Category: Theology (Page 1 of 2)

The stained glass at Iglesia Luterana Principe de Paz (Prince of Peace Lutheran Church), Mayagüez, Puerto Rico, is seen reflected in the chalice on Thursday, Nov. 14, 2019. LCMS Communications/Erik M. Lunsford

Holy Communion: A Crescendo Case for the Lutheran View

February 16, 2026 / Chris / 0 Comments

The inversion of the paradigm of my assumption regarding the sacraments was an epiphany that allowed me to complete my transition to Lutheranism. My former understanding assumed that baptism and the Lord’s supper were acts we performed to demonstrate our sincerity and devotion to Christ. Now, I understand that the sacraments are God’s gifts to His children. Through Holy Communion, God forgives sins and strengthens faith through His very body and blood. Lutherans do not deny that the supper calls for faith and remembrance, but we do assert that faith receives what God’s word promises. I’d like to offer a crescendo case for the Lutheran view and some clarifications.

The Testimony of Church History

The dominant patristic witness is that the bread and wine are the true body and blood of Christ. There isn’t a sustained denial that Christ is objectively present until much later as Zwingli raises metaphysical objections to Christ’s locality. A brief survey of the belief of the early fathers and a glimpse into the heart of disagreement at the Marburg Colloquy give us the testimony of the church and a late breaking point as the church began to diverge from its historic position.

In the early 2nd century, Ignatius of Antioch condemns those who “do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.”¹ Justin Martyr likewise limits partaking of the Eucharist to those “who believe that the things which we teach are true,” which in part includes that the bread and wine “is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”² The early patristic records indicate near unanimity regarding the real presence of Christ in the bread and the wine, but I’ve selected these to also highlight the importance that the early church placed on holding to this belief to set the stage for the disagreement at the Marburg Colloquy between Luther and Zwingli.

The Marburg Colloquy saw widespread agreement on most issues with the exception of the Eucharist. This represents a divergence from the church’s mostly uniform stance on the real presence of Christ throughout the early patristic and medieval periods.

Fifteenth, regarding the Last Supper of our dear Lord Jesus Christ, we believe and hold that one should practice the use of both species as Christ himself did, and that the sacrament at the altar is a sacrament of the true body and blood of Jesus Christ and the spiritual enjoyment of this very body and blood is proper and necessary for every Christian. Furthermore, that the practice of the sacrament is given and ordered by God the Almighty like the Word, so that our weak conscience might be moved to faith through the Holy Spirit. And although we have not been able to agree at this time, whether the true body and blood of Christ are corporally present in the bread and wine [of communion], each party should display towards the other Christian love, as far as each respective conscience allows, and both should persistently ask God the Almighty for guidance so that through his Spirit he might bring us to a proper understanding. Amen.³

In fairness, there were antecedents to Zwingli’s distilled philosophical approach and Calvin’s spiritual via media approach regarding how the real presence of Christ was explained. Augustine did speak of eating the body of Christ and drinking the blood of Christ in a spiritual sense.

Understand spiritually what I have said to you. You are not to eat this body which you see, nor to drink that blood which they who crucify me are going to shed. I have commended to you a certain sacrament; spiritually understood, it will give you life.⁴

However, it’s important to take his words in context and understand that he was referencing John 6. In his sermon on the liturgical seasons, he clearly affirmed sacramental realism: “That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. The chalice, or rather what is in the chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ.”⁵ So, claiming Augustine was clearly in the spiritual symbolism camp is not a fair assessment of his views. It is more accurate to say that later theologians and writers latched onto pieces of Augustine and took them further as the views of the Lord’s supper began to fracture. The ironic effect is that Reformed, Lutheran, Baptist, and Catholic theologians cite Augustine for their Eucharistic distinctiveness. More importantly, we must feast upon God’s word and let it nourish our minds to rightly consider this sacrament of the altar.

The Testimony of Scripture

When Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper His words were clear. It is worth repeating but not rehashing the core of the argument. Many point to Jesus’ words as a metaphor like His “I am statements” while those holding to a real presence insist that His words be taken literally. Instead, I’d like to let Jesus’ words of institution be stated and then considered in light of Paul’s words of admonition.

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you,for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Matthew 26:26-28, ESV

Paul’s admonition of the Corinthians regarding the Lord’s Supper points to the efficacy and real presence of Christ. Why would he issue such a stark warning if it were only a memorial meal? Instead he says,

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.But a person must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For the one who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not properly recognize the body.

1 Corinthians 11:27-29, NASB

First, notice that Paul says that eating the bread or drinking the cup in an unworthy way means one is “guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.” Second, notice that Paul states that one eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not properly recognize the body. What does he mean by body? The NIV opts to translate this as “the body of Christ,” following the immediate context of Christ’s literal body in verse 27. Other interpretations point toward Paul referencing the corporate body with their disregard for the poor, orderliness, and unity in the supper in the broader context. Going back to chapter ten of 1 Corinthians, Paul raises the question as to whether or not the cup blessed and the bread broken are κοινωνία (communion or participation) in the blood and body of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16). The language here strongly suggests a true presence understanding in the supper as Paul describes a true participation, as κοινωνία denotes real sharing, not a mere symbolic recollection. When read together, the participatory language of 1 Corinthians 10 undergirds and underlines the seriousness and reality of what we believe and what we receive.

Paul’s admonitions bring greater clarity to the plain, literal meaning of Jesus’ words of institution. His warning would not carry the weight that it most certainly does if Jesus’ “body” and “blood” in the sacrament were merely memorials for our consideration. Paul’s urgency and explicit connecting language to the physicality of Christ reminds us that properly recognizing the body is not just remembering. Paul doesn’t treat the supper as a way to boost our devotion but instead as a participation in what Christ objectively gives.

Clarifications

Terms

Lutherans have been associated with the term consubstantiation; however, they have not and do not typically use the term. Rejecting transubstantiation, the Catholic view, Lutherans simply assert that the real presence of Christ is in, with, and under the elements. They have used the term “sacramental union” to describe this nuanced distinction. It simply means that the bread is bread and the wine is wine while simultaneously confessing that the body and blood of Christ are present in, with and under the elements. The “how” is left to trusting in God’s promises and power.

Focus

When I was a Baptist as well as when I attended a Reformed congregation, the emphasis in communion was on remembrance and personal holiness. Let me be clear. Remembering and coming with reverence and holiness is absolutely a part of partaking in communion. However, this is simply a baseline of what it means to follow our Lord’s institution of His supper and the whole of the biblical teaching. Additionally, Lutherans are not concerned with the “how” as scripture does not give us those answers. Any “how” is speculative, and we rest in the assurance of God’s promises as seen in His word. Scripture nowhere explicitly teaches an ascension in spirit to the presence of Christ through the participation in the Lord’s supper, as Calvin’s moderating, middle view claims. Lutherans are comfortable asserting what scripture asserts even when it transcends our human philosophical categories.

Closed Communion

The Apology of the Augsburg Confession highlights careful consideration of belief in the substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ.⁶

Confessional Lutherans generally hold to closed communion, which can cause fellow believers in Jesus to wonder why they are not invited to participate in the Lord’s Supper. Put simply, Holy Communion is taken seriously because scripture says to take it seriously and Lutherans want to make sure that those who partake of the body and blood of Christ have properly recognized the body and eat and drink in a worthy manner. Fencing the table in this manner is a sign of pastoral care that makes faithful shepherding a precursor to communing.

Too Much of a Good Thing

Lutherans generally favor more frequent celebration of Holy Communion. Luther, in the large catechism, gives spiritual context for the urgency and frequency: “If you could see how many knives, darts, and arrows are aimed at you every moment, you would be glad to come to the Sacrament as often as possible.”⁷ We are not commanded in scripture to partake with a particular frequency, but the need for forgiveness, the comfort of grace, and the nourishment of our souls points to seriousness and regularity. No matter how often you come to the Lord’s table, it is not too much of a good thing.

Moments Magnified

One of the first times I visited a Lutheran congregation there was a moment that led to the epiphany referenced earlier. It was not exactly during communion; however, it was the precursor to it as we prepared ourselves through confession and absolution. We began singing the first two stanzas of “Great is Thy Faithfulness,” we paused to confess our sins corporately, and then the pastor pronounced the absolution. We were forgiven on account of Christ. Then we picked up with the third verse and I sang it like I had hundreds of times before and yet somehow it impacted me with the weight of glory and a peace that passed all understanding.

Pardon for sin and a peace that endureth,
Thine own dear presence to cheer and to guide;
Strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow,
Blessings all mine and ten thousand beside.

That inversion point was what began my rethinking of the church, the sacraments, and the posture of heart and mind that we sinners bring before our gracious God. As I made my way to the altar rail later that day to receive “the body of Christ broken for me” and the “blood of Christ shed for me” the peace of God literally gave strength for the day and bright hope for the next.

Recently, we had several weeks that the wintry weather prevented us from gathering together for worship and partaking in the Lord’s Supper. The chaplain and mentor to our current Vicar made the suggestion to have a Wednesday night worship service with Holy Communion and was willing to make the hour commute yet again and in another bout of possible weather. Why did he make the suggestion and why was he willing to do this? Because coming to the table of the Lord for forgiveness of sins matters. His genuine pastoral concern was a powerful reminder to me that God’s word and promises should guide our practices. We believe that the body and blood of Christ are in, with, and under the bread and wine and that partaking is for the forgiveness of sins because God’s word says so.

Holy Communion is not an optional luxury that followers of Christ can casually contemplate or recklessly relegate. Our Savior’s words of institution and the apostle’s words of admonition point us to the reality of Christ’s presence, the severity of false understanding, and the mercy given in consuming the body and blood of our Lord. Let us consider rightly, consume worthily, and cherish appropriately the good gift that Christ instituted and gives His children as often as they partake.

Footnotes

Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6, in The Apostolic Fathers, trans. J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, ed. Michael W. Holmes, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 231.
Justin Martyr, First Apology 66, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 185–86.
“The Marburg Articles (1529),” Article 15, in German History in Documents and Images, trans. Ellen Yutzy Glebe, accessed February 9, 2026, https://germanhistorydocs.org/en/from-the-reformations-to-the-thirty-years-war-1500-1648/ghdi:document-4311.
Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 26.12, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 7, ed. Philip Schaff (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888), accessed February 15, 2026, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm.
Augustine, Sermons (184–229Z) on the Liturgical Seasons, sermon 227, trans. Edmund Hill, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, Part III, vol. 6 (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1993), 300.
Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article X, in The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, trans. and ed. Charles Arand et al., accessed February 15, 2026, https://thebookofconcord.org/apology-of-the-augsburg-confession/article-x/.
Martin Luther, Large Catechism, V.82, in The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, trans. and ed. Charles Arand et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 469.

Bibliography

Apology of the Augsburg Confession. Article X. In The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Edited by Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert. Translated and edited by Charles Arand et al. Accessed February 15, 2026. https://thebookofconcord.org/apology-of-the-augsburg-confession/article-x/

Augustine. Sermons (184–229Z) on the Liturgical Seasons. Translated by Edmund Hill. The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century. Part III, vol. 6. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1993.

Augustine. Tractates on the Gospel of John. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series. Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888. Accessed February 15, 2026. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm

Ignatius of Antioch. Letter to the Smyrnaeans. In The Apostolic Fathers. Translated by J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer. Edited by Michael W. Holmes. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Justin Martyr. First Apology. In Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Luther, Martin. Large Catechism. In The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Edited by Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert. Translated and edited by Charles Arand et al. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.

“The Marburg Articles (1529).” In German History in Documents and Images. Translated by Ellen Yutzy Glebe. Accessed February 9, 2026. https://germanhistorydocs.org/en/from-the-reformations-to-the-thirty-years-war-1500-1648/ghdi:document-4311

Baptism: A Decrescendo Case for the Lutheran View

December 30, 2025 / Chris

My son is due in the next few weeks, and amidst the deluge of impending changes and responsibilities, baptism has resurfaced to the top of my mind and heart. The issue was one of the original blockades to transitioning to Lutheranism; however, after deeper study, it became a theological topic that was biblically simple, clear, and full of power. After a few years of being Lutheran and with a little one on the way, this seemed an appropriate time to elaborate on my thought journey and solidifying convictions regarding this profound sacrament.

The strongest case comes from Scripture and then transitions to historical testimony and belief. I’d like to offer a decrescendo case for the Lutheran view of baptism along with some brief reflections on the objections.

The Biblical Case for Efficacy in Baptism

Efficacy doesn’t equate to a mechanical, faithless act. Baptismal efficacy simply answers a few basic questions in the affirmative. Does baptism do anything? Is grace given and are sins forgiven via baptism? The Lutheran view says yes. Set aside your theological, denominational, and modern evangelical assumptions for a moment and open your mind to what the Scriptures teach regarding baptism. It’s important to start with the passages related directly to baptism.

The most obvious passage to begin with is 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Most objections to baptismal regeneration from this passage boil down to denying that baptism means baptism, saves means saves, or that baptism now saves you means what it says. So, interpreters assert that baptism is not water baptism, that “saves” is not salvific, or that the thrust of Peter’s line of thought is metaphorical rather than actual. However, is this the plain, contextual, grammatical reading of the verse?

A simple survey of the usage of the original Greek words for baptism and saves indicates that the words mean what they mean at face value. Baptism is referencing water baptism, and saves is referencing deliverance from death in a spiritual sense. So, is the phrase “baptism now saves you” collectively referring to the efficacious nature of baptism, or is it a parallel figurative example of Noah’s deliverance? The flow of the language makes baptism an antitype of the ark, which literally saved Noah and his family from the flood. We then see the clarifying clause that this is not merely an outward cleansing, but that which gives a clear conscience through the resurrection of Christ.

Acts 2:38 specifically connects baptism with the forgiveness of sins. The grammar and flow of the verse does not allow for only connecting forgiveness of sins to repentance. Baptism forgives sins because Christ forgives sins, and Paul will give an explicit foundation for what happens in baptism to accomplish this. Romans 6:3–4 and Galatians 3:26–27 show us that baptism unites us with Christ in His death and resurrection into new life. This is not passive, symbolic language.

These are by no means the only passages, but they are an undeniable core of scriptural testimony that baptism is not merely symbolic. Neither is it merely a sign and a seal to “membership in the covenant community.” Baptism does something because God’s Word promises that it does.

We might discuss other passages that refer to washing or the washing of regeneration to bolster this; however, those do not disprove these passages if they are not referring to the sacrament and would only solidify the Lutheran view. Taken altogether, these core passages point us to the undeniable blessing, reality, and efficacy of baptism.

The Historical Case for Efficacy in Baptism

When we examine the earliest records of patristic belief and practice, we see near unanimity around baptismal regeneration for the first fifteen hundred years of church history. In simplest terms, we can say that the earliest and early church fathers held that baptism forgives sins. It was not merely a symbol, nor was it viewed as merely an empty “seal” to usher God’s people into a covenant community without forgiveness of sins.

One of the earliest written records gives us an implied understanding of baptismal regeneration as the prevailing consensus of the time. The Shepherd of Hermas tells a parable in Similitude 9, chapter 16 that emphasizes this view of baptism:

“For, before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God.”¹

Irenaeus was a second-century church father who likely wrote his magnum opus sometime between AD 150 and 180. In book 1, chapter 21 of Against Heresies, Irenaeus gives a clear purpose of baptism as “for the remission of sins.”² Likewise, another second-century saint, Justin Martyr, described baptism as clearly effectual:

“Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.”³

These are clear indicators of what the earlier leaders and thinkers in the church believed regarding baptism. Origen and Augustine, cited later regarding infant baptism, also affirmed baptismal regeneration along with many others. While the authority does not rest with the thinkers themselves, it is helpful and wise to ask ourselves whether they were in a better position to understand the passages and formulate belief as those with closer connection to the biblical authors, or whether the distance of fifteen hundred years was more likely to allow for a philosophical muddying of the scriptural waters.

The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism

Infants are not the only ones to be baptized, but the paradigm and flow of Scripture point to them being baptized. To be fair, there is no single verse or passage that explicitly commands us to baptize infants. For that reason, this falls lower down on the arguments for a Lutheran view. The case is solid nonetheless, but it should be noted that the case for believer’s baptism, apart from the efficacy aspect, also has a biblical framework and grounds for argument. Doctrines do not have to be specifically spelled out in a literal verse, although that does occur with some issues and makes things more theologically tidy. Nonetheless, the Scriptures give us multiple examples to point to the baptism of infants.

Scripture is replete with instances of faith in infants and children, and the paradigm of households coming to faith and being set apart via God’s commanded means is undeniable. John the Baptist looked toward the Messiah even before he was born (Luke 1:39–45). Jesus Himself said to let the little children come to Him and even pronounced that the kingdom belongs to those with faith like them (Matthew 19:13–15). We also see multiple examples of oikos baptisms where households come to faith (Acts 10:44–48; Acts 16:15; Acts 16:31–33; Acts 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:16). Together, these biblical examples and arcs point toward the conclusion that baptism is an act of God connected with a physical means that grants faith and is intended for His people of all ages.

One of the most common arguments for paedobaptism among the Reformed is the continuity between circumcision and baptism. Scripture explicitly connects the two:

“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead” (Colossians 2:11–12).

Lutheran belief largely overlaps with the Reformed on that point, but also extends the biblical foundation to include all of the scriptural pictures of salvation where God uses physical means to accomplish spiritual ends. We see that the entirety of the family was included in all of the explicit biblical connections to baptism. In addition to circumcision, those who passed through the Red Sea (1 Corinthians 10:1-2) and Noah’s family delivered through the ark (1 Peter 3:20) are pictures of Baptism explicitly mirroring the entirety of the family in deliverance.

The Historical Case for Infant Baptism

While the predominance of early Christian belief affirms efficacy in baptism, there are more nuances and variations when it comes to infant baptism. Tertullian is perhaps the best example of the divergence of thought between affirming the efficacy of baptism on one hand while pointing toward believer’s baptism on the other.

“The Lord does indeed say, ‘Forbid them not to come unto me.’ Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ.”^⁴

Nonetheless, the majority view is certainly in favor of baptizing infants. Origen states that the practice of baptizing even very young children “was received from the apostles.”⁵ Likewise, Augustine argued for an apostolic origin in infant baptism:

“And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolic authority…”⁶

Again, the authority does not rest with figures of church history. However, seeing the continuity of the collective understanding of scripture in the early church and the underlying assumed paradigms as handed down from the apostles pointing toward efficacious, infant baptism should be enough for us to check our 21st century assumptions and let God’s word pour over our minds.

Some Clarifying Final Thoughts

As a Former Baptist

The current Baptist, symbolic view of baptism was an incredibly late development theologically and historically. Nonetheless, a solid biblical framework exists to espouse the believer’s baptism view particularly. Ultimately, I no longer find it convincing, but more importantly, I can no longer answer the following question with even a whimper of a yes: Does Scripture teach that baptism is only an outward sign of an inward change?

Contemporary Reformed or Historic Reformed

If you read the historic Reformed and if you poll the average Reformed congregation, you will often get entirely different pictures of baptism. The historic Reformed view is much closer to the Lutheran view, while the practical belief and practice within many modern Reformed churches is functionally closer to the Baptist view, with the exceptions of the mode of baptism and baptizing infants.

The historic confessions did not change, but the reaction against Lutheran thought in the aftermath of the Reformation, the emphasis on introspection through the Puritans, and a hardened stance against anything Catholic-adjacent on one hand or remotely “mysterious” on the other with the rise of rationalism contributed to a modern view among the Reformed that lacks the original robust emphasis. It is fair to say that their language has softened specifically regarding efficacy. A. A. Hodge was a prominent Princeton and Presbyterian theologian who didn’t shy away from the historic Reformed language while also holding a modified view in line with Calvin’s divergence from the understanding of baptism in the patristics.

“Inasmuch as this water is God’s testimony that the child you have brought hither is guilty and impure, do you present him herein to Christ, that he may receive the forgiveness of sins and the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost?”^⁷

The point is that Hodge is comfortable using the language of forgiveness of sins and regeneration as explicitly connected to baptism even if he does not hold to its efficacy at the time of the baptism. Most in the Reformed camps today would not use that language at all.

Faith Alone?

Probably the most consistent critique of the Lutheran view of baptism is that one cannot hold to salvation sola fide and baptismal regeneration at the same time. However, this is a misunderstanding of the locus and focus of baptismal efficacy. The locus of baptism is God’s Word and promise, and the focus of baptism is the faith that God gives to the recipients. When a person is baptized, they are united with Christ in His death. If one holds to faith as a gift, then it is no issue at all to understand baptism as a means of God delivering that gift. Sins are forgiven, we are regenerated, and united with Christ by faith, and baptism is one way that God accomplishes this.

Objective versus Automatic

The Lutheran view differs from the Catholic view. The Latin phrase that describes the Catholic view of baptism is ex opere operato, which means that the act of baptism automatically works in and of itself. Lutheranism holds that the Word and promise of God are the basis of efficacy and that faith receives what baptism gives. God’s good gift of forgiveness in baptism is not mechanical, but it is objective.

Physical Means for Spiritual Ends

How can God use physical means to accomplish spiritual ends? This question has a gnostic undertone as it communicates a distaste for the physical realm. However, God has used physical means to accomplish spiritual realities consistently. God used a bronze serpent to bring healing to His people (Numbers 21:4–9; John 3:14–15), and He used mud and saliva to bring sight to the blind (John 9). Moreover, He used the blood of His only begotten Son to save sinners. The point is that God commonly uses means to perform miracles, bring healing, or to save.

What about Communion?

If baptism is efficaciously connected to faith, then why not also commune small children? This is a logical question to pose to Lutherans who argue for efficacy in baptism and practice paedobaptism. Again, the Scriptures guide us into understanding not only the significance and purpose, but also the practice of what they command. While baptism is a sacrament administered in a one-time event, communion is designed for the ongoing nurturing of faith, and we are commanded to examine ourselves and reflect upon our faith before partaking. This is the difference between what theologians have called direct faith and reflective faith. Infants are gifted direct faith but are not yet ready to practice reflective faith in keeping with the sacrament of the altar, according to God’s Word (1 Corinthians 11:27–32).

Why Does This Matter?

I’ve yet to quote Luther in defending the Lutheran view of baptism, but one of his concluding points from the Large Catechism regarding the significance of holding the line of the historical belief on baptism is excellent:

“Therefore, every Christian has enough in Baptism to learn and to do all his life… In short, Baptism is so far beyond us that if timid nature could realize this, it might well doubt whether it could be true.”^⁸

It matters because baptism connects us to Christ, His death, and resurrection. It matters because it forgives sins. It matters because our baptism is not a symbolic act that we perform, but a saving act that God gives to His children. Let us not be timid in our approach to understanding baptism.

I’m not going to settle a debate that has raged for centuries, but my underlying point is that much of what is now disagreed on did not rage at all for centuries. The church has a long-standing tradition that stems from its understanding of the sacred texts. The Lutheran view starts with the promises and commands of Scripture and is bolstered by the testimony of a great cloud of witnesses of faith who held baptism in higher regard than is held by many Protestants and even the Reformed today. When my son is baptized, it will be a supernatural event that will capture my heart, delight my soul, and glorify the God who gifts him faith as He promised.

Footnotes

The Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude 9.16, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.21, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).
Justin Martyr, First Apology 61, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).
Tertullian, On Baptism 18, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).
Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans 5.9.11, in Patrologia Graeca, vol. 13, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1857).
Augustine, On the Forgiveness of Sins and Baptism 1.24.34, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 5, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).
Archibald Alexander Hodge, Manual of Forms: For Baptism, Admission to the Communion, Administration of the Lord’s Supper, Marriage and Funerals, Ordination of Elders and Deacons, Etc. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work, 1920).
Martin Luther, Large Catechism, Baptism, in Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, ed. Paul Timothy McCain (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006).

Bibliography

Augustine. On the Forgiveness of Sins and Baptism. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 5. Edited by Philip Schaff. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Hodge, Archibald Alexander. Manual of Forms: For Baptism, Admission to the Communion, Administration of the Lord’s Supper, Marriage and Funerals, Ordination of Elders and Deacons, Etc. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work, 1920.

Irenaeus. Against Heresies. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Justin Martyr. First Apology. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Luther, Martin. Large Catechism. In Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, edited by Paul Timothy McCain. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006.

Origen. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. In Patrologia Graeca, vol. 13. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1857.

Tertullian. On Baptism. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

The Shepherd of Hermas. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Crossing Our T’s, Forgetting the Cross

November 11, 2025 / Chris

“You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!” (James 2:19)

Mark 1:23–24 and Luke 8:27–28 highlight demons fully understanding Jesus’ divinity and power. Jesus called Peter blessed only to call him Satan shortly thereafter. What changed? Is theologically precise knowledge not the ultimate pursuit of Christians and the focus of the ministry of the church?

In what ways do we carry out church in the name of Jesus while bypassing his death and resurrection? Do we shudder like the demons in understanding, and insightfully answer questions of Jesus’ identity like Peter only to set our minds on the “things” of man (Matthew 16:23)? Have we sidestepped the mission of Jesus in the very name of Jesus? That question should strike a healthy fear of God in the core of our souls as we contemplate it and its implications.

Shuddering belief is vague, disconnected from the atoning work and resurrection of Christ on our behalf. Like Peter, it misses the explicit proclamation of Christ’s death even while recognizing His divinity.

Imagine a church with a textbook understanding of God’s nature and attributes. Their statement of faith or confessions offer a clear articulation of theological orthodoxy. Yet, week in and week out there is no cross talk. The sermon exposits the text, includes historical background, and the practical application is winsomely actionable. But what of salvation? What of Christ crucified? What of the Son of God’s atoning work on the cross for you? This death and resurrection of Christ as the basis of our justification is the glorious, scandalous news that we all too often overlook or undervalue.

Evil as defined by the prophet Jeremiah was twofold: forsaking God, and turning to waterless cisterns (Jeremiah 2:13). John 4:13–14 points us to a well that will never run dry. You cannot preach Christ crucified and resurrected for sinners too much. It is inexhaustible good news. It is perpetually needed in the ears of us works-obsessed intellectuals who dot all the I’s on our theological dissertations but cannot seem to understand the profound necessity of the gospel.

This isn’t to say that correct doctrine is unimportant. We must be vigilant in rightly dividing the word of truth. However, our tireless pursuit of theological precision must not supplant resting in the reality of God’s grace secured in Christ.

Shuddering belief fears and understands God but doesn’t trust the work of Christ to make us right with God. My fellow believers in Jesus, let us not cross all our theological T’s only to forget the cross. To do so is to believe and confess the way that the demons do.

Pietism, Pristine Theology, and the Freedom of the Cross

March 22, 2025 / Chris

The demons don’t lack right thinking about God. The most religiously devout caught the sharpest rebukes of Christ. Yet right thinking about God and striving for holiness are critical aspects of the Christian faith. How can we strike the balance in each of these areas?

Piety Versus Pietism

Piety is the pursuit of holiness to the glory of God, while pietism emphasizes the pursuit of holiness to the glory of God. Notice the distinction. One is the natural overflow of God’s ongoing work in and through our lives, while the other is the self-scripted playbook for pursuing righteousness in and through our efforts. Piety produces holiness, while pietism produces self-righteousness.

Pristine Theology Versus Orthodoxy

Is it more important that we wrap up all our theological loose ends or that our theology reflects the deposit of the faith entrusted to us? While the two aren’t mutually exclusive, we must focus on the latter. Focusing on the former can lead to the misalignment of our beliefs with orthodoxy as we employ philosophy and logic to the Bible and elevate our syllogisms to the level of scripture itself.

Freedom of the Cross

More dangerous than lapsing into lawlessness or lackadaisicalness in our Christian Living is the insidious nature of our former slavery to masquerade as our current and future freedom. In the name of Christ and righteousness, we exchange Christ and His righteousness for a return to our damnable good works. Paul reminded the Galatians and us that it is for freedom that Christ has set us free!

Thinking right and living right do not make us right with God. They are the outworking of the Spirit in our lives. Pietism and pristine theology are cheap imitations of piety and orthodoxy. The freedom of the cross leads us into grace and truth that loves our neighbors as ourselves and crucifies the world to us. The freedom of the cross is the freedom of the Christian to live Christianly as by the Spirit.

Consistent Inconsistency

March 3, 2025 / Chris

There are logical and theological inconsistencies, but there are no biblical inconsistencies. How can salvation simultaneously be entirely of God while being unlimited in the scope of its efficacy? We can answer the question in many ways, but the best way to answer it is biblically.

I was a Calvinist but have now come to embrace Lutheranism joyfully. Having come from a Calvinistic Baptist background and a stint visiting a Presbyterian congregation, I can attest to the neatness of the coherence of their soteriological views. However, what began to bother me was how those views didn’t comport with scripture. My Calvinistic and Reformed brothers and sisters will push back and point out the “inconsistency” of my views. My reply? Biblical consistency trumps logical consistency. We must align with scripture instead of aligning scripture with our logic.

I see the scriptures misapplied in the name of consistency in two ways. First, we absolutize a biblical principle beyond the scope of what scripture itself reveals. Second, we take the average of biblical truths instead of letting them stand on their authority. These represent two opposite sides of the same interpretive fallacy coin. Let’s consider a few soteriological aspects as a way to identify, engage with, and wrestle through these fallacies.

Framework Fidelity

One approach is to take what is often referred to as a proof text and universalize it without considering other texts that bring nuance to the principle or doctrine we are advocating. The doctrine of reprobation within a Calvinistic soteriological framework is an excellent example. The go-to text for this is Romans 9, where we pit Jacob and Esau against each other as soteriological guinea pigs in our theological laboratory. One was predestined for salvation, while the other for damnation. In many Calvinistic understandings, this is the logical extension of the doctrine of unconditional election, whereby God elects to judgment and wrath. While this does make sense, it takes a passage that has a more faithful contextual interpretation and pits it against what other passages reveal about God’s universal desire for salvation. Is God the author of inconsistency or contradiction? No, He is the transcendent God whose judgment, lovingkindness, and sovereignty surpass our finite and frail minds’ ability to grasp how they intersect.

Can salvation be monergistic while also being efficacious for all? Logically, the simple answer is no. However, we must come to the scriptures with humility and let them shape our thinking instead of allowing our thinking to shape the scriptures. My reply is simply that this is what the Bible states. Read for plain meaning, and in context, it is clear that salvation is entirely a gift from God (Romans 3:21-15 and Ephesians 2:8-10). Yet it is also clear that the work of Christ is for all people (1 John 2:2 and 1 Timothy 2:2, 4:10). The goal must be faithfulness to the scriptures, not our framework.

Philosophical Cohesion

Another approach is to find the mean of the texts instead of letting the texts mean what they say. The scriptures aren’t meant for statistical regression. They are a supernatural revelation. Splitting the difference to accommodate our finite capacity to understand is inadequate. A Reformed and Lutheran perspective on perseverance and apostasy demonstrates this well. Is it possible for those who believe to forfeit their salvation? Again, what does scripture say? Will those whom God has elected persevere to glorification (Romans 8:30)? Is it impossible for anyone to snatch us out of the hand of God (John 10:28-29)? Does the Bible teach that those who were enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come can fall away without hope of repentance (Hebrews 6:4-6)?

Two of these fit nicely together, while the third throws a wrench into a theological system’s gears. One theological paradigm argues that the third cannot mean what it says because it cannot logically sync with the other two. So, that approach averages them together and appeals to other interpretive possibilities rather than the plain meaning to make them fit. However, the better way is to let God’s word stand and accept that while we cannot reconcile His persevering, electing, sovereign work with our ability to walk away, our faith in God and His word must stand above our dependence on our fallen capacities to grasp the magnitude of God’s wonder and revelation.

It was difficult to leave the theological camp I had called home. These few soteriological issues were not the only ones that required revisiting and ultimately changing. Still, they were some of the best examples of the underlying Biblical disconnect I felt in the Calvinistic and Reformed camps. That consistent inconsistency led me to the humility of mystery and embracing the beauty of our God, who transcends our understanding while immanently attending to our wisdom.

Christ as Cultural Adjective

January 26, 2025 / Chris

Christianity finds itself perpetually distracted by the the latest undercurrents of cultural dialogue. Christian nationalism and Christian masculinity are two of the most recent. We fail to realize that when we make “Christian” an adjective, we make Christ merely a modifier. Are these issues worth consideration? Absolutely. Are they worthy of the level of attention and importance we give them? Only Christ is worthy of that.

Christian Nationalism

Christian nationalism has been a topic of contentious debate in recent months and years. Are we pilgrims and sojourners in a foreign land or cultural conquerors? Eschatological and soteriological considerations factor into our perspective on answering that question; regardless of our view of end times, the gospel should never be a secondary or tertiary priority.

The discussion of Christian nationalism is the second coming in many ways. However, it’s the second coming of the moral majority movement, not of Christ. Our proclivity is to pine for the effects of new wine but to forget the true power that bursts the old wineskins. We prefer to put the unshrunk patch of cultural impact onto our ecclesiastical garment but seem dumbfounded at the ensuing tear.

Prioritizing the gospel is not an abandonment to be salt and light in a world of decay and darkness. It focuses on spiritual cancer instead of cultural rashes. Why would the church exchange the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ for a wet matchstick? Beware of putting your hope in the moral and cultural pendulum swinging because it can and likely will swing back in the other direction. Christ is steadfast.

Christian Masculinity

Christian masculinity is almost laughable as a standalone issue. It is relevant, and extremes are on either side of the cultural thought process. Are “Christian” men cantankerously devout with a scroll in one hand and a stone in the other? Should they be workaholics with a newspaper in one hand and a Bible pendant in the other? Which era should define manhood? The 50’s or the 1950’s? Or perhaps the postmodern perspective is the ticket. Should the very concept of gender be stripped from our cultural and philosophical underpinnings? G.K. Chesterton would describe this as being so open-minded that our brains fall out.

In the movie Star Trek First Contact, Zefram Cochrane said, “Don’t try to be a great man, just be a man and let history make its own judgment.” I suggest a slight modification to fit the current cultural church moment: Don’t try to be a Christian man, just be a Christian. Am I arguing against Biblical manhood and womanhood? No. I’m calling us to put the emphasis where it belongs.

Both of these topics are important, but they are nowhere near the level of importance we’ve allowed them in the Christian conversation. The current sociological struggles in these areas are symptoms of missing the bigger picture, and the more we treat the symptoms, the longer it will take to “find” the cure.

We in the Christian community far too readily allow the core of our faith to become an adjective as we rush toward the verbs at breakneck speed. So, lest I be guilty of what I’ve identified here myself, allow me to point you to Christ crucified for the forgiveness of your sins. Look to His sinless life, atoning death, and victorious resurrection as the object of your faith, and live in light of that death-to-life transformation. Look to Jesus, who will return to set everything right, riding a white horse. I assure you He is more transformative than any of our cultural hobbyhorses. His is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, no mere adjective.

Holly Jolly Melancholy

December 25, 2024 / Chris

Tis the season to be jolly. What if you fall somewhere between Buddy the Elf and Ebenezer Scrooge? Christmas is a time for remembering and focusing on family and faith. However, each of those areas can be cause for sorrow and joy.

Family

Old emotional wounds tend to flare up at Christmas like achy joints that feel a change in the weather. Others may have difficulty understanding why dark clouds hover over the Christmas decorations and events. While everyone else is singing along with Bing and Mariah, perhaps we’re feeling a bit more like Billie Eilish.

What is it about family that can bring out the best and worst in us? Cherished memories and haunted flashbacks can surface as we attend gatherings or even think about them. Reminiscing is a double-edged sword, and it cuts through to our soul as we long for what is gone and ache for what never was. Our faith would typically be a reservoir of joy, but it can also highlight our struggle.

Faith

Sometimes the cultural goodwill softens the heart during this time of year. Other times, our faith is as distant and cold as the North Pole. Unresolved pain, being hurt by the church, guilt, or shame might leave us ironically feeling far away from God in the season we emphasize God with us.

We’ll likely have Christmas Eve services, lots of Christmas hymns to sing, and advent sermon series to bring the incarnation into the spotlight of our spiritual lives. Yet, if we’re already feeling disconnected from God, these expressions of faith only serve to underscore the distance. Thankfully, our God seeks us out, draws us in, and reminds us that Christ has bridged any gap between us.

Foretold Joy

For those of us who tend to lean toward melancholy, lights and tinsel aren’t enough to lift our spirits. Faith and family can lead us in the opposite direction of the candy cane forest or the tenderness of a manger scene. Nonetheless, we have a tremendous reason for peace and joy. The foundation of our hope is found in something ancient and perpetually new.

We must look past all the family baggage and celebrate our spiritual family heritage. We have to look beyond our faith to the object of our faith. We must listen anew to the angel’s pronouncement of old. “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people” (Luke 2:10). Zechariah’s prophetic words unpacked some of the substance of that good news.

“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old,Luke 1: 68-70

I’m happy for everyone who is able to slide into the Christmas spirit effortlessly. For those who find melancholy sprinkled into this holly, jolly season, our hope, peace, and joy can only be found where it’s always found, in Christ.

The Breath Mint Gospel

November 30, 2024 / Chris

Imagine walking into a restaurant and specifying to the waiter in no uncertain terms that you were starving and wanted the chef’s best. The waiter goes into great detail about the special of the evening and leaves your mouth watering and your stomach in a state of anticipation. Ten minutes pass, and finally, the domed luxury entree arrives, and the unveiling is set to begin your feast. As the cover is lifted, all you see in the center of the plate is a lone, pitiful after-dinner mint.

How often in our churches do we treat the gospel like that little pastel mint that quickly dissolves and never satisfies? How many sermons drone on and on with theological data only to throw a thirty-second “gospel” bone to starving souls? Recently, I saw a social media post making rounds highlighting the absurdity of saying people couldn’t sit through long sermons when they could listen to three-hour podcasts. There is an ironic truth to that sentiment; however, the real issue is when hour-long sermons only make the gospel a footnote. If we relegate the gospel to an afterthought, we’ve thought wrongly about the gospel.

We might debate whether or not a sermon should be an hour long, but there shouldn’t be a debate regarding whether or not the proclamation of Christ crucified for the forgiveness of sins and sinners in live time should be the main course on any given Sunday. Sinners starve for the gospel throughout the week in a merit-based world. We sit through sermons that give us information any systematic theology textbook could or that only chastise us with the law’s condemnation. The theological data might be beneficial, and the law’s condemnation is the prerequisite to what is needed: our redemption by faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ alone. If sermons are an hour long, why wouldn’t we make the gospel the core aspect? It’s not as if there is no time.

Neither Jesus, Paul, nor Peter made the gospel an afterthought. Jesus identified the focal point of the prophets, law, and Psalms as Himself, His resurrection, and the forgiveness of sins through repentance (Luke 24:27-47). Paul’s decision to know nothing except Christ and Him crucified in his proclamation in Corinth parallels his robust articulation and ardent defense of the gospel in his letters to Rome and Galatia. Peter affirmed that the living, abiding word of God that lives forever is the good news (1 Peter 1:23-25), much like his sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41). Other examples of this gospel-emphasis feast abound. Ask yourself if what you hear on a given Sunday serves the good news as the main course or more like a breath mint.

Our main issue isn’t bad breath. We cannot pop the gospel like a tic-tac and cover up the stench of our fallen nature. We are dead in our trespasses and sins, and we need the fragrance of the knowledge of Christ (2 Corinthians 2:13-14). The breath mint gospel is an underestimated, misunderstood application of the breathtaking good news of Christ crucified and risen for sinners.

Reformation Thoughts for Today

October 31, 2024 / Chris

The history of the Reformation has much to teach us in the present. But more importantly, the theological truths need fresh consideration and application. As we take time to remember and meditate on the implications of the protestant reformation, it is also imperative that we avoid assuming a posture of complacency. There are several patterns of thought that we, the ecclesiastical posterity of the Reformation, would do well to consider.

Think Big

Ideas and worldviews are powerful enough to reshape the world. We don’t often think about this and get swept up in the practical details and issues instead of their glorious foundations. The doctrine of justification by faith alone was the centerpiece of the Reformation, and Luther even criticized Wycliffe and Huss for seeking moral reform when what needed reforming was the doctrine of the church.

We might offer the same critiques of our modern church reforms. There is a push for values reform from conservative circles. More than focusing on the family, however, we need to put the focus back on the foundation of our faith. There is a push for relevance reform from the seeker-sensitive movement. Leadership gurus, survey analyses, and pastoral fashion consultants replace confessions of faith. Liberals push modernity reform and seek to modernize scripture to fit our “evolved” understanding of morality and society.

The church today is splintered into a staggering number of groups with various philosophies of what modern reformation should be. Do we reinvent, repackage, or reapply? Even in circles that boast of Christ and Christ alone, we find ourselves with sociological peashooters instead of being armed with the sword of the spirit. Instead of getting bogged down and pulled in these directions by minutia, we need to think gospel big.

Think Deeply

Too many of our churches affirm justification by faith alone in their doctrinal statements and carry out their ministry as if we are justified by our efforts. A cursory nod to justification by faith alone won’t do. We fail to mine the riches of the glorious gospel in the same manner that Paul did in the first eleven chapters of Romans before he gets to the appeal to practical living in chapter twelve.

Instead of continuously meditating on and applying the gospel in all its depth, we tend to tip our hats to it and hurry along to the real business. Luther reminds us that our right standing before God by faith is an ongoing need and a subject that is never exhausted.

We can never learn this truth completely or brag that we understand it fully. Learning this truth is an art. We will always remain students of it, and it will always be our teacher. The people who truly understand that they receive God’s approval by faith and put this into practice don’t brag that they have fully mastered it. Rather, they think of it as a pleasant taste or aroma that they are always pursuing. These people are astonished that they can’t comprehend it as fully as they would like. They hunger and thirst for it. They yearn for it more and more. They never get tired of hearing about this truth.

While the church splashes about in the puddles of philosophical eclecticism, there is an ocean of truth to be explored in the atoning work of Christ alone. Instead of settling for the shallowness of merely acknowledging the gospel, we need to think gospel deeply.

Think Clearly

Syncretism abounds in our society and, unfortunately, in our churches. We have a dab of the gospel, a pinch of relativism, and a dash of marketing principles. Before you know it, the gospel is indiscernible. Thinking clearly means understanding the depth of the gospel with the simplicity of a child’s faith.

More than clever pitches to make the gospel palatable today, we need the undiluted, works-shattering good news of Christ crucified for sinners. How might we think clearly amongst all the chaos?

First, we should return again and again to the fundamental truths of the reformation. We should be committed to being unoriginal regarding these core doctrines. Second, we should not fear the intimidating thought police of our age. Theologians without a trace of theology will ridicule us for holding to such primitive notions of reconciliation. At the same time, preachers of tolerance show no tolerance for anyone who holds truth claims of exclusivity. Rest assured that these glorious truths cannot and will not be forced into old wineskins without soon bursting. Third, simplicity is not the antithesis of depth; shallowness is. It’s okay to be simple. When we needlessly complicate things, we convolute the gospel.

The church must sometimes feel as if its head is reeling from all the voices calling for it to follow the culture’s cries for change. Scripture is the authority, and the good news is the clarion call, so the church must quiet all the other societal noise and think with gospel clarity.

The Reformation is over 500 years old, but if we think big, deeply, and clearly, then we twenty-first-century followers of Christ may yet feel the world-shaking impact of justification by faith alone in the days ahead.

Simple Faith

September 18, 2024 / Chris

I remember sitting in a coffee shop (I know that’s a major shock) and hearing the group next to me introducing the topic of their meeting. I overheard phrases like, “This will change your life” and “game changer,” so I was naturally curious. In anticipation, I tried to lean in covertly, but the big reveal was that this life-altering practice was the art of couponing. Who doesn’t love a good deal? Still, it was anticlimactic from the opening sales pitch.

My reaction was an internal eye roll. Yet, in retrospect, perhaps I was too harsh on that group. Simple things can be life-changing. God works through the simple means of grace to bring life. Who could imagine that ordinary water, bread, wine, and preached words would have such powerful effects? Yet they do.
For most of my Christian life, theology was a concept to be studied and an abstraction for discussion. Now, it’s more like the daily bread needed for sustenance. I enjoy discussing, studying, and applying scripture and its overarching truths, but what I need is Christ crucified, proclaimed, and delivered to me.

Simplicity is not synonymous with shallowness. I tended to favor debating the philosophical side of theology to embracing the tangible simplicity of God’s gospel spoken and administered. If your theology bristles at indiscriminately proclaiming the forgiveness of sins to everyone on account of Christ, then you’ve elevated reason above scripture. The wisdom of God is the foolishness of the cross. We grow most in spiritual maturity when we become childlike in faith.

While studying is valuable, believing is greater. Faith is better than knowledge. That day in the coffee shop, I was snarky and dismissive of the coupon conversation. However, that conversation could have led to families making ends meet that week. How much greater are the sacraments our Lord has instituted to grant and sustain faith? Lord, forgive me for being too skeptical of simple faith in all its iterations. Help me to seek you in knowledge, faith, and love.