman.

We saw that with Seventh-day Adventism, though one might say: Well, all Ellen G. White was doing was modifying the previous conclusions of William Miller. But she did -- Ellen G. White certainly did play a formative role in Seventh-day Adventism and continues to do so in the present. That is no less true of Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science.

But the question is an interesting one, isn't it? What is it that makes it that in America we see these emerging religious traditions that are led by women in a time when women are largely seen as second class citizens. For example, Mary Baker Eddy can start a church, as it were, the First Church of Christ, Scientists, and yet be unable to vote. This is one of the very provocative elements about Christianity, religion in general, here in America.

By way of introduction with Christian Science, let me say a few words about that. One thing demographers have noted is that in the history of Christianity in the United States as we have it recorded from the earliest times on down to the present is that there have been over those 400 years now a majority of women who joined the church. And that has been true from the 17th through the 18th centuries and on down to the present.

More women join the church than men. But one thing that demographers note is that in the 1800s, the 19th Century, more women start joining the church than men. And this becomes one of these great questions: What does that mean and why is this so?

In fact, in about 1730 the split between men and women joining the church is about 55% women, 45% men. But by the time you get to 1850, the split is nearly 66% women versus 33% men. So two-thirds of the people joining the church are women, in fact, by the middle part of the 19th Century.

Now, people ask: What does this mean? Why is this so? And a number of explanations have been offered by historians and interpreters over the years.

For example, one explanation is that for women, issues regarding life and death are much more intense in the 19th Century than for men. The life expectancies are not all that long. There's a certain reality that faces women perhaps more than men. Namely, childbirth. And it is rarely the case that a woman in the 19th Century has not lost a child in childbirth.

In addition to that, there are the simple risks of a woman giving birth to a child in the 19th Century that makes for very high mortality rates among women themselves. And so issues of life and death, say some interpreters, are of a special concern to women.

Others have said: Well, the Evangelical message of empowerment that we've seen moving from the older stern Calvinism to the more free Arminianism especially appeals to women who have little freedom in other spheres of their life. Afterall, if you are married to a man, he is your head and you are to obey him. Yet within with the church the message that is presented says you are free to determine your own eternal destiny. In other words, your freedoms may be circumscribed within the context of your marriage. But in terms of your life in Christ, they are open.

A third explanation is that within the churches, you have distinctive female traits being cultivated. That is to say there is a perspective that emerges in the 19th Century that says women are more inherently spiritual people. Men are more interested in things like politics and economics. The sphere of the church, however, is more the sphere of a woman, who is more spiritually tuned, inclined, shall we say. And as such is responsible for the well being of the community as a whole. Thus, providing for her husband a safe atmosphere within the home. But then expressing her spirituality in ways that are really transformative of society within the church.

A case in point: The Woman's Christian Temperance Union in the latter part of the 19th Century. Frances Willard's work of organizing a massive movement that ultimately affects the United States Constitution again. All the while, while she can't vote. All through the agencies of the church.

Well, think about these points. Being empowered. Having a sense of spiritually -- spiritual uniqueness. And also concerns over life and death. One might say these come together in Mary Baker Eddy.

Born in 1821, it's right at the rise of Evangelical Christianity and the revival movements. However, later in her life she finds herself almost on the verge of death at one point. When a new world opens up to her, almost a new revelation that presents itself to her. That new revelation is that science is the key to health. And the Scriptures themselves speak of this science, a Christian Science, if you will.

Later on she helps form the First Church of Christ, Scientist in Boston. Within this movement, the formal principle is very clear. There are the Scriptures. But the Scriptures interpreted through the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, a supplement and one might say a proper explanation of the Scriptures. And some versions of Christian Science actually trumped the Scriptures, have a higher standing than the Scriptures themselves.

Most important among Mary Baker Eddy's writing writings was her 1875 publication "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures." In this particular writing she simply argues that to become ill is sin itself. Is to allow the realities of the flesh to overtake the things of the Spirit. Mind in and of itself is good. Mind in and of itself is God. And as we are incorporated more and more into God, the more and more mind takes over the realities of flesh and leads us to a life of health.

As I said, she herself had been a sickly person. Had come close to death as a young woman. And this new perspective opened up a new world for her.

So a formal principle of Scriptures and her writings giving forth then a principle, a material principle, that states God is the only being. And man is his reflection. Thus, man is a -- an expression of the divine in God. Anything that confuses that then leads to sickness and ill health.

As such, there is a kind of power of the mind that can overcome the weaknesses of the flesh. One might almost call it a neoplatism that divides flesh and spirit, seeing flesh as problem, as evil, as that which drags down. And seeing spirit as that which is of God, of divine, sadly attached to this malady ridden body.

However, through the cultivation of the of the mind with the help of spirit, one can overcome the limitations of flesh and achieve the divine life. Indeed, if one is truly a follower of Christ, the one who ultimately conquered the weaknesses of the flesh, namely death, then one can find and expect within oneself that reality. In other words, eternal life is yours through the proper way of thinking.

Well, what are the problems with such a perspective? I think they are rather numerous and obvious. In the first place, we confess Jesus Christ God and man. And that in fact, it is in his human flesh, his human body, that our Lord himself took on our very form and corrected the problems of sin.

In the incarnation of Christ we have the redemption of the human creation, indeed, of all creation. So that that which was one run arye by human sin now has been restored through the workings of Christ. The incarnation of Christ is not something at odds with the divine. But in fact, embraces in one person God and man. The promise for us being that by virtue of his resurrection, we, too, will be raised given our spiritual bodies that last day when the final trump occurs.

However, what you see I think again with Mary Baker Eddy and with Christian Science is an appeal to human potential, human capability. If you think the right way, if you exercise your mind in the right paths, if you nurture the right kinds of thoughts, then you can overcome the limitations of this life.

It puts tremendous emphasis on the human subject. But it does so from a posture that says: You can do this. The unfortunate side of it is, of course, that if you do not overcome, you die in the midst of suffering. Thus, sin. And the message of hope is one that is terribly tempered at the very least. Perhaps not to be found at all.

Better still, the message of the cross, where all sin, all sadness, all weakness has been taken away once and for all. And the promise of everlasting life that is ours in Christ, the promises of the presence of Christ in heaven, where there is no longer any tear, no more weakness, no more suffering, no more sorrow. All has been conquered by Christ, the lamb who was slain but has been raised. And the promise of his presence is ours through his justifying work.

No. 58.

>> One of the things I hear regularly on the radio and TV and in other places is the word cult. A few years ago there was the Heaven's Gate cult. And before that, there were the Branch Davidians and Jim Jones' Peoples Temple. While I realize these groups are not Christians, I am curious, what makes a cult a cult?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Eric, that's an excellent question. And it's one that given the basic realities of the last, say, 15 years or even farther back is one that's continued to impress itself upon us here on the American religious scene.

Now, isn't it ironic how gullible we are even as modern people. We think we are so well informed. And certainly these kinds of things couldn't happen to me. And I know better than that now. When we look back at some of the stories from the past and examples of cultic leadership in the 1800s and before.

Now, for example, in New York state in the early part of the 1800s, 1820s and 1830s, there was a prophet named Matthias who said he was the second coming of Christ. And he developed around himself a little community that believed that it and it alone was the true church. To be a part of the true church, you had to be connected to Matthias.

He controlled every aspect of these peoples' lives. Whether their spiritual or temporal life, he had control over it all. So in order to have forgiveness of one's sins, one had to, again, recognize his authority, hear the word of forgiveness from his mouth, be sustained in that forgiveness by Matthias and be part of that community. If one was cut out from it, then one was outside the church, so said Matthias.

And in terms of the social aspects of life, he controlled access to the outside world. This group was huddled in a little community, buildings in which he controlled all aspects of their existence. So who would be released to go and purchase supplies for the community, carefully guarded by him. The kind of interaction with anybody outside of the community, again, he controlled it. The relationship within the community, who would pair up with whom. Who would have the ability to speak with other people. Who would be the one who entertained the community as a whole. All of these things. Every aspect of life. Matthias controlled it.

Until ultimately he became God, if you will, within the lives of these people. They didn't speak, they didn't think, they didn't eat, they didn't drink without permission from their leader. And they had become a cult. All of this in the name of Christianity in this man's case.

You know, ironically enough, there was a meeting between this Matthias and Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons in Kirtland, Ohio. Joseph Smith commented on his interaction with Matthias stating he had never met a stranger person. Now, that tells you an awful lot right there.

How do we get to these points? How is it that these kind of cultic figures arise and emerge? And what is the reality here in America that there had been so many of these kinds of leaders? It's, in part, the blessing and the curse of religious freedom and the First Amendment in the United States Constitution.

Namely, that Congress shall not establish any religion here in America. What that provides is the terrific and wonderful freedom that we experience here in the United States to worship according to our conscience. And to do so without governmental interference. But it also allows for the emergence of some of these cultic movements. Which later on as they have emerged and developed, can take on some very dangerous characteristics.

We mentioned a few. Branch Davidians. The terrific and horrible conflagration that characterized their end. A group that grew out of the Seventh-day Adventist tradition. Having very tenuous ties to it. But a prophet, an interpreter, a man of God who read the Scriptures, interpreted the signs of the times and who located the presence of the Messiah at times in himself, at times in an imminent return of Jesus.

Or Jim Jones, who came out of the Christian tradition the Disciples of Christ. Who, again, saw in himself a revelation of God. And made the demand that anyone who would be part of the church, that is truly connected to God, had to thereby be connected to him as the representative of God on earth. And when the community was threatened, even after having removed itself from the United States, we had the horrific scene in which hundreds of people drank poison koolaid killing themselves.

There are the more marginal kinds of cultic groups, the Heaven's Gate group, which surround themselves around a particularly charismatic leader, who has a strange and unusual message that promises a certain revelation of God and a promise of ultimate salvation. But again, it always strikes me. We say: We know better. We're modern people. We've gotten beyond this.

Or have we? That plays itself out, that scene, too many times for us to become complacent. The reality of Satan's work is just that. Real. And he continues to prowl about like a roaring lion seeking to devour us, to deceive us, to turn us away from the one true faith. Through any means that he can. Including particularly charismatic leaders who can mislead us with a very unhelpful and damaging message.

To that end, I think there are at least seven characteristics that characterize a cultic group. First off, there is a centralized form of leadership that rules with unquestioned authority. There is normally a charismatic individual who determines the character of the -- and the behavior of the community.

Second, there is a body of convictions, beliefs and practices set forth boldly as the one and only truth. Now, don't we say that as Christians? Yes, we do. But oftentimes in cultic groups, you have this unusual immediate revelation that has come from outside to the charismatic leader that then characterizes this perspective in a unique and forceful way at variance and at odds with the received teachings of the church.

Third, there is a compelling presentation of the group's vision to prospects that is inviting and challenging. That is a very winsome and open invitation to people to be part of this unique community that is, in fact, the one true faithful followers of God.

And that draws people in. Invites them in. Gives them a sense of community. Particularly in our age in which life is so fragmented and individualized. The opportunity to be part of the one true church, if you will, can oftentimes pull people in.

Fourth, there is a series of manipulative socializing sessions to instill psychological dependence on the group. That is to say there is a kind of boot camp, if you will, that a person goes through that ultimately shapes them in the beliefs and characteristics of this group. Ultimately resulting in promises to the centralized leadership, usually the one charismatic leader, of complete obedience in all spiritual and temporal matters.

Fifth, a process of group dynamics used to control and manipulate members oftentimes using things like food, sleep deprivation, shunning by the community if one does not hold up to their standards of what they say is the truth.

Sixth, a history of abuse of authority by group leaders using deception and fear tactics. And finally, seventh, the history of psychological and spiritual abuses of group members that can destroy lives.

In the end, the proof is in the pudding. In that people are controlled. Held against their will. Manipulated in damaging ways that ultimately can lead to horrific ends. Again, the pictures of Waco and of the Peoples Temple in Guyana come immediately to mind.

Lest we say, however, that such a thing couldn't happen to me, we need only remember how weak we are as Christians. And how quickly we give ourselves over to temptations as they present themselves. We really aren't all that wise when you get right down to it. For we consistently pursue the things that lead to death and destruction. Rather than the things of life and light.

Thanks be to God we have a gracious Savior who knows our being. Who knows what it is like for us to struggle as his people in the world. Who is like unto us in all things except sinning. For he traversed the way to the cross. And paid the penalty for our weaknesses once and for all. And triumphed over them in his cross and resurrection. And his promise to us is: I will never leave you or forsake you. And I will never let any of these tempters snatch you out of my hand.

No. 59.

>> Professor, this has been a remarkable course. Very practical. Very helpful. Although the number of denominations still makes my head spin, at least I have a little better grip on things now. The distinction between the formal and material principles as well as identifying them for these various groups at least gives me a way of making sense out of all of the variety. But now a basic question: Given all of these denominations, is Lutheranism just one more in the bunch? What are your thoughts?

>>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Well, David, first of all, thanks for your kind words. And I cannot express my appreciation enough for them, as well as for the opportunity to spend a little time with you thinking about this whole question of denominations in America. The American religious scene.

And I'm glad to hear you're beginning to get a grip on things. I'm still working on it, too. It continues to be something I have to stay on top of every day and keep after it at every point. So I'm glad to hear that you're beginning to get a bit of a grip on it. And I like your question very much. It's an excellent one. This question of Lutheranism. Where do we fit in?

You know, I think that's one of the most important questions we can ask ourselves as we face the missional opportunities for the future. Afterall, let me put your question a little bit differently. If there are already all of these churches, why not let them do the work and work together and help them in this respect? That is why have a separate Lutheran Church if we're all already doing the same things?

Well, my conviction is that Lutheranism has a special vocation, a special opportunity here in the American setting. And it stems out of some of these conversations we've had over the last few days as we've considered these things. Namely, look at the larger picture of American Christianity. The dominance of Calvinism in the earlier period. The eclipse of it in the early national period and the emergence of Arminianism.

In both of those cases we saw how there was a definite effort on the part of these traditions to uphold the Scriptures. To seek in them doctrine and teaching. And the idea of the formal principle being very clearly the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone.

However, them coming to radically different ideas about what those Scriptures taught, different material principles in the end. Sovereignty in Calvinism. Religious experience, the decision of the individual in Arminianism.

I think one of the great opportunities we have as Lutherans and the key vocation of our church here and in the future for the sake of the proclamation of the Gospel is to make the distinction between law and Gospel clear. To keep and uphold that wonderful tradition that we have as Lutherans that's been handed onto us.

The clarity of that distinction between the law and the Gospel. So they are not confused. That the law is, indeed, continued to be preached in its firmness. Showing us that we are, indeed, sinners, reflecting for ourselves the descent we've made into sin and the manner in which God is entirely just in condemning us.

But then opening that beautiful Gospel that shows despite our sinfulness in his manifest love and grace toward us, God has sent a Savior. Jesus Christ. And keeping that distinction clear in all facets of our teaching, you know, it's one thing to make a clear distinction between law and Gospel like the Calvinists did and say: Man is totally depraved. Can only be saved by God. But then going too far and say: But on the other hand, that must mean that God is the cause of those who end up in sin, reprobation.

It's too far. I'm not surprised the Arminians responded. And as a vigorously as they did. That in fact, Calvinism had portrayed a God who was a tyrant. Who was the cause of sin. And what kind of a picture of God is that?

But the replacement picture of a God passively waiting for us to do something, who has accomplished all he can and now waits upon us, doesn't do justice to the biblical witness, either. For our God doesn't sit back and wait. He enters our experience. He takes on human flesh himself and comes into this world actively breaking down the barriers between us and him through the work of his Son, Jesus Christ. And having redeemed us as his own people, he then opens to us the way of everlasting life. Applied freely to us in his life giving Word and sacraments.

In the other traditions there's always conditions it seemed applied to that. A confusion, once again, law, Gospel, law, seems to be the last word so often.

What we as Lutherans have is the beauty of the Gospel in its fullness and in its clarity that says: These things are all accomplished for you. In Christ all is fulfilled. And through Christ, living in his Word, receiving his sacraments, being strengthened in our faith daily, we are empowered then to make the good confession and live the life he's called us to of the.

Not in some legalistic sense. But purely in the Gospel as the people of God. Not you must do this. But you are in Christ.

A radically different message than what often is heard. And I think that gets us to the heart of the Lutheran witness here on the American religious scene. I believe that people are desperate for the Gospel.

Again, my own experience as a pastor in Tennessee has been formative for me in this respect. I mentioned earlier in this course that down in Tennessee there were not a whole lot of unchurched people. But there sure were a lot of dechurched people.

People who had been beaten by the law their whole life. Who had heard law, Gospel, law once more. Yes, Jesus died for your sins. Now you must. Your sins will be forgiven, if you. There is hope for your salvation, but.

And we have this wonderful opportunity to share the Gospel without conditions in all of its clarity as the people of God. To confess the scriptural truth that Christ crucified and risen again, foolishness to Greeks, stumbling blocks to Jews is, in fact, the very wisdom of God revealed to us through his Word and made real in the lives of people as the Spirit works through the Word and sacraments.

So do we need a Lutheran tradition? Not Lutheran as Lutheran denomination. We've done nothing. I mean, we're just one other name among many in that case. But the Lutheran confession of the Gospel is what people need to hear. Because it's not about Lutheran any longer. It's about what the Scriptures teach. And what the Scriptures teach is Christ.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download