Lutheranism 101: The Big Mystery

When discussing the Lord's Supper in Lutheranism 101, the reader is reminded to "Remember the warning from before." But what is this warning? (And keep in mind that this "warning" is not found anywhere in God's Word.) The author answers this way: 

We human beings like to solve mysteries and explain everything. However, some of God's gifts to us are far too great for us comprehend. We can't explain them. If we try, we might explain the mystery away. We may actually explain the forgiveness away.1

There are a few things which I find very interesting about this argument. First, it almost admits to being nonsense, but instead of calling this "gift" nonsense, it is called a "mystery" instead. Some gifts, the author says, are far too great for us to comprehend; and if we try, we might explain the mystery and forgiveness of it away!  Yet, ironically, this author insists on explaining this "mystery" and "forgiveness" to us so that we can comprehend it. It seems as though he puts in one hand what he takes away from the other. That's like arguing, "We can't explain this mystery, and it's far too great to comprehend it; so let me explain it in a way which you can comprehend. Oh, but remember, if we try to explain this mystery, we might explain its mysteriousness away. So let me explain that mysteriousness in a way which doesn't explain the mystery away. I will even explain it just enough so you can comprehend that I'm not explaining it away." 

Doesn't that kind of an argument seem strange? I know that when I read it, it  seems like the author is pre-empting me from believing that it makes no sense, while encouraging me to believe that it doesn't have to make sense. And the reason why it doesn't have to make sense (even though he won't describe it that way) is because this portion of God's Word is just "too great for us to comprehend."   

But what is this "mystery" that's too great for us? What is this "mystery" which we can't explain?  The author says:

When you hear these next words of Jesus, listen to exactly what He says. Don't try to make this mystery into something you can understand:  Of the bread, Jesus said, "This is My body." Of the wine, Jesus said, "This cup is the new testament in My blood."  "Is."  It's the linguistic version of an equal sign. Jesus said that in the Lord's Supper the bread is His body. The wine is His blood. This is the big mystery at the heart of the Lord's Supper: Under the bread and wine, we also receive Jesus' body and blood--the same body that was nailed to the cross and the same blood that was shed for our sin. It is also the same body and blood that Jesus showed to His disciples after He rose from the dead. If Jesus' body and blood are there, Jesus is there. He is present under the elements of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. We call this the real presence. ...Beyond that, we can't explain the real presence.2

So let me get this straight. I'm supposed to listen to "exactly" what Jesus says, and I'm told not to try to make this mystery into something which I can understand. Well, I'm definitely listening .... Still listening .... Still listening .... And I'm not understanding. I guess this is where I'm supposed to throw my hands up in the air and shout Hallelujah! Mission accomplished! I don't understand what this means at all and Jesus didn't want me to!  Halellujah!

But seriously, even the author didn't really mean that. He didn't actually mean that Jesus doesn't want us to understand the "mystery" of the Lord's Supper. He couldn't, because he explains this alleged "mystery" with the entire paragraph that follows. What the author is really try to express is that Jesus' Words of Institution are indeed understandable and explainable. However, what the author does not tell his readers is that this "mystery" really isn't exactly what Jesus said. This "mystery" is actually what his tradition of Lutheranism wants to believe. And it's that unique traditional interpretation of Lutherans which is truly mysterious. 

Plus, if you think about this author's argument, it's loaded with lots of logical problems. For example, this author is not doing what he insists his readers should do; he's not listening to exactly what Jesus said. Jesus did not say, "The wine is His blood." Jesus didn't even mention wine. His exact word, if the author was listening, was "cup." Plus Jesus didn't even say that the cup is his blood. He said "This cup is the new covenant (i.e. testament)...". And he also said that "covenant" or "testament" is in his blood, not his blood itself. This ought to be especially important to keep in mind for those who are willing to accept this type of traditional Lutheran indoctrination. If the word "Is" is the "linguistic version of an equal sign," --as the author insists-- then Jesus definitely did not say that the wine is his blood; yet look back and see for yourself: that is exactly what the author claims Jesus said and meant! The author said, "The wine is His blood." Once again, this shows that this author is not playing by his own rules. This might be a display of inconsistency at its finest.

But it gets worse. The very next principle which the author insists we learn is "The Danger of Saying More than Jesus says." Underneath this gigantic headline within the book, the author writes these incredibly ironic words:

More than once in the Bible (Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18), God warns about adding to His Word. There's a good reason for this: when we add what we mere sinful mortals think God says, we run a good chance of subtracting from what God actually meant for us to hear and to have.  ...Jesus didn't say, "This bread is changed into My body," but "This is My body." ...Jesus didn't say, "My body is now with this bread." He said, "This is My body." Holding strictly to the words He spoke, Lutherans believe that they receive both bread and His body, because the bread is His body.3

I get a kick out of reading the tremendous lengths this author is willing to trek in order to shape God's Word into his own "Lutheran" tradition. Rationalization like this is just plain old mysterious nonsense. I wish the author would just come right out and admit it. That would at least help his readers throw the book in the trash-bin sooner. 

1.  Scot Kinnaman [General Editor], Lutheranism 101 [St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2010] p. 149

2.  pp. 149-50

3.  p. 151

Lutheranism 101: Partaking in a worthy manner

I recently came across a book distributed by a pastor of a local LCMS1 church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The book is titled Lutheranism 101, and it's a fairly basic book even though it fills almost three hundred 8"x10" pages with "official" Lutheran dogma (which I think is a fairly large sized book of basic "essentials"). I was especially caught off guard by a few "official" doctrines in the book, not that I had never heard of them before. It's just that I never heard contemporary answers to basic questions answered this, well, basically. For instance, in the section on the Lord's Supper, the question is asked, "Who Is Worthy?" with regard to participants in the sacred meal itself. The answer to that question is as follows:

Being worthy and well prepared to receive the Lord's Supper involves believing the words "given and shed." What is given and shed? Jesus' body and blood. In other words, worthiness involves believing that you are receiving Jesus' very2 body and blood. In the previous chapter, we mentioned that some believe that they receive only bread and wine, not Jesus' body and blood. To believe this is to contradict what Jesus Himself says in the Words of Institution; and that makes one unprepared for the Sacrament.3

Here are a few of my thoughts on this matter. First of all, I find it interesting that the author inserts the parallel phrase, worthy and well prepared, as he defines worthiness. Clearly, the author did not consider Paul's own words to be clear enough -- words which only warn Christians to not partake "in an unworthy manner" (I Cor. 11:27).  This author felt the need to add to what Paul actually said and to emphasize that additional concept. After all, neither Jesus or Paul made any mention of being "well prepared." In the last sentence of this definition, the author again mentions being "unprepared" for the Sacrament. And so, being "unworthy" is doctrinally and conceptually synonymous with being "unprepared." 

But what is another oddity of this view (besides adding terminology to what Paul actually said)? One other oddity is that Paul is the only one who mentions worthiness. Jesus doesn't mention that at all. Now, I realize that the doctrine of plenary inspiration necessitates Paul's canonical words to be the authorized words of God, and since Jesus is God, Paul's words are the authoritative words of Jesus. However, isn't it a bit odd that the author insists that Christian beliefs should not contradict what Jesus Himself really says, yet the author doesn't even reference the actual words of Jesus regarding "worthiness"? Let's not forget that he adds to Paul's terminology as well. 

But this operating definition looks even more suspicious when viewed much closer. The author says that receiving the Lord's Supper involves "believing the words 'given and shed.'" Well, I certainly believe that the meaning of Jesus' words "given" and "shed" were in some sense involved in receiving the Supper. But the author of Lutheranism 101 simply takes for granted what that sense is without clarifying that Jesus' statements don't necessarily share the same assumptions as this Lutheran author. It's a subtle maneuver, but it's definitely there; and this traditional Lutheran assumption is arbitrary as well. Let's see how this plays out practically.

Notice carefully that this author sneaks in two ideas while assuming that they both share a literal one-to-one correspondence in meaning. The author doesn't prove it. It is assumed in advance and taken for granted. On the one hand he says that worthiness "involves believing the words 'given and shed,'" but on the other hand he says that worthiness "involves believing that you are receiving Jesus' very (i.e. real or genuine) body and blood"; which is to say that if you don't believe you are receiving Jesus' real or genuine body and blood, you are not believing the words "given and shed." Did you catch that slight-of-hand too? He is assuming that the meaning of Jesus' words must share a literal one-to-one correspondence, but he's not telling you that the Words of Institution can mean something else, only one of which is that Jesus mysteriously amalgamated the real bread and wine with his real body "given" and his real "shed" blood. There are, in fact, other potential meanings to Jesus' Words of Institution. One does not need to adopt this traditional Lutheran assumption, especially if the Scriptures themselves do not infer that such assumptions are necessary to partake worthily or unworthily. 

Let's keep in mind what Jesus actually said in his Words of Institution:

This is my body given for you, do this in remembrance of me. ...This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:19-20)

Let's now think of some alternatives. One possible meaning could be that Jesus mysteriously turned the bread and wine into his literal human flesh and blood. That is to say, those who partake of the bread and wine don't really partake of real bread and wine at all. They partake of something which appears to be bread and wine, but really is Jesus' flesh and blood. This, to me, seems to be an exaggerated claim. It assumes all sorts of things, one of which is that eating literal human flesh and blood would be lawful in God's sight, even though God strictly prohibits drinking sacrificial blood (Gen. 9:1-6; Lev. 17:10-14). Likewise, the Bible illustrates cannibalism in a handful of places, but it never condones it (Lev. 26:29; Deut. 28:53-57; 2 Kng. 6:28-29; Jer. 19:9; Lam. 2:20; Ezek. 5:10); rather it treats eating human flesh as a curse from God, which is probably why the Jews were abhorred by Jesus' words in John 6:52. They thought Jesus was speaking literally when he spoke of eating his flesh and blood; and so they thought, "How can this man [Jesus] give us his flesh to eat?"

Another possible meaning could be that Jesus mysteriously turned the bread and wine into his real body and blood, but only for his twelve apostles. That's at least possible. After all, he does say "this is my body...for you ...This cup is ...for you." And who was that particular "you"? It was the twelve apostles! Of course, because that seems to conflict with Paul's address to the Corinthian church, which included more participants in the Lord's Supper than just the twelve apostles, it's reasonable to conclude that such an interpretation would be completely arbitrary. Now, if there was a worldwide tradition which held that view, would you believe it just because it's traditional? I would hope not. Scripture itself should be the final authority for the Christian, not tradition.

Now let's consider the traditional Lutheran view again, only in more detail. The traditional Lutheran view is that Jesus' statement, "this is my body," was literally and mystically united with the bread in it's physical essence. I will admit, this is a possible interpretation. After all, when referencing the bread, Jesus does say "this is my body." Martin Luther himself is famous for this belief. There is even a famous incident at a meeting in Marburg, Saxony (modern day Germany) where various church leaders could not come to an agreement about Jesus' Words of Institution, and in the midst of the dialogue Luther began to pound his fist on the table, saying over and over again, "Hoc est corpus meum, hoc est corpus meum." ("This is my body, This is my body.")  In contrast with this famous incident, I find it very interesting that Luther did not insist in a literal interpretation of the phrase, "this cup is the new covenant in my blood." Luther interpreted the first statement as literal, but the second statement as representative and figurative. In other words, Luther assumed that the first statement was literal, and excused himself from needing to interpret the second statement as literal too, even though Jesus uses the exact same words to consecrate both elements. Jesus said "This [bread] is my body" and "This cup is the new covenant." 

Moreover, if Lutherans who hold to these traditional assumptions were consistent, they would need to argue that Jesus mysteriously united his real (physical & spiritual, human and divine) body and handed it (his real body) to his disciples in the form of bread, and that he did the same thing with the cup too. That is to say, with the cup, they would need to argue that Jesus mysteriously united the physical cup of wine in his hand as the literal new covenant itself. No other physical substance, other than the "cup" of wine, could possibly become mysteriously united with the new covenant. Jesus must have meant that the cup of wine would become the new covenant every time Christians partook of his blood "in a worthy manner." But what would it actually mean to literally unite a physical/non-spiritual cup of wine with a non-physical/spiritual covenant? Lutheranism 101 doesn't give an answer to that question, and I suspect that the traditional answer (if there even is one) would be arbitrarily based upon mere Lutheran tradition. Furthermore, why would anyone insist that such a distinction is essential to partaking worthily? One might expect Jesus or the Apostle Paul to have been a bit clearer in their presentation of the facts. (Were they clear enough?)

But let's get back on track with how serious the meaning of these Words of Institution are. Are these meanings the only viable options? The author of Lutheranism 101 is aware of at least one other optional tradition. He insists that,

...some [Christians] believe that they receive only bread and wine, not Jesus' body and blood. 

He then asserts with great confidence that, 

To believe this is to contradict what Jesus Himself says in the Words of Institution. 

That's quite an assertion. One would think that arbitrarily interpreting the bread as becoming his literal body, but the cup of wine not literally becoming the new covenant, would be a more blatant contradiction. And as far as I can tell, it's not contradictory at all to interpret both the bread and the cup of wine as representing Jesus body and blood. That, actually, would be very consistent and reasonable because the bread would represent his "given" body and the cup of wine would represent his "shed" blood. Neither the bread nor the cup of wine become anything other than sanctified bread and wine. Nothing mystical or supernatural invades or transforms the elements themselves. 

Moreover, if the bread and the wine of the new covenant represent the broken body and shed blood of Jesus which was given for us, then there would also be no need to strain the meaning of Jesus' words beyond what was actually spoken by Jesus and reiterated by the Apostle Paul. We wouldn't need to conjure up some rationale for Jesus uniting his "real" body and blood with a "real" loaf of bread and a "real" cup. We also wouldn't need to conjure up some strange "spiritual" extension of his dual-nature (as though the Scriptures allude to some extension, addition, or subtraction from his human & divine essence). And so, one very rational and reasonable meaning of the Words of Institution is actually what the author of Lutheranism 101 falsely claims to be contradictory, namely that the bread which Jesus broke represented Jesus' broken body, and that his blood shed on the cross was represented by a cup of red wine, and because of that participants in the Lord's Supper receive real bread and wine, not Jesus' real body and blood. Paul certainly seems to have interpreted it this way when he concludes, saying:

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.4

Notice, Paul does not even come close to hinting in agreement with this claim of Lutheranism 101. Paul doesn't spend any time distinguishing between those who receive the real body and blood, and those who merely receive real bread and wine. Instead, what he says is that by eating the bread and drinking the cup of the Lord's Supper, they proclaim --they show forth-- their Lord's death. They don't receive the "real" body and blood of the Lord who died. They proclaim the Lord's death. They commemorate the unique covenantal meal in which Jesus and his disciples participated the night he was betrayed, leading to his death. In other words, when the Christian church eats the bread and drinks the cup, they don't proclaim the death of a literal Passover lamb, thereby renewing the old covenant. Instead, they proclaim their Lord's death over and over again as often as they do that together. They proclaim what the Passover lamb represented and what the old covenant anticipated. They ratify their covenant --the new covenant-- with Jesus. They receive a real covenantal meal, with real bread and wine, and they proclaim the real sacrifice for their sins -- Jesus Christ. One might even get the acute feeling that through faith, the Spirit of our risen Lord is present in the midst of his people as they feast on bread and wine together, uniting them in one love, one faith, and one baptism. If so, then thanks be to God.

1.  LCMS stands for Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod
2.  "Very" means real or genuine.
3.  Scot A. Kinnaman [General Editor] Lutheranism 101 [St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2010] p. 155
4.  I Corinthians 11:26

Book Review: Martin Luther on Christian Freedom

Christian Freedom: Faith Working through Love by Martin Luther
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Every admirer of Martin Luther should own this book because it's constant, hammering message of freedom through faith in Christ alone was clearly his most cherished doctrine. I actually gave this book four stars because I don't agree with some of Luther's exegetical remarks, and I think his understanding of God's Law for Christian ethics was a work in progress. However, Luther's treatise on Christian freedom is a masterpiece of literature. Plus, this reader's guide includes excerpts from a handful of sermons which Luther preached on the subject of Christian freedom, and a brief excursus of God's Law in relation to Christian freedom (by Philip Melanchthon). I considered Melanchthon's excursus a breath of fresh air compared to some of the thick, foggy attempts of Luther to harmonize faith and law.

View all my reviews

Instructions to the Twelve (A and A')

In an earlier post I presented the literary structure of Matthew chapter ten as follows:

A)  Instructions to the twelve apostles  (10:5-15)

   B)  Persecution and family division  (10:16-23)

      C)  Enemies of the Master’s household  (10:24-25)

         D1)  Consolation of the twelve: "Do not fear them..." (10:26-27)

            D2)  "Do not fear those who... but Fear Him who can..." (10:28-30)

         D3)  Consolation of the twelve: "Do not fear, therefore..." (10:31-33)

      C’)  Enemies of the Master’s household  (10:34-36)

   B’)  Persecution and family division  (10:37-39)

A’)  Reception of the twelve apostles  (10:40-42)

In a post before that, I pointed out that Matthew chapter ten is also chock-full of references that Christians often abuse without knowing it. Part of what contributes to the abuse of the text's meaning is that 21st century Christians presume that Matthew recorded these words (and Jesus spoke these words) to them today. They mistakenly project themselves into the story of Matthew chapter ten as though they were standing in the same room as Jesus and his twelve apostles, receiving the same instructions first hand. 

Instead, what 21st century Christians should be doing first is interpreting this entire chapter in its own historical context, a context which limits these instructions to the twelve apostles of Jesus (Matt. 10:1-4). The second thing Christians today should do is pay close attention to the literary structure which Matthew provides. There are good reasons why Jesus ends this discourse with statements about receiving a prophet's reward and losing that reward (A', verses 40-42). Those were not doctrinal clues to help Christians unlock the secret Biblical-code of God's eternal will and ultimately lose their own assurance of salvation. Nor was Jesus giving miscellaneous collections of "eternal truths" to help Calvinists and Arminians sort out their soteriological differences. Those were simply closing thoughts that completed the opening instructions of this discourse (A, verses 5-15). And so, let's now turn to the historical context of sections A and A' to see what this does and does not mean and how section A' completes the message of A. 

Jesus begins with instructions to his Twelve, telling them to go "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (10:6), proclaiming that "the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" and finding out "who is worthy" of the Kingdom as they go from town to town, from one Israelite household to another. This opening section (A) even includes a statement which has become a popular Christian slogan: "If anyone will not listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet." Unfortunately this statement is taken completely out of its original historical context. What Jesus actually said was, "if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town." It is embarrassing to find zealous Christians today who abuse this statement as though those were instructions to us -- as though Jesus were saying, "If unbelievers don't like you preaching to them the truth, and they become hostile towards you, shake the dust off your feet and move on to another town to preach the truth." But that is not the way in which this passage is to be understood in its historical context. In fact, if Christians today are going to be consistent in their approach to the instructions given in this chapter, i.e. presuming that Jesus was giving Christians today these specific instructions, they should also limit these instructions to Israelites only (10:6); they should also heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, and cast out demons (v. 8), carry no gold, silver, copper, staff, bag, sandals, or two tunics along with them (vv. 9-10). If we believe that Matthew recorded these instructions as though Jesus was instructing us today, the consistent, principled approach would be to heed all of Jesus' instructions within the chapter, instead of arbitrarily selecting which ever ones are convenient for the time being. 

But this brings up a couple obvious questions: Did Matthew record these instructions as though Jesus was instructing us today? And why don't Christians today prefer to interpret all of these verses in a manner analogous to our generation? 

Well, I suppose some do. Franciscans and other ascetic traditions do, unfortunately, apply these verses in contemporary settings. But that's because they too have misunderstood these instructions of chapter ten as though they were eternal truths spoken to us. For example, certain ascetic traditions follow after Saint Francis of Assisi, who took Jesus' instructions literally as pertaining to him and the Christians ministry which followed him. St. Francis taught that Christ and the twelve apostles renounced all property and material possessions of their own, singly and jointly. He also lived by the same example which he imagined was true of Jesus and his apostles, avoiding all opportunities to ask for money or to live at the expense of others. As a result, he scrounged around for crusts of bread and discarded vegetables from trash-bins, and he worked as a day laborer, insisting on being paid in bread, vegetables, and water, rather than in money, because -- as Jesus said -- "the laborer deserves his food" (v. 10). Sadly, St. Francis overlooked the fact that the Apostle Paul quotes this statement of Jesus; but instead of interpreting it as though Jesus endorsed complete, self-abasing poverty, Paul interpreted it as though Christian pastors should receive financial support for their labor in the Word and the Church (cf. Luke 10:7 & I Tim. 5:18).1 Christians venerate St. Francis because of his faithfulness to God's Word, when in fact, he misunderstood the historical context of Matthew chapter ten completely.

Jesus was not instructing us in Matthew chapter ten any more than he was instructing St. Francis. Jesus was instructing his twelve apostles, and only his twelve apostles. The only meaningful extension of these instructions would have been for other Israelites who received this message of Jesus' apostles in faith, and followed them as they traveled throughout Israel in the first century. Matthew even gives us an overt clue as to why these instructions were for Jesus' apostles, and why Jesus' apostles were to heed these instructions as they went preaching door to door. After Jesus tells them to shake the dust from their feet, he pronounces a judgment upon those towns and their people who  would reject the gospel of his Kingdom having already come. Jesus says, "Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the Day of Judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town." Now all we need to ask is, "what town?" What town did Jesus mean when he said "that town"?

Was Jesus talking about any town of any generation? Was he talking about the town of Waukesha, Wisconsin in the year 2013? Did he have a specific town in mind, singled out for judgment? No, he didn't. He was talking generally about whatever town rejected his apostles -- whatever towns in which the lost sheep of the house of Israel dwelled in that generation. This message of an entire town having to face God on the Day of Judgment would have given first century Jews the impression that soon-coming judgment was approaching them, causing them to face their Maker and give an account before Him much sooner than later. Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of it's great lawlessness and idolatry (Gen. 13:13; 18:20; 19; Deut. 29:23). This is why any mention of Sodom and Gomorrah among Jews became a proverbial expression of warning of God's wrath upon any idolatrous nation (Isa. 1:9; 13:19; Jer. 22:14; 50:40; Amos 4:11). Sodom and Gomorrah faced a swift judgment from God in the days of Abraham, and after their destruction, they too await the final Day of Judgment for their idolatry just like the town of Israel in Jesus' day. And so, one logical inference from this promise of judgment that awaits both Sodom, Gomorrah, and those towns of Israel in the first century is that God would be coming quickly to physically demolish those towns in judgment just as He did with Sodom and Gomorrah. In other words, this promise of facing a worse judgment than Sodom and Gomorrah would have been viewed by first century Jews as a warning of sudden and swifter judgment upon those towns than it was for Sodom and Gomorrah. 

This is why Jesus can confidently tell his twelve apostles that "Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me" (v. 40). When an Israelite heard that the Kingdom of Heaven was in their midst as promised, which also meant that the last days of the Old Covenant were coming to a close as promised, the people had one of two choices to make: they would either side with Jesus as their promised Messiah and King and heed the message of his apostles, or reject Jesus and his apostles and hope in some other savior at some later time. But here we learn that those who would receive this message of the apostles, would also receive Jesus. And those who received Jesus, received the Father who sent (apostled) him. And by receiving the Father, they receive the covenant blessings promised by the Father. By receiving the words of the Father's prophets in faith, they receive exactly what the prophet pronounces to them, namely life and miraculous provisions to sustain them through the coming judgment pronounced upon the land and it's idolaters. By receiving a just man into their home, they receive the rewards of a just man. Consequently, by rejecting a just man or a prophet who comes in the name of the Lord, they will receive justice for rejecting Jesus, and the Father who sent him. They will receive the reward of swifter and more severe judgment due to them for their idolatry. 

The responsibility given to these twelve apostles in this commission was no light matter. They had to be prepared for God's wrath which was promised to pour out upon the land of Israel for her spiritual harlotry and idolatry. Remember, Jesus is the one who describes the state of Israel in the first century as being worse than Sodom and Gomorrah, and worthy of a worse punishment and a worse sentence on the Day of Judgment. But whoever would receive one of Jesus' disciples, supporting them and giving them a cup of cold water after hearing that message (v. 42), by no means lost their reward because they believed God's Word to them in faith; and by sacrificing their livelihood for the sake of Jesus and the Word of God, they would receive the blessing of their heavenly Father and Judge, instead of his wrath and condemnation.

1.  The ESV translation of Matt. 10:8 is actually misleading because the words "without paying" and "without pay" are not actually in the text itself. Only the verb δωρεάν is used, and it simply means to hand out something as a gift (i.e. "give freely"). The ESV translates it this way: "You received without paying; give without pay," which implies that ministers of the gospel should not receive money as the means of supporting their ministry. The NASB, NIV, NLT, and The Voice translate this verse more accurately: "Freely you received, freely give" (NASB); "Freely you have received; freely give" (NIV); "Give as freely as you have received" (NLT); "You received these gifts freely, so you should give them to others freely" (The Voice). The Apostle Paul's interpretation of this statement by Jesus is appropriate because Jesus was not teaching his disciples to reject all forms of compensation for their services. Jesus was teaching his disciples not to solicit their services as though they would only help if paid for their services. Instead, Jesus tells his disciples to serve their fellow brethren freely, doing so out of love for those who  show that they too love Jesus. Paul's point in quoting Jesus ("the laborer deserves his hire"; from Luke 10:7, which is Luke's version of Jesus' statement in Matthew 10:8) is that Christians have a moral responsibility to support ministers of the gospel financially if that is how they make their living. This is how you show them "double honor" (Paul says): by caring for their needs as they care for yours. In Matt. 10:8, Jesus is teaching this very principle, not to solicit their services (rejecting those who won't pay them and accepting only those who do), but rather to expect godly people to value their services and provide food and other provisions for them, as necessary, as they serve and minister the gospel.

If only they had Tic Tacs back then

Martin Luther began one of his sermons on 1 Peter 1:15-16 with an illustration of St. Bernard of Clairvaux. I couldn't resist sharing his wisdom in this matter:

Saint Bernard...denied his body so much that his breath stank and he could not associate with people. Later, however, he came to his senses... He realized that he had made himself unable to serve his brothers. ...St. Peter [also] demands no more than that we be sober, that is, that we stint the body as long as we feel that it is still too lascivious. He does not prescribe any definite length of time for fasting as the pope has done; but he leaves it to everyone's discretion to fast in such a way that he always remains sober and does not burden the body with gluttony. He must remain reasonable and sensible, and he must see to what extent it is necessary for him to mortify the body. It does no good at all to impose a command about this on a whole crowd or community, since we are so different from one another.1

1.  Martin Luther, Christian Freedom: Faith working through love [St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2011] p. 98 

 

Fallen from God's favor, part 2

In my last post I discussed at length the biblical notion of falling away from God's favor. That post can be read here. At the end of that post I mentioned my own personal opinion that through John Calvin's exegesis of God's Word, his understanding of covenant theology offers a satisfactory solution to this apparent paradox of Christians who can fall away from God's favor. Over the next few posts I intend on listing numerous citations from the works of John Calvin in order to support this view which I'm claiming he believed and taught. This isn't to say that John Calvin is or should be the final word on this subject. God's Word is the final word on this subject. And so, obviously, I am asking the reader to keep in mind that John Calvin could be mistaken. He could be. That doesn't automatically mean that he was, in fact, mistaken. But because this is a serious and controversial topic to discuss, my hope is that the reader will remain prayerful concerning his or her understanding of God's Word, praying earnestly that God would keep you from stumbling into sinful thoughts about His abilities, His motives, His character, and the integrity of His Word. 

With all of that said, I want to mention that there is one tremendous resource in which many of the following citations in this blog post can be found. That resource is Peter Lillback's book, The Binding of God: Calvin's Role in the Development of Covenant Theology. I studied this book two years ago while I was on vacation and it revolutionized the way I understood Calvin's Covenant theology. But, in all honesty, if the reader were to study that book for the purpose of learning more about this subject of falling away from God's favor, they may become very disappointed because Dr. Lillback's book was not about that particular subject. It included a small portion about it, but the majority of the book was about the historical development of Covenant Theology, and the ways in which John Calvin influenced it during the time of the Great Protestant Reformation.

I think one more thing needs to be mentioned before diving into Calvin's thoughts. After studying Lillback's book, Calvin's perspective of covenant theology helped clarify a lot of my own presumptions and misunderstandings. Even though I don't agree with Calvin on a number of things, I still consider Calvin to be a very thorough and thoughtful exegete of God's Word, which, I think, should be respected among all professing Christians. And so, by quoting extensively from John Calvin's own works (as meticulously documented by Lillback), my hope is that from those quotations below, Calvin's own meditations on covenant theology will illuminate our understanding of the apparent paradox of falling away from God's covenant favor.

First things first. According to Calvin's exegesis of the Scriptures, salvation is always--without exception--made freely offered to man in terms of a covenant. That is to say, God assures mankind that He dwells among them as their God through means of a covenant. Calvin comments:

All men adopted by God into the company of his people since the beginning of the world were covenanted to him by the same law by the bond of the same doctrine [of grace] as obtains among us. It is very important to make this point.1

Calvin further describes this act of covenanting as the source and spring of salvation itself. Commenting on Psalm 67:1-2, (which says, "May God be gracious to us and bless us and make his face shine on us so that your ways may be known on earth, your salvation among all nations") Calvin continues this same thought:

By the way of God is meant his covenant, which is the source and spring of salvation, and by which he discovered himself in the character of a Father to his ancient people, and afterwards more clearly under the Gospel, when the Spirit of adoption was shed abroad in greater abundance.2

Accordingly, when God sovereignly places himself in a covenant relationship with people, He binds himself to them in order to highlight his grace:

For if God only demanded his due, we should still be required to cling to him and to confine ourselves to his commandments. Moreover, when it pleases him by his infinite goodness to enter into a common treaty, and when he mutually binds himself to us without having to do so, when he enumerates that treaty article by article, when he chooses to be our father and Savior, when he receives us as his flock and his inheritance, let us abide under his protection, filled with its eternal life for us. When all of those things are done, is it proper that our hearts become mollified even if they were at one time stone? When creatures see that the living God humbles himself to that extent, that he wills to enter into covenant that he might say: "Let us consider our situation. It is true that there is an infinite distance between you and me and that I should be able to command of you whatever seems good to me without having anything in common with you, for you are not worthy to approach me and have any dealings with whoever can command of you what he wills, with no further declarations to you except: 'That is what I will and conceive.' But behold, I set aside my right. I come here to present myself to you as your guide and savior. I want to govern you. You are like my little family. And if you are satisfied with my Word, I will be your King. Furthermore, do not think that the covenant which I made with your fathers was intended to take anything from you. For I have no need, nor am I indigent in anything. And what could you do for me anyway? But I procure your well-being and your salvation. Therefore, on my part, I am prepared to enter into covenant, article by article, and to pledge myself to you."3 

But Calvin's understanding of God's covenant relationships with man are not limited merely to some revelation of His gracious character in binding himself to us. For Calvin, God does not merely bind himself to us. He binds us to himself:

From what foundation may righteousness better arise than from the Scriptural warning that we must be made holy because our God is holy? Indeed, though we had been dispersed like stray sheep and scattered through labyrinths of the world, he has gathered us together again to join us with himself. When we hear mention of our union with God, let us remember that holiness must be its bond; not because we came into communion with him by virtue of our holiness! Rather, we ought first to cleave unto him so that, infused with his holiness, we may follow whither he calls.4

As Lillback notes, "because of this mutual binding between God and man, the covenant places the believer under 'obligation' and 'duty' toward his God." He cites Calvin numerous times, and in one of them Calvin says:

Indeed, in all covenants of his mercy, the Lord requires of his servants in return uprightness and sanctity of life, lest his goodness be mocked or someone, puffed up with empty exultation on that account, bless his own soul, walking meanwhile in the wickedness of his own heart. Consequently, in this way he wills to keep in their duty those admitted to the fellowship of the covenant; nonetheless the covenant is at the outset drawn up as a free agreement, and perpetually remains such.5

This gracious covenantal binding, Calvin contends, is absolutely unconditional from God's sovereign vantage point:

This is also what he [God] means by the mercies of David [Isa. 55:3], but by this phrase he declares that it was a covenant of free grace; for it was founded on nothing else than the absolute goodness of God. Whenever, therefore, the word "covenant" occurs in Scripture, we ought at the same time to call to remembrance the word "grace." By calling them "the faithful mercies of David," he declares that he will be faithful in it, and at the same time states indirectly that he is faithful and steadfast, and cannot be accused of falsehood, as if he had broken his covenant.6

However, Calvin's view of that same sovereign covenantal binding is most definitely not unconditional from man's vantage point. From man's vantage point, God binds us to himself through means of a covenant which is conditional. Commenting on Psalm 132:12, Calvin writes:

For though that kingdom was for a time destroyed, it was restored again, and had its everlasting establishment in Christ. Here the question occurs -- Did the continuance of the kingdom rest upon good conduct, or human merit? For the terms of this agreement would seem to suggest that God's covenant would not be made good, unless men faithfully performed their part, and that thus the effect of the grace promised was suspended upon obedience. We must remember, in the first place, that the covenant was perfectly gratuitous, so far as  it related to God's promise of sending a Savior and Redeemer, because this stood connected with the original adoption of those to whom the promise was made, which was itself free. Indeed the treachery and rebellion of the nation did not prevent God from sending forth his Son, and this was a public proof that he was not influenced by the consideration of their good conduct.... This may serve to show in what sense the covenant was not conditional; but as there were other things which were accessories to the covenant, a condition was appended, to the effect that God would bless them if they obeyed his commandments. The Jews, for declining from this obedience, were removed into exile. God seemed at that time "to make void or profane his covenant," as we have seen elsewhere. The dispersion was a kind of breaking of the covenant, but only in part and to appearance.... In this case would we not have said that the covenant of God was abolished? And yet, as the Redeemer came forth from the very source predicted, it is plain that it stood firm and stable.... The Prophet, we say, might seem to strike directly against the covenant made by God, when he speaks of the crown begin taken away, and yet what he adds in the subsequent part of the sentence, proves that covenant, in so far as it was gratuitous, to have been everlasting and inviolable, since he holds out the promise of the Redeemer, notwithstanding the conduct of the Jews, which was such as to exclude them temporarily from the divine favor. God, on the one hand, took vengeance upon the people for their ingratitude, so as to show that the terms of the covenant did not run conditionally to no purpose; while on the other, at the coming of Christ there was a free performance of what had been freely promised, the crown being set upon Christ's head. The obedience which God demands is particularly stated to be the obedience of his covenant, to teach us that we must not serve him by human inventions, but confine ourselves within the prescription of his word.7

Commenting on Hosea 5, Calvin writes again concerning the covenant of grace from man's vantage point:

[Hosea] says that they had acted perfidiously with God, for they had violated his covenant. We must bear in mind what I have said before of the mutual faith which God stipulates with us, when he binds himself to us. God then covenants with us on this condition, that he will be our Father and Husband; but he requires from us such obedience as a son ought to render to his father; he requires from us that chastity which a wife owes to her husband. The Prophet now charges the people with unfaithfulness, because they had despised the true God, and prostituted themselves to idols.8 

It's interesting to note that Calvin saw an analogy between the requirement of Christ's faithful obedience to his Father and all those adopted as children into fellowship with him. In Calvin's mind, that included the people of Israel and "us" Christians today. But Christ, according to Calvin, actually accomplished that which no other man had done or would ever do, and he accomplished it according to God's covenant promise of unconditional faithfulness; and so the crown was "set on his head" as a result. In other words, it was because of God's covenant faithfulness that Jesus, the man, accomplished what God had promised; yet God's promise to His own Son did not take away or violate Jesus' requirement to remain faithfully obedient to the end of his life. 

If this seems paradoxical, it is. However, Calvin did not consider God's eternal knowledge and decree of a thing promised to be contradictory with man's responsibility and accountability to God as promised. This could not be contradictory, in Calvin's mind, because God had revealed both to be true. They were paradoxical, but not contradictory. They are indeed limited to man's finite mind and abilities, but not limited to God's infinite knowledge and ability. And so, according to Calvin, if God had revealed a binding of himself to people through a covenant, and likewise He bound His incarnate Son to the same requirements of faithful obedience, how much more would he require faithful obedience from all others bound to Him in that same covenant? One subtle implication of this view is that the covenant faithfulness/obedience of all those adopted into fellowship with God must appeal to the One who was crowned in their place as promised, especially if God had also revealed that their sinful nature limits their ability to live up to all it's terms. Hence, by implication, Calvin's view of salvation magnifies the grace of God in Jesus Christ above all other things, by maintaining that true spiritual union with him is more essential to covenant faithfulness than mere outward, objective signs and seals of the covenant (a distinction which I'll discuss more about in a following post).

Dr. Lillback carefully summarizes these views of Calvin, by saying that "God's plans and promises in His covenant are not dependent upon man and are consequently unconditional. Nevertheless, at any given point in human history, God's blessings are to be responded to in human responsibility by obedience to the covenant. Without such obedience, the blessings of God shall be removed in divine judgment. From man's temporal standpoint, the covenant is conditional. From God's eternal perspective it is unconditional. God will never fail to keep His word, but if the covenant people fail to keep their word, they shall lose the covenant blessings."9

Ultimately this means that covenant breaking is a reality for sinners in covenant with God. God is not a sinner, so He will remain faithful to the terms of the Covenant with which He binds himself to us. He will not break the covenant obligations with which he bound himself graciously to undeserving sinners. But because Christians remain sinners in this life, there must be some sense in which the biblical language of "falling away" and losing God's covenant blessings is true (not merely rhetorical or hypothetical). As I noted carefully in the previous post, God's own Word seems to describe a covenantally-bound sinner's ability to break the covenant in which God has placed him.

To be sure, this doesn't answer every question related to the apparent paradox of falling away from God's favor. However, it does expose the modern "Calvinist" misconceptions about living in a covenant relationship with God, as though once someone believes they have been saved by grace, God no longer truly holds them accountable to faithfully obey His Word.

Is it true that God has chosen a peculiar people for himself, adopting them in time and history, and that from God's vantage point, every one of them to whom He has bound himself for eternal life will receive it? I believe the answer is, most assuredly, yes. John Calvin believed that too. 

But is it also true that God has chosen a peculiar people for himself, adopting them in time and history, and that from man's vantage point, those "bound to God" within that same covenant can "fall away from God's favor" by despising and breaking the covenant in which God had placed them? John Calvin certainly believed so. But that is because John Calvin did not hold to a completely unilateral view of God's covenant of grace. For Calvin, God's covenant of grace was unilateral in origin, but bilateral in it's fulfillment.10 "As a result of this approach, the warnings of Scripture take on deep seriousness, and signal the importance of self-examination for all who belong to the covenant of grace."11 

Keep in mind that along with this view of sovereignly initiated covenant relationships, Calvin also held to a monergistic view of regeneration,12 a comprehensive view of predestination and genuine human free will,13 as well as a firm conviction concerning God's unchangeable, eternal decree. 

In the next post I will provide some more citations from Calvin concerning God's sovereign election and adoption, and my hope in the end is that we will all see that these views of his did not conflict with his firm belief in monergistic regeneration, God's sovereignty, or even man's free will.

1.  Peter Lillback, The Binding of God: Calvin's Role in the Development of Covenant Theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001] p. 134, fn 30.

2.  Ibid.
3.  Ibid. pp. 137-8
4.  Ibid. p. 166

5.  Ibid. pp. 167-8

6.  Ibid. p. 169. Parentheses mine.

7.  Ibid. pp. 169-170

8.  Ibid. p. 172

9.  Ibid. p. 170

10.  Ibid. p. 25. Lillback points out that other scholars have noted this bilateral aspect in Calvin's theology. He specifically points the reader to study certain works of W. Vanden Bergh, W.H. Van der Vegt, Anthony A. Hoekema, and Elton M. Eenigenburg [Ibid. p. 23].
11. Ibid.
13. Monergism is the view that the regeneration of an individual's spiritual ability (i.e. man's "heart") is the work of God through the Holy Spirit alone, as opposed to synergism, which, essentially argues that God has provided some small, but nevertheless significant, ability within spiritually dead men to cooperate with God's grace in order to become regenerated. 

14. "Free will" is to be understood in the sense of "volition" according to one's spiritual condition. That is to say, Calvin understood the notion of human "free" will in the sense that man is free to make genuine choices according to his spiritual nature. Spiritually dead men make genuine choices and spiritually alive men make genuine choices. However, prior to regeneration, man is spiritually dead and therefore unable to please God. After regeneration, man is able to do things which please God, but because he remains a sinner, he is also able to do things which displease God. 

Fallen from God's favor

Last night I had a conversation with some good friends about meriting God's favor. In the end we all agreed that the language of "meriting" God's favor, even if it's being used in the narrow sense of pleasing God, is not wise in our current christian climate because it gives the impression that salvation can be earned. However, for those who know me personally, it probably won't come as a surprise that I had some lingering concerns about our current christian climate, and in particular the concern that christians shouldn't talk or think as though doing things -- literally any things -- could either decrease or increase God's favor upon an individual, especially christian individuals. This whole conversation arose from a study in Galatians chapter five. 

In Galatians chapter five, Paul speaks adamantly toward those Gentile christians within the Galatian church who are considering to accept the rite of circumcision on the terms of the "Juidaizers" who "wanted to distort the gospel of Christ" (Gal. 1:7) by teaching that God only justifies sinners in virtue of the Mosaic Covenant with Israel, through "works of the (Mosaic) Law." This first century controversy, in effect, convinced the Christian Gentiles of Galatia to voluntarily place themselves under the Old Covenant, thereby identifying themselves with the covenant-people of Israel, in order to receive a righteous standing before God; and that is patently false and contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ and justification through faith in him alone (Gal. 2:15-21; Eph. 2:1-10). Paul even describes this particular worldview of judaism with which he was personally familiar as though it were a pagan and idolatrous system of worship that enslaved the human heart instead of freeing it (Gal. 4:8-11, 21-31; 5:1). And yet, after all of this contention with insidious Judaizers and the proselytes to Judaism which they nurtured and developed in Galatia, Paul declares emphatically that those Gentiles who have become tangled within this controversy and honestly think they are being justified by the Mosaic Law and its stipulated works "have fallen away from grace" (Gal. 5:4).

Now, in our current Christian climate, it is presumed that Paul did not truly believe that a Christian could fall away from God's grace, because that would imply a loss of salvation -- a salvation which was granted unconditionally. In other words, it is presumed that Paul was serious in the tone of his warning but not in the actual content of his warning. That is to say, Paul is speaking rhetorically for the effect of appearing threatening, but the propositional threat itself was not true. That, to me, seems more like an idle threat than good rhetoric. And under such urgent circumstances like the situation in Galatia, an idle threat would not only be foolish, it would also be useless. These Christian Gentiles cannot have possibly fallen away from something that they did not have. In this case, it's God's favor. 

The most logical inference of this allegedly "idle" threat is that previously these Gentiles had been viewed as having obtained God's favor. In other words, they had been viewed as Christians by the Apostle Paul, and other Christians within the church of Galatia believed they were Christians too. And one of the benefits of that Christian faith is they had received God's favor. Paul thought they had received God's favor. They thought they did too.  If they didn't think that, Paul's warning would be absolutely meaningless. And it is that position of favor from which Paul says they "have fallen away from" (aorist active indicative of ekpipto) God's favor or "grace."

The apostle Peter speaks this way also in one of his letters. He says, "You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose (ekpipto) your own stability" (2 Pet. 3:17). The author of Hebrews is even more explicit in his language: 

Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? (Heb. 10:28-29) 

It seems to me that the apostles of our Lord Jesus christ were not speaking hypothetically when they described the certainty of God's promised, decreasing favor upon those who had been sanctified by the blood of His covenant and had outraged the Spirit of grace (i.e. the Spirit of favor).  Similarly, Paul speaks to the Colossian Christians as though they too could fall away from some kind of relationship with Jesus Christ. In Colossians 1:21-23, he writes:

And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.

In Paul's letter to the Gentile congregation in Rome, he writes concerning the covenant-body of Israel:

They [the covenant body of Israel] were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. (Rom. 11:20-21)

The very clear inference of these statements by Paul is that the Gentiles who once were alienated and hostile in their minds toward God have now been graciously brought into a relationship with God where they (perceivably) are no longer hostile to God in their minds and are no longer alienated from God. Yet, Paul still speaks as though they were able, in some sense, to become lax, unstable, and irresolute in their faith, shifting away from the hope of the gospel that they heard and (apparently) received with favor. A few verses later (Col. 1:28) Paul states that all men need to heed this "warning" of God's gospel: "Him [that is, Jesus] we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ." The obvious implication of this "warning" is that these identifiable Christians could "shift from" the hope of the gospel, at which time God's warning would be appropriately given to them -- that warning being the promise of God's hostility toward them, the deliverance from which they did not deserve in the first place. And if the sovereign kindness of God placed the people of Israel into a covenant relationship with Him, and He eventually did not spare them, allowing them to "fall" because of their unbelief and pride, how much more is God's warning appropriate for Gentiles who receive God's kindness and yet are tempted to do the same?

It seems to me that in some sense, God's kindness can be diminished with those who are in covenant with Him. If this is true, one logical implication would be that God's kindness could also increase with those who are in covenant with Him. 

Now, I realize that in our current Christian climate, especially among "Baptistic" and "Calvinistic" circles of Christianity, it is likely that I will be accused of being Arminian, Palagian, semi-Palagian, and possibly even a total pagan for believing that Christians in covenant with God can do things which increase or decrease God's favor. That would mean, or so they might think, that Jesus does not cover all of their sins, or that Christ only covers their sins intermittently (covering them and uncovering them, and covering them back up again, etc.). But is that really true? Must we deny substitutionary atonement by affirming that God's favor upon His covenant people can increase or decrease depending on their faithfulness? It seems to me that no matter which Christian tradition we come from, both substitutionary atonement for Christians and the ability of Christians to fall away from God's favor are part of the clear language of God's Word; and first and foremost, as Christians, we ought to commit ourselves to the Word of God above all traditions. But does this mean that by accepting this peculiar biblical language about "falling away from grace" that other biblical doctrines are being compromised, even the doctrines of sovereign grace? Does this diminish God's sovereignty over all? Does this diminish the sinner's accountability to God one bit? Does this even imply that God is not worthy of our love, adoration, and respect? I don't believe so, and I'll tell you why. 

The language of God's Word also, and just as clearly, affirms that all men are completely dead in their sins (Eph. 2:1) and by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:2-3) and enemies of God by their very nature (Rom. 5:10) through their legal covenantal union with the first Adam who fell into sin in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3; Hosea 6:7; Rom. 5:12-19). Because of their union with the first Adam they are by nature slaves of sin (Rom. 6:20). God's Word is also very clear that no man who is dead in his sins is righteous in himself (Rom. 3:9-20), or can do things in himself which merit God's favor, thereby causing or stimulate God to make him righteous or even to give him an alien righteousness. All men have fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23) and there is no one righteous, not so much as one (Rom. 3:10). Therefore the natural man, if he is to be righteous in God's sight at all, must be elected by God to partake of, and be covered by, His righteousness--the righteousness of the Righteous One (Rom. 3:19-26; 4:7; 5:1-21). 

Moreover, God does not base the foundation of His election on anything inherent within the individual sinner. God chooses to save sinners based on the gracious and kind intention of His own will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11). God's electing love, though sufficient for all and for all time, is for those whom God alone wills, and only for those whom He wills (John 6:37; 17:9). And because God has sovereignly, powerfully, and graciously saved a people for Himself, they have eternal security in Him (Rom. 8:1; John 10:27; I Cor. 10:13; Philip. 1:6).

And so, how does all of this fit together? How is the language of falling away from God's favor to be understood in light of God's favor originating and continuing from His completely sovereign grace?  

Are we to believe that God's favor is unlimited and static no matter what (that is to say, it doesn't move up or down or increase or decrease at all in time and history) for those who are in a covenant relationship with in Him? 

Are Christians, graciously placed within a covenant relationship with God, held to certain conditions which necessitate their faithful obedience, lest they fall away from God's favor?

I will gladly confess that it is a tremendous error to believe that spiritually dead men and enemies of God can do something to earn or "merit" God's favor in any sense. But is that true for those who are no longer spiritually dead and have been graciously placed within a covenant relationship with God? Is that true of people who are no longer considered God's enemies?  I get the funny feeling that Christians in our current climate get all flustered by this language because they equate a covenant relationship with God (something which contains blessings and curses and is objectively verifiable) as God's eternally electing, predestinating decree of salvation itself (something which man, in and of himself, could not possibly know because it's hidden within God's knowledge alone, Deut. 29:29). I also suspect that because such Christians don't want to attribute human perceptions of immorality to God (and His holy character), they don't like the thought of a God who would do such things as blessing them for obedience/faithfulness and cursing them for disobedience/faithlessness. They might think it's not "good" or "loving" or "gracious" for God to do that, especially if their righteous standing before God is because of the righteousness of another man who stands in their place (i.e. Jesus). 

But perhaps the most serious concern which stems from this apparent paradox is the thought that one could lose their regenerate or eternally elect status in God's sight if such things as covenant conditions (i.e. blessings and curses) were indeed true (and not just idle, hypothetical threats displayed for purely rhetorical purposes). The thought might be (i'm imagining) that no one can rest in any absolute assurance of salvation because God's covenant, through which he saves sinners, is conditional in some sense. And if it's conditional, after having already begun a work of regeneration, then one can lose his or her regeneration. Moreover, if it's conditional, God could not possibly predestine my eternal destiny, because it would change depending on something I do. 

Obviously, these apparent paradoxes are all serious concerns. And they all need to be addressed.

There is one thing Christians can be sure of, even when they are wrestling with this apparent paradox of "falling away from grace"; and that is the covenant faithfulness of God. God will always be faithful to the terms of His covenant with his people (Psa. 33:4; 36:5; 86:15; 89:1, 8; 115:1; Lam. 3:22-23; Rom. 3:3-4; I Cor. 1:9; 10:13; II Cor. 1:18; I John 1:9). But (and this is a big "but") if the terms of His covenant do include conditions, why would any professing "Christian" pretend as though His or her faithfulness will result in an eternal life in God's comfortable presence? In other words, why would a professing Christian presume that God's gracious covenant with them continues so that they could live sinfully? As the apostle Paul says, "Should we continue1in sin, that grace may abound?" (Rom. 6:1)?

In one of the following posts, I would like to offer a solution to this apparent paradox, but I can promise you that the solution won't be my own. In the following posts I would like to offer the solution presented by John Calvin, which was based upon his own study of God's Word. Now, I realize that our current climate of Christianity has many views, both pros and cons, concerning John Calvin the person and "Calvinism" as a theological think-tank, but I'm not going to offer a solution to this apparent paradox from our current "Calvinistic" climate. I'm going to offer John Calvin's own solution, which, as we'll see, is different from modern mainstream "Calvinistic" solutions. Stay tuned for those upcoming posts.

1.  The verb for "continue" in Rom. 6:1 is stated in the subjunctive mood, signifying possibility and potentiality. I prefer the HCSB translation which reads, "Should we continue...".  Other translations say "Are we to continue in sin?" (ESV), or "Shall we go on sinning..." (NIV).