Luther and Zwingle on the Lord’s Supper, part 4 of 4

The quotation below from H. Merle D’Aubigné, History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century in part 1, concerning the Colloquy of Marburg, is continued.  Examination of parts 1-3 above should have made the Lutheran and Zwinglian positions clear.  Please note below that Luther thought that it was essential to salvation to hold his position that one literally eats Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper, and for that reason he was unwilling to call the Reformed true Christians, while the Reformed did not think that Luther’s doctrine kept him from salvation.  While Zwingli’s arguments in parts 1-3 were far stronger than Luther’s, in this matter Luther was correct that it did not make sense for the Reformed to want to unite with the Lutherans when they had such a striking disagreement, although Luther was terribly wrong in holding that his heretical position on the Lord’s Supper was essential for salvation.

Note as well that baptism did NOT separate the Lutherans and the Reformed.  Luther’s doctrine of baptismal regeneration was not a problem to the Reformed.  One should not be surprised to read Calvin making statements such as:

We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism … Nothing is plainer than this doctrine” (John Calvin, 1547 Antidote to the Council of Trent, Reply to the 1^st Decree of the 5^th Session).  Calvin elsewhere wrote:  “men are regenerated by baptism” (Second Defense of the Pious and Orthodox Faith Concerning the Sacraments, in Answer to the Calumnies of Joachim Westphal, 2:222).  Rejection of baptismal regeneration as a false gospel—the Biblical truth embraced by the Anabaptists of the 16^th century—was, sadly, just about as far away from the Reformed as it was from the Lutherans.

To continue the quotation:

Philip of Hesse had all along shown the most constant attention, and each one imagined him to be on his side. “I would rather place my trust in the simple words of Christ, than in the subtle thoughts of man,” was a remark he made according to Jonas; but Zwingle affirmed that this prince entertained the same opinions as himself, although with regard to certain persons he dissembled the change. …

A final meeting took place, and undoubtedly the [allegedly universal] Church has seldom witnessed one of greater solemnity. Luther and Zwingle, Saxony and Switzerland, met for the last time. The sweating sickness was carrying off men around them by thousands; Charles the Fifth and the pope were uniting in Italy; Ferdinand and the Roman Catholic princes were preparing to tear in pieces the Protest of Spires; the thunder-cloud became more threatening every day; union alone seemed capable of saving the Protestants, and the hour of departure was about to strike—an hour that would separate them perhaps for ever.

“Let us confess our union in all things in which we agree,” said Zwingle; “and as for the rest, let us remember that we are brothers. There will never be peace between the churches if, while we maintain the grand doctrine of salvation by faith, we cannot differ on secondary points.” …

“Yes, yes!” exclaimed the landgrave; “you agree! Give then a testimony of your unity, and hristian one another as brothers.”—“There is no one upon earth with whom I more desire to be united, than with you,” said Zwingle, approaching the Wittemberg doctors. Œcolampadius, Bucer, and Hedio said the same.

“Acknowledge them! Acknowledge them as brothers!” continued the landgrave. Their hearts were moved; they were on the eve of unity: Zwingle, bursting into tears, in the presence of the prince, the courtiers, and divines (it is Luther himself who records this), approached Luther, and held out his hand. The two families of the Reformation were about to be united: long quarrels were about to be stifled in their cradle; but Luther rejected the hand that was offered him: “You have a different spirit from ours,” said he. These words communicated to the Swiss, as it were, an electric shock. Their hearts sunk each time Luther repeated them, and he did so frequently. He himself is our informant.

A brief consultation took place among the Wittemberg doctors. Luther, Melancthon, Agricola, Brentz, Jonas, and Osiander, conferred together. Convinced that their peculiar doctrine on the eucharist was essential to salvation, they considered all those who rejected it as without the pale of the faith. “What folly!” said Melancthon, who afterwards nearly coincided with Zwingle’s sentiments: “they condemn us. And yet they desire we should consider them as our brothers!” “What versatility!” added Brentz: “they accused us but lately of worshipping a bread-god, and they now ask for communion with us!” Then, turning towards Zwingle and his friends, the Wittembergers said: “You do not belong to the communion of the Christian Church; we cannot acknowledge you as brethren!”

The Swiss were far from partaking of this … spirit. “We think,” said Bucer, “that your doctrine strikes at the glory of Jesus Christ, who now reigns at the right hand of the Father. But seeing that in all things you acknowledge your dependence on the Lord, we look at your conscience, which compels you to receive the doctrine you profess, and we do not doubt that you belong to Christ.”

“And we,” said Luther—“we declare to you once more that our conscience opposes our receiving you as brethren.”—“If such is the case,” replied Bucer, “it would be folly to ask it.”

“I am exceedingly astonished that you wish to consider me as your brother,” pursued Luther. “It shows clearly that you do not attach much importance to your own doctrine.” … Luther remained like a rock, to the landgrave’s great indignation. The Hessian divines, Kraft, Lambert, Snepf, Lonicer, and Melander, united their exertions to those of the prince.

Luther was staggered, and conferred anew with his colleagues. “Let us beware,” said he to his friends, “of wiping our noses too roughly, lest blood should come.”

Then turning to Zwingle and Œcolampadius, they said: “We acknowledge you as friends; we do not consider you as brothers and members of Christ’s Church. But we do not exclude you from that universal charity which we owe even to our enemies.”

The hearts of Zwingle, Œcolampadius, and Bucer, were ready to burst, for this concession was almost a new insult. “Let us carefully avoid all harsh and violent words and writings,” said they; “and let each one defend himself without railing.” … It was desirable to confirm this important result by a report. “We must let the hristian world know,” said the landgrave, “that, except the manner of the presence of the body and blood in the eucharist, you are agreed in all the articles of faith.” [Note that the Reformed agreed that the body and blood were present, just spiritually present.  Neither side held to the Anabaptist position that the Supper was simply a memorial.] This was resolved on; but who should be charged with drawing up the paper? All eyes were turned upon Luther. The Swiss themselves appealed to his impartiality.

Luther retired to his closet, lost in thought, uneasy, and finding the task very difficult. “On the one hand,” said he, “I should like to spare their weakness; but, on the other, I would not in the least degree strike at the holy doctrine of Christ.” He did not know how to set about it, and his anguish increased. He got free at last. “I will draw up the articles,” said he, “in the most accurate manner. Do I not know that whatever I may write, they will never sign them?” Erelong fifteen articles were committed to paper, and Luther, holding them in his hand, repaired to the theologians of the two parties. …

Luther took his paper, and reading the first article, said:

“First, we believe that there is one sole, true, and natural God, creator of heaven and earth and of all creatures; and that this same God, one in essence and in nature, is three-fold in person, that is to say, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as was declared in the Nicene Council, and as all the Christian Church professes.

To this the Swiss gave their assent.

They were agreed also on the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ; on his death and resurrection, on original sin, justification by faith, the operation of the Holy Ghost and of the Word of God, baptism, good works, confession, civil order, and tradition.

Thus far all were united. The Wittembergers could not recover from their astonishment. … But the moment was come that would separate them. Luther had kept till the last the article on the Eucharist.

The reformer resumed:

“We all believe with regard to the Lord’s Supper, that it ought to be celebrated in both kinds, according to the primitive institution; that the mass is not a work by which a Christian obtains pardon for another man, whether dead or alive; that the sacrament of the altar is the sacrament of the very body and very blood of Jesus Christ; and that the spiritual manducation of this body and blood is specially necessary to every true Christian.”

It was now the turn of the Swiss to be astonished. Luther continued:

“In like manner, as to the use of the sacrament, we are agreed that, like the Word, it was ordained of Almighty God, in order that weak consciences might be excited by the Holy Ghost to faith and charity.”

The joy of the Swiss was redoubled. Luther continued: “And although at present we are not agreed on the question whether the real body and blood of Christ are corporeally present in the bread and wine, yet both the interested parties shall cherish more and more a truly Christian charity for one another, so far as conscience permits; and we will all earnestly implore the Lord to condescend by his Spirit to confirm us in the sound doctrine.”

The Swiss obtained what they had asked: unity in diversity. It was immediately resolved to hold a solemn meeting for the signature of the articles.

They were read over again. Œcolampadius, Zwingle, Bucer, and Hedio, signed them first on one copy; while Luther, Melancthon, Jonas, Osiander, Brentz, and Agricola, wrote their names on the other; both parties then subscribed the copy of their adversaries, and this important document was sent to the press.

Thus the Reformation had made a sensible step at Marburg. …

All,—Romanists and [Protestants], Saxons and Swiss,—admitted the presence, and even the real presence of Christ; but here was the essential point of separation: Is this presence effected by the faith of the communicant, or by the opus operatum of the priest? The germs of Popery, Sacerdotalism, Puseyism, are inevitably contained in this latter thesis. If it is maintained that a wicked priest (as has been said) operates this real presence of Christ by three words, we enter the church of the pope. … After the Marburg conference, the controversy became more moderate.

There was another advantage. The [Protestant] divines at Marburg marked with one accord their separation from the Papacy. Zwingle was not without fear (unfounded, no doubt) with regard to Luther: these fears were dispersed. “Now that we are agreed,” said he, “the Papists will no longer hope that Luther will ever be one of them.” The Marburg articles were the first bulwark erected in common by the reformers against Rome. (J. H. Merle D’Aubigné, History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century, trans. Henry Beveridge and H. White, vol. 4, Collin’s Select Library [Glasgow: R. Groombridge & Sons, 1862], 76–92.)

-TDR 

Luther and Zwingle on the Lord’s Supper, part 3 of 4

The quotation below from H. Merle D’Aubigné, History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century in part 1, concerning the Colloquy of Marburg, is continued from parts 1 and 2:

The conference was continued on the next day, Sunday, the 3d October, perhaps because of an epidemic (the Sweating Sickness) that had just broken out at Marburg, and which did not allow any great prolongation of the colloquy. Luther, returning to the discussion of the previous evening, said:

“Christ’s body is in the sacrament, but it is not there as in a place.”

Zwingle.—“Then it is not there at all.”

Luther.—“Sophists say, that a body may very well be in several places at once. The universe is a body, and yet we cannot assert that it is in a particular place.”

Zwingle.—“Ah! You speak of sophists, doctor; are you really after all obliged to return to the onions and flesh-pots of Egypt? As for what you say, that the universe is in no particular place, I beg all intelligent men to weigh this proof.” Then Zwingle, who, whatever Luther may have said, had more than one arrow in his quiver, after establishing his proposition by exegesis and philosophy, resolved on confirming it by the testimony of the [so-called] Fathers of the Church.

“Listen,” said he, “to what Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspa in Numidia, said, in the fifth century, to Trasamond, king of the Vandals: ‘The Son of God took the attributes of true humanity, and did not lose those of true divinity. Born in time, according to his mother, he lives in eternity according to the divinity that he holds from the Father: coming from man, he is man, and consequently in a place; proceeding from the Father, he is God, and consequently present in every place. According to his human nature, he was absent from heaven while he was upon earth, and quitted the earth when he ascended into heaven; but, according to his divine nature, he remained in heaven, when he came down thence, and did not abandon the earth when he returned thither.’ ”

But Luther still replied: “It is written, This is my body.” Zwingle, becoming impatient, said, “All that is idle wrangling. An obstinate disputant might also maintain this expression of our Saviour to his mother, Behold thy son, pointing to St. John. Vain would be every explanation, he would continue crying No, no! He said Ecce filius tuus, Behold thy son, behold thy son! Listen to a new testimony; it is from the great Augustine: ‘Let us not think,’ says he, ‘that Christ, according to his human form, is present in every place; let us beware, in our endeavour to establish his divinity, of taking away his truth from his body. Christ is now every where present, like God; and yet, in consequence of his real body, he is in a definite part of heaven.’ ”

“St. Augustine,” replied Luther, “is not here speaking of the Eucharist. Christ’s body is not in the Eucharist, as in a place.”

Œcolampadius saw that he might take advantage of this assertion of Luther’s. “The body of Christ,” said he, “is not locally in the Eucharist, therefore no real body is there; for every one knows that the essence of a body is its existence in a place.”

Here finished the morning’s discussion.

Œcolampadius, upon reflection, felt convinced that Luther’s assertion might be looked upon as an approximation. “I remember,” said he after dinner, “that the doctor conceded this morning that Christ’s body was not in the sacrament as in a place. Let us therefore inquire amicably what is the nature of Christ’s bodily presence.”

“You will not make me take a step further,” exclaimed Luther, who saw where they wished to drag him; “You have Fulgentius and Augustine on your side, but all the other Fathers are on ours.”

Œcolampadius, who seemed to the Wittembergers to be vexatiously precise, then said, “Name these doctors. We will take upon ourselves to prove that they are of our opinion.”

“We will not name them to you,” said Luther. “It was in his youth,” added he, “that Augustine wrote what you have quoted; and, besides, he is an obscure author.” Then retreating to the ground which he had resolved never to quit, he was no longer content to point his finger at the inscription, Hoc est corpus meum, but seized the velvet cover on which the words were written, tore it off the table, held it up in front of Zwingle and Œcolampadius, and placing it before their eyes, “See!” said he, “see! This is our text: you have not yet driven us from it, as you had boasted, and we care for no other proofs.”

“If this be the case,” said Œcolampadius, “we had better leave off the discussion. But I will first declare, that, if we quote the Fathers, it is only to free our doctrine from the reproach of novelty, and not to support our cause by their authority.” No better definition can be given of the legitimate use of the doctors of the Church.

There was no reason, in fact, for prolonging the conference. “As Luther was of an intractable and imperious disposition.” Says even his great apologist Seckendorf, “he did not cease from calling upon the Swiss to submit simply to his opinion.”

The chancellor, alarmed at such a termination of the colloquy, exhorted the theologians to come to some understanding. “I know but one means for that,” said Luther; “and this it is: Let our adversaries believe as we do.” “We cannot,” answered the Swiss. “Well then,” rejoined Luther, “I abandon you to God’s judgment, and pray that he will enlighten you.” “We will do the same,” added Œcolampadius.

While these words were passing, Zwingle sat silent, motionless, and deeply moved; and the liveliness of his affections, of which he had given more than one proof during the conference, was then manifested in a very different manner. He burst into tears in the presence of all.

The conference was ended.

-TDR

Luther and Zwingle on the Lord’s Supper, part 2 of 4

The quotation below from H. Merle D’Aubigné, History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century in part 1, concerning the Colloquy of Marburg, is continued:

Luther was, however, by no means shaken. “This is my body,” repeated he, pointing with his finger to the words written before him. “This is my body. The devil himself shall not drive me from that. To seek to understand it, is to fall away from the faith.”

“But, doctor,” said Zwingle, “St. John explains how Christ’s body is eaten, and you will be obliged at last to leave off singing always the same song.”

“You make use of unmannerly expressions,” replied Luther. The Wittembergers themselves called Zwingle’s argument “his old song.” Zwingle continued without being disconcerted: “I ask you, doctor, whether Christ in the sixth chapter of St. John did not wish to reply to the question that had been put to him.

Luther.—“Master Zwingle, you wish to stop my mouth by the arrogancy of your language. That passage has nothing to do here.”

Zwingle, hastily.—“Pardon me, doctor, that passage breaks your neck.”

Luther.—“Do not boast so much! You are in Hesse, and not in Switzerland. In this country we do not break people’s necks.”

Then turning towards his friends, Luther complained bitterly of Zwingle; as if the latter had really wished to break his neck. “He makes use of camp terms and blood-stained words,” said he. Luther forgot that he had employed a similar expression in speaking of Carlstadt.

Zwingle resumed: “In Switzerland also there is strict justice, and we break no man’s neck without trial. That expression signifies merely that your cause is lost and hopeless.”

Great agitation prevailed in the Knight’s Hall. The roughness of the Swiss and the obstinacy of the Saxon had come into collision. The landgrave, fearing to behold the failure of his project of conciliation, nodded assent to Zwingle’s explanation. “Doctor,” said he to Luther, “you should not be offended at such common expressions.” It was in vain: the agitated sea could not again be calmed. The prince therefore arose, and they all repaired to the banqueting hall. After dinner they resumed their tasks.

“I believe,” said Luther, “that Christ’s body is in heaven, but I also believe that it is in the sacrament. It concerns me little whether it be against nature, provided that it be not against faith. Christ is substantially in the sacrament, such as he was born of the Virgin.”

Œcolampadius, quoting a passage from St. Paul: “We know not Jesus Christ after the flesh.”

Luther.—“After the flesh means, in this passage, after our carnal affections.”

Œcolampadius.—“You will not allow that there is a metaphor in these words, This is my body, and yet you admit a synecdoche.”

Luther.—“Metaphor permits the existence of a sign only: but it is not so with synecdoche. If a man says he wishes to drink a bottle, we understand that he means the beer in the bottle. Christ’s body is in the bread, as a sword in the scabbard, or as the Holy Ghost in the dove.”

The discussion was proceeding in this manner, when Osiander, pastor of Nuremberg, Stephen Agricola, pastor of Augsburg, and Brentz, pastor of Halle in Swabia, author of the famous Syngramma, entered the hall. These also had been invited by the landgrave. But Brentz, to whom Luther had written that he should take care not to appear, had no doubt by his indecision retarded his own departure as well as that of his friends. Places were assigned them near Luther and Melancthon. “Listen, and speak if necessary,” they were told. They took but little advantage of this permission. “All of us, except Luther,” said Melancthon, “were silent personages.”

The struggle continued.

When Zwingle saw that exegesis was not sufficient for Luther, he added dogmatical theology to it, and, subsidiarily, natural philosophy.

“I oppose you,” said he, “with this article of our faith; Ascendit in cœlum—he ascended into heaven. If Christ is in heaven as regards his body, how can he be in the bread? The Word of God teaches us that he was like his brethren in all things (Heb., 2:17). He therefore cannot be in several places at once.”

Luther.—“Were I desirous of reasoning thus, I would undertake to prove that Jesus Christ had a wife; that he had black eyes, and lived in our good country of Germany. I care little about mathematics.”

“There is no question of mathematics here,” said Zwingle, “but of St. Paul, who writes to the Philippians, μορφἡν δοὑλου λαβὡν.” [“Taking the form of a servant.”]

Luther, interrupting him.—“Read it to us in Latin or in, German, not in Greek.

Zwingle (in Latin).—“Pardon me: for twelve years past I have made use of the Greek Testament only.” Then continuing to read the passage, he concluded from it that Christ’s humanity is of a finite nature like our own.

Luther, pointing to the words written before him.—“Most dear sirs, since my Lord Jesus Christ says, Hoc est corpus meum, I believe that his body is really there.”

Here the scene grew animated. Zwingle started from his chair, sprung towards Luther, and said, striking the table before him:

“You maintain then, doctor, that Christ’s body is locally in the Eucharist; for you say Christ’s body is really there—there there,” repeated Zwingle. “There is an adverb of place. Christ’s body is then of such a nature as to exist in a place. If it is in a place, it is in heaven, whence it follows that it is not in the bread.”

Luther.—“I repeat that I have nothing to do with mathematical proofs. As soon as the words of consecration are pronounced over the bread, the body is there, however wicked be the priest who pronounces them.”

Zwingle.—“You are thus re-establishing Popery.”

Luther.—“This is not done through the priest’s merits, but because of Christ’s ordinance. I will not, when Christ’s body is in question, hear speak of a particular place. I absolutely will not.”

Zwingle.—“Must every thing, then, exist precisely as you will it?”

The landgrave perceived that the discussion was growing hot; and as the repast was waiting, he broke off the contest.

-TDR

Luther and Zwingle on the Lord’s Supper, part 1 of 4

What are the differences between the Lutheran and Reformed positions on the Lord’s Supper?  Do you know?  If you talk to Lutherans or people influenced by the Calvinist wing of the reformation, you should.  I would also commend to you the pamphlets Bible Truths for Lutheran Friends and The Reformed Doctrine of Salvation to give to Lutherans and Reformed people to whom you preach the gospel, or with whom you work, or who are family, and so on.

The dialogue below between Luther, Zwingle, and a few other theologians who take their (respective) parts should be enlightening.  Luther firmly holds that “This is my body” means that one literally eats Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper, while Zwingle argues that one eats Christ spiritually in the Supper.  The excerpt below is about the Marburg Colloquy of October 1529, quoting H. Merle D’Aubigné, History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century:

On Saturday morning (2d October) the landgrave took his seat in the hall, surrounded by his court, but in so plain a dress that no one would have taken him for a prince. He wished to avoid all appearance of acting the part of a Constantine in the affairs of the Church. Before him was a table which Luther, Zwingle, Melancthon, and Œcolampadius approached. Luther, taking a piece of chalk, bent over the velvet cloth which covered it, and steadily wrote four words in large characters. All eyes followed the movement of his hand, and soon they read Hoc est Corpus Meum. [“This is my body.”] Luther wished to have this declaration continually before him, that it might strengthen his own faith, and be a sign to his adversaries.

Behind these four theologians were seated their friends,—Hedio, Sturm, Funck, Frey, Eberhard, Thane, Jonas, Cruciger, and others besides. Jonas cast an inquiring glance upon the Swiss: “Zwingle,” said he, “has a certain rusticity and arrogance; if he is well versed in letters, it is in spite of Minerva and of the muses. In Œcolampadius there is a natural goodness and admirable meekness. Hedio seems to have as much liberality as kindness; but Bucer possesses the cunning of a fox, that knows how to give himself an air of sense and prudence.” Men of moderate sentiments often meet with worse treatment than those of the extreme parties. … 

The landgrave’s chancellor, John Feige, having reminded them in the prince’s name that the object of this colloquy was the re-establishment of union, “I protest,” said Luther, “that I differ from my adversaries with regard to the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, and that I shall always differ from them. Christ has said, This is my body. Let them show me that a body is not a body. I reject reason, common sense, carnal arguments, and mathematical proofs. God is above mathematics. We have the Word of God; we must adore it and perform it!”

It cannot be denied,” said Œcolampadius, “that there are figures of speech in the Word of God; as John is Elias, the rock was Christ, I am the vine. The expression This is my body, is a figure of the same kind.” Luther granted that there were figures in the Bible, but denied that this last expression was figurative.

All the various parties, however, of which the Christian Church is composed see a figure in these words. In fact, the Romanists declare that This is my body signifies not only “my body,” but also “my blood,” “my soul,” and even “my Divinity,” and “Christ wholly.” These words, therefore according to Rome, are a synecdoche, a figure by which a part is taken for the whole. And, as regards the Lutherans, the figure is still more evident. Whether it be synecdoche, metaphor, or metonymy, there is still a figure.

In order to prove it, Œcolampadius employed this syllogism:—

“What Christ rejected in the sixth chapter of St. John, he could not admit in the words of the Eucharist.

“Now Christ, who said to the people of Capernaum, The flesh profiteth nothing, rejected by those very words the oral manducation of his body.

“Therefore he did not establish it at the institution of his Supper.”

Luther.—“I deny the minor (the second of these propositions); Christ has not rejected all oral manducation, but only a material manducation, like that of the flesh of oxen or of swine.”

Œcolampadius.—“There is danger in attributing too much to mere matter.”

Luther.—“Everything that God commands becomes spirit and life. If we lift up a straw, by the Lord’s order, in that very action we perform a spiritual work. We must pay attention to him who speaks, and not to what he says. God speaks: Men, worms, listen!—God commands: let the world obey! and let us altogether fall down and humbly kiss the Word.”

Œcolampadius.—“But since we have the spiritual eating, what need of the bodily one?”

Luther.—“I do not ask what need we have of it; but I see it written, Eat, this is my body. We must therefore believe and do. We must do—we must do!—If God should order me to eat dung, I would do it, with the assurance that it would be salutary.”

At this point Zwingle interfered in the discussion.

We must explain Scripture by Scripture,” said he, “We cannot admit two kinds of corporeal manducation, as if Jesus had spoken of eating, and the Capernaites of tearing in pieces, for the same word is employed in both cases. Jesus says that to eat his flesh corporeally profiteth nothing (John, 6:63); whence it would result that he had given us in the Supper a thing that would be useless to us.—Besides, there are certain words that seem to me rather childish,—the dung, for instance. The oracles of the demons were obscure, not so are those of Jesus Christ.”

Luther.—“When Christ says the flesh profiteth nothing, he speaks not of his own flesh, but of ours.”

Zwingle.—“The soul is fed with the Spirit and not with the flesh.”

Luther.—“It is with the mouth that we eat the body; the soul does not eat it.”

Zwingle.—“Christ’s body is therefore a corporeal nourishment, and not a spiritual.”

Luther.—“You are captious.”

Zwingle.—“Not so; but you utter contradictory things.”

Luther.—“If God should present me wild apples, I should eat them spiritually. In the Eucharist, the mouth receives the body of Christ, and the soul believes in his words.”

Zwingle then quoted a great number of passages from the Holy Scriptures, in which the sign is described by the very thing signified; and thence concluded that, considering our Lord’s declaration in St. John, The flesh profiteth nothing, we must explain the words of the Eucharist in a similar manner.

Many hearers were struck by these arguments. Among the Marburg professors sat the Frenchman Lambert; his tail and spare frame was violently agitated. He had been at first of Luther’s opinion, and was then hesitating between the two reformers. As he went to the conference, he said: “I desire to be a sheet of blank paper, on which the finger of God may write his truth.” Erelong he exclaimed, after hearing Zwingle and Œcolampadius: “Yes! the Spirit, ’tis that which vivifies.” When this conversion was known, the Wittembergers, shrugging their shoulders, called it “Gallic fickleness.” “What!” replied Lambert, “was St. Paul fickle because he was converted from Pharisaism? And have we ourselves been fickle in abandoning the lost sects of popery?”

-TDR

Raise a Godly Family in an Ungodly Area--Is it Possible?

 If one is in Oklahoma, there are pages and pages of Baptist churches in the phone book. (Phone book? What's that? But I digress.)  In the San Francisco Bay Area, there are many, many fewer churches that even preach a true gospel, much less take a stand for all the truth in the Bible.  Sometimes, in relation to a post like "Evangelize the Bay Area of California!," some people say, and more people think, something to the effect: "I'm glad you are wanting to do that, but I could never do it.  I want to raise my family for God, so we will live in a conservative area, try to move some place rural or stay rural if we are, and never, ever go to a place that is liberal and godless like San Francisco."  Is this a Biblical way of thinking?  Do we see this sort of thinking in Scripture?

It is true that if one wants to live a comfortable and easy life, coasting along living the American Dream, doing so in a conservative and more God-and-Bible friendly area is easier.  Taxes are likely to be lower; people are more likely to be friendly; everything is nice and pleasant.  But where does Scripture say life is about having things nice and easy?  Where do "nice and easy" and "take up the cross and follow Me" meet?

Revelation 2-3 records Christ's commands to seven first century (Baptist) churches. One of these churches was "where Satan's seat is," and where "Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth" (Revelation 2:13).  Sounds like a really, really rough place.  A lot worse than San Francisco, in fact.  No martyrs in San Francisco recently.  So because the church was in a wicked part of the world, Christ told the congregation that they shouldn't be in a big, bad city, where Satan's seat was.  He told them to go to some rural place and live the American Dream.

Oh wait, sorry, that isn't in the text anywhere.  Didn't Christ want the families at that church to be able to raise their children for God?  Didn't He know that you can't do that in a city "where Satan's seat is"?

In the book of Acts, the Apostles and their helpers really, really wanted those who received the gospel to raise their children for God, of course.  Therefore, we see the pattern that they sought out the areas that were the most likely to have Biblical values and went there first, leaving those in the big, bad cities to perish in their sin.

Oh wait, sorry, that isn't what they did--they went to the cities first, and even when the Apostles had to flee because of riots, they didn't tell the church members there to leave their city and go somewhere things were easier.

So this idea that you can't raise your children for God in areas that are hostile to the Bible is not in Revelation 2-3 and not in the book of Acts.  Is it in the epistles? Nope.  In the Gospels? Nope.  So does it have any basis in the Bible?  None at all.  It is just made up.  The closest you can get to it is that if someone is actively trying to kill you or cause you bodily harm Christ teaches that you can run away.  Also, if you go to a wicked place for worldly purposes unconnected to the glory of God and leave godly influences behind to go there (Genesis 18-19), you should expect bad things to happen. Those are both totally different than refusing to go to a liberal part of the United States to help a strong church or plant a church because there is more open evil in the world than in some nice, rural, conservative, Bible-friendly area, maybe in the Bible belt or in the heavily Republican South.

What does matter to raising a godly family is having a strong church that is seeking to obey all of Scripture for the glory of God, and where both parents are actively serving.  If you want to raise your family for God, make sure that you have a church like that.  Make sure that you have your kids in a strong Christian school or homeschool that is actively seeking to disciple them with close parental involvement, and that you and the school are consistent in the use of the rod and of reproof.  If you think you can put your kids in public school because you live in a conservative area, so everything will be fine, you are bonkers.  Do the above to raise a godly family.  If God is giving you the desire to help evangelize for the purpose of seeing new churches established in a part of the USA that actually needs them really, really badly--in other words, those liberal parts where nobody or almost nobody is preaching the gospel--do not refuse to go because of this made-up idea that you can't raise a godly family there.  It isn't true.  It is a lie, a Satanic lie to confuse people on what is necessary for godly child-rearing and to prevent the Great Commission from being fulfilled.  Certainly someone in a weaker church in a more conservative part of the country is more likely to lose his children to the devil than someone in a stronger church in a more liberal part of America.

At least in my experience, people who have adopted this non-Biblical idea usually limit their restriction on moving to liberal areas to the United States.  Going to a mission field is OK, even if the place is very wicked.  If they were consistent, they would apply this idea to foreign countries as well, which would be the end of world missions.  The large majority of the world is more corrupt and with less Biblical influence than remains even in San Francisco, Massachusetts, and other parts of the USA where we still have First Amendment protections and other constitutional privileges as citizens that are not present in the overwhelming majority of the world.

It would be great if some of the people in the Baptist churches on every corner in the Bible belt and in other nice, Bible-friendly areas would get out of their holy huddle and move to parts of the USA and to the rest of the world where the vast majority of the population has never heard the gospel even one time.  They should be earnestly desiring to move to places like that and start preaching the gospel to those that have never heard it (Romans 15:20).  Maybe the default position should be to help there, and only stay in their nice and comfortable place if it is clearly God's will that they stay instead of going.

So if you have it in your mind that you would never go somewhere like the San Francisco Bay Area because it is liberal with little Biblical influence, you are not thinking Scripturally.  Instead of wanting to avoid going there because of a made up idea that raising a family for God is impossible in such a place, ask the Lord of the harvest what He would have you to do and where He would have you go, knowing that as you actively take up your cross and follow Christ you will have the best chance possible to raise the next generation to do the same.

Oh, and by the way, while the idea that you can't raise children for God in a liberal area is not in the Bible, at least you have the Catholic philosophy of monasticism and Ellen White, the cult leader and prophetess of Seventh-Day Adventism, on your side.  In her allegedly "inspired" book Country Living, Mrs. White made statements such as:

"[God] wants us to live where we have elbow room. His people are not to crowd into the cities. He wants them to take their families out of the cities, that they may better prepare for eternal life" (17.1).

"Get out of the cities as soon as possible, and purchase a little piece of land, where you can have a garden, where your children can watch the flowers growing" (17.3).

Aww, isn't that sweet.  Too bad it isn't in the Bible anywhere. If you follow the Bible instead of Ellen White, take up the cross, follow Him, and help to preach the gospel to everyone in the areas where nobody is doing it.  God will help you raise your family for Him there.                           -TDR

The Belly or the Bowels (part two): Either a Belly Church or a Bowel Church

Part One

In Philippians 3:19, the Apostle Paul uses these words:  "whose God is their belly."  Let's play a thought experiment with a potential reader of those words at the end of that chapter of Paul's epistle to the Philippians church.  He says,

My God is not my belly, so Paul isn't talking about me.  He must be referring to unbelievers or apostates, and I'm not one.  I believe in the true God.

This is important to consider, especially in the changing nature of churches today.  Just because the name of God and of Jesus are both used doesn't mean that these are the true God and Jesus of the Bible.  This reader isn't going to say, "My belly is my God, you're right, Paul."  No, this reader is going to say that the true God and the true Jesus really are truly their God, but in fact their belly is their God.  True faith in God is not some arbitrary check in a box.  Many false religions put the check in the right boxes, but are not genuine faith.

The belly and the bowel contrast presented in part one distinguish between two religions or even two churches, with the exception that one of them isn't even a church, because it isn't preaching true conversion. The belly religion or church contradicts true salvation.  No one in the kingdom will have his belly as God.  It is a fabricated kingdom in someone's imagination, that he calls God's kingdom, because then he envisions being in God's future kingdom, while also pitching his tent in the kingdom of this world.  This has now long become the norm in evangelicalism, churches pandering to bellies.

The bowel approach relies on scripture alone, exclusively scriptural methodology, what the Apostle Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 1-3.  That always "works."  When I say works, God's Word is powerful.  What I mean is that it really works.  However, it also doesn't "work."  It never "works."  The belly approach works far more in getting some tangible result and almost everyone reading this knows what I mean.  The belly approach incidentally is the Rick Warren approach of Purpose Driven Church.  Growing up, Warren didn't like how unsuccessful his father's church was, so he crafted a strategy that would always work.  His belly wanted more.  The nature of how the belly approach works reminds me of the moment Dr. Seuss's Grinch gets its idea.  It's either a wonderful or an awful idea, all depending on how one judges the two.  An awful idea became a wonderful idea, that was still awful.

Churches that proposition the belly introduce a different God.  God doesn't work through the belly.  He addresses the bowels.  God makes this plain in scripture.  It is determinative.  If your means or agency is belly, this isn't God.  It is a kind of bait and switch.  A belly allurement is not offering God.

What is a belly church?

To follow Paul in Philippians 3:19, the belly church minds earthly things.  BDAG provides two definitions of the Greek word translated "earthly":

1.  pertaining to what is characteristic of the earth as opposed to heavenly; 2.  pert. to earthly things, with implication of personal gratification, subst. worldly things

Someone again might ask:  But this is a church, isn't it?  It calls itself a church.  This is where discernment comes in.  In the next verse, Paul writes, "Our conversation is in heaven."  He is saying literally, "Our citizenship exists in heaven."  The word "is" or "exists (huparcho) is to say "what belongs to someone," so that heaven is where the believer's possession is.  The church is the domain of heaven on earth, not the domain of earth on earth.  The domain of earth on earth is the world.

The belly church tries to make earthly ones at home on earth instead of heaven.  Belly things are earthly things.  The belly church charms its subjects with its dress, music, recreation, and in general way of life, which is the meaning of culture.   It presents a worldly culture, and then says it represents God.  It isn't a solemn or reverent assembly.

The contemporary belly church labels its earthly culture, the grace of God.  Its adherents call this culture authentic, because it is who they really are.  They are free to be themselves, earthly and at home on this earth.  Their redemption brings a quantity of life, but not a quality of life.  It isn't redemption, because their god is still their belly and they are still minding earthly things.  They love the world, so the love of the Father is not in them (1 John 2:15-17).

Some churches have just modified the earthly things, dialing them down and adding heavenly things, in accordance with the bowels, the affections.  Their worship isn't sacred.  It's just less worldly.  It's church schedule is still filled with earthly activities.  Very often these churches attract using earthly attractions, retaining a semblance of church.  An erosion has occurred to where the modifications of heavenly things, syncretizing them with earthly things, have become their own culture.  They're not really sacred anymore.  They're just called sacred, because the church has been using them.  Being used in the church doesn't make something sacred, whether it is a modified heavenly thing, mixed with earthly things, or completely earthly things.

Associates of or supporters of belly churches, please consider whether your God is your belly.  You might call it Jesus.  You're being fooled, and this deception will send you all the way to Hell.  Let's just say it.  You think you're on your way to heaven, but you're going to Hell.  When you're there, taking in the deception that your belly religion is Christianity, that will be an eternal, painful regret of the nature of gnashing of teeth.

(To Be Continued)

Learn Christian Latin, Self-Directed: How I am Doing It

Latin is the language of Christendom for over 1,500 years--it is valuable for someone who wants to understand the history of Christianity, to understand the Latin Vulgate and Old Latin Bible translations, the language known by Biblical writers from Mark, early writers in Christendom, influential medieval theologians from Anslem to Aquinas, reformers from Luther to Calvin, Puritans like John Owen, and Baptist writers like John Gill.  Latin also helps one to understand untranslated Latin excerpts in commentaries like Keil & Delitzch, Latin excerpts in systematic theologies, and so on.

Interestingly, only approximately 0.01% of all extant Latin, though admittedly with substantial influence, is composed of classical Roman authors  Approximately 80% of extant Latin writings composed by those who professed to be Christians, while the other 20% is scientific and various other treatises by non-Christian writers (Derek Cooper, Basics of Latin: A Grammar with Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020], xvii).

So in light of the value of Latin, I have prayerfully decided to to learn the language at my own pace.  So how is it going?  I'm glad you asked.  How am I going about it?

I first started with Latin 101: Learning a Classical Language by Hans-Friedrich Mueller, a course offered by "The Great Courses" organization.  Having profited by numbers of classes offered by The Great Courses, I would use their class to learn classical Latin and then transition to the Latin of Christendom.  The "Great Courses" class offers a textbook with exercises and also video lectures, and I wanted to have lectures with a real, knowledgable teacher.  I also did not want to pay very much money, and I knew that The Great Courses regularly offers sales where their classes are listed at 70-85% off (you should never pay the full price, or even half price, for a Great Courses course; they list prices are fake to make you feel like you are getting an incredible deal at 70% off.  The marketing technique is effective--but the real, 70% off price for their classes is actually reasonable for courses that are often of high quality.)

I got through the majority of the Great Courses class, completing all the exercises, with their textbook and a Latin dictionary (Simpson, D. P., Cassell’s Latin Dictionary: Latin-English & English-Latin, 5th ed. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing, 1968)  However, as I kept plugging away, I started to get really bogged down in the exercises.  I was looking up practically every word in the dictionary and taking an inordinately long amount of time to complete the exercises.  I believe that the Great Courses class will probably work for some, but for me there just were not enough exercises to attain sufficient mastery of the material before going on to the next chapter.  So after slogging through a majority of the book, with progress getting slower and slower, I started looking for alternatives.

I discovered the Familia Romana / Lingua Latina: Per Se Illustrata series, and have to this point been very impressed.  I purchased a number of books so that I could have everything I needed to teach myself using that series, as well as a few other works that help as described below:

1.) Ørberg, Hans H., Familia Romana, Lingua Latina: Per Se Illustrata. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2003.      Amazon Smile link

2.) Ørberg, Hans H., Latine Disco: Student’s Manual, Lingua Latina: Per Se Illustrata. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2005.     Amazon Smile link

3.) Ørberg, Hans H., Colloquia Personarum, Lingua Latina: Per Se Illustrata. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2005.     Amazon Smile link

4.) Ørberg, Hans H., Familia Romana: Exercitia Latina I, Lingua Latina: Per Se Illustrata Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2005. Amazon Smile link

5.) Ørberg, Hans H., Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata: Teacher’s Materials. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2005. Amazon Smile link

6.) Neumann, Jeanne Marie, Lingua Latina: A College Companion Based on Hans Ørberg’s Latine Disco, with Vocabulary and Grammar, Lingua Latina: Per Se Illustrata. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2016. Amazon smile link

7.) Brown, C. G. & Luigi Miraglia, Latine Doceo: A Companion for Instructors, Lingua Latina: Per Se Illustrata. Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing, 2004. Amazon smile link

8.) Cooper, Derek, Basics of Latin: A Grammar with Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020. Amazon smile link

9.) Cooper, Derek, Basics of Latin Video Lectures: For Use with Basics of Latin: A Grammar with Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020 Amazon smile link

10.) Collins, John. A Primer on Ecclesiastical Latin. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1985. Amazon smile link

11.) Dunlap, John R., An Answer Key to A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin: A Supplement to the Text by John F. Collins. Washington, D. C.: Catholic University of America, 2006. Amazon smile link

12.) Ørberg, Hans H., Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata: Pars II: Roma Aeterna, 2nd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1990. Amazon smile link

13.) Ørberg, Hans H, Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata: Pars II: Roma Aeterna: Exercitia Latina II. Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing, 2007. Amazon smile link

14.) Neumann, Jeanne Marie, A Companion to Roma Aeterna: Based on Hans Ørberg’s Instructions, with Vocabulary and Grammar. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2017. Amazon smile link

15.) Carfagni, Roberto, Epitome Historiae Sacrae. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2009. Amazon smile link

16.) Simpson, D. P., Cassell’s Latin Dictionary: Latin-English & English-Latin, 5th ed. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing, 1968. Amazon smile link

I also got a few others; click here for my page on learning Christian and classical Latin for more information.

The student textbook, Familia Romana, Pars 1: Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata, is written entirely in Latin. It presents an interesting story of a Roman family with all its adventures, and teaches Latin inductively with plenty of pictures, side-notes, and other helps so that the student can understand the Latin in Latin.  (See an example here from the first chapter of the book.) The successive chapters build gradually on each other and the student learns Latin naturally.  After learning new grammatical forms inductively, the textbook complements induction with a deductive presentation.  The deductive approach is also followed by the two specifically Ecclesiastical/Christian Latin works by Collins and Cooper.  (Collins is very Catholic while Cooper, a Protestant, draws on the entire Christian Latin tradition.)

I am now in chapter sixteen of Familia Romana, am making regular progress, and am already getting interesting information from the specifically Christian Latin works by Cooper (especially) and Collins.  Dr. Cooper also kindly allowed me to obtain from Zondervan a complementary review copy of his textbook and video lectures.  I do not believe I have said anything about differently than I would have if I had needed to pay for his text and lectures.

I can plan to keep you updated as I continue to make progress, Lord willing.  This way of learning Latin is working for me and I believe it would work for others, at least from a high-school level on up.

Note that the links to Amazon above are affiliate links.  You can learn more about how to save on Internet purchases here.

-TDR

"Come as you are" or "sanctify yourselves"?

Today we hear a great deal about how we should come to church just as we are.  I recall a life-size ad that was posted for many weeks at a local mall in Wisconsin.  It had a picture of a guy in a T-shirt holding a Bible, a big tattoo visible on his arm, wearing jeans.  The ad asked, "Would Jesus wear jeans to church?" There was no gospel on the ad anywhere, although the religious organization claims to be evangelical.  Even if someone were to (wrongly) think that the answer to that question is, "Yes," unless wearing the jeans and the tattoo were an idol, one could answer "Yes, but who cares? Why aren't you giving these lost people the gospel instead of asking them a silly question about clothing?" On the other hand, if the casual clothes are an idol that one is not willing to forsake to take up the cross and follow Christ, then the ad makes sense; we can "put down the cross and serve ourselves," can keep everything in the world that the jeans and tattoo represent, instead of taking up the cross and following Christ.  

But is the answer really "yes"?  Are we supposed to come to church as we are?

Scripture regularly contains the following phrase when people were entering the presence of the infinitely holy Jehovah (in each case the Hithpael of the verb qds, "holy"):

Ex. 19:22 And let the priests also, which come near to the LORD, sanctify themselves, lest the LORD break forth upon them.

Lev. 11:44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Lev. 20:7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God.

Num. 11:18 And say thou unto the people, Sanctify yourselves against to morrow, and ye shall eat flesh: for ye have wept in the ears of the LORD, saying, Who shall give us flesh to eat? for it was well with us in Egypt: therefore the LORD will give you flesh, and ye shall eat.

Josh. 3:5 And Joshua said unto the people, Sanctify yourselves: for to morrow the LORD will do wonders among you.

Josh. 7:13 Up, sanctify the people, and say, Sanctify yourselves against to morrow: for thus saith the LORD God of Israel, There is an accursed thing in the midst of thee, O Israel: thou canst not stand before thine enemies, until ye take away the accursed thing from among you.

1Sam. 16:5 And he said, Peaceably: I am come to sacrifice unto the LORD: sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice. And he sanctified Jesse and his sons, and called them to the sacrifice.

1Chr. 15:12 And said unto them, Ye are the chief of the fathers of the Levites: sanctify yourselves, both ye and your brethren, that ye may bring up the ark of the LORD God of Israel unto the place that I have prepared for it.

1Chr. 15:14 So the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of the LORD God of Israel.

2Chr. 29:5 And said unto them, Hear me, ye Levites, sanctify now yourselves, and sanctify the house of the LORD God of your fathers, and carry forth the filthiness out of the holy place.

2Chr. 29:15 And they gathered their brethren, and sanctified themselves, and came, according to the commandment of the king, by the words of the LORD, to cleanse the house of the LORD.

2Chr. 29:34 But the priests were too few, so that they could not flay all the burnt offerings: wherefore their brethren the Levites did help them, till the work was ended, and until the other priests had sanctified themselves: for the Levites were more upright in heart to sanctify themselves than the priests.

2Chr. 30:3 For they could not keep it at that time, because the priests had not sanctified themselves sufficiently, neither had the people gathered themselves together to Jerusalem.

2Chr. 30:15 Then they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the second month: and the priests and the Levites were ashamed, and sanctified themselves, and brought in the burnt offerings into the house of the LORD.

2Chr. 30:24 For Hezekiah king of Judah did give to the congregation a thousand bullocks and seven thousand sheep; and the princes gave to the congregation a thousand bullocks and ten thousand sheep: and a great number of priests sanctified themselves.

2Chr. 31:18 And to the genealogy of all their little ones, their wives, and their sons, and their daughters, through all the congregation: for in their set office they sanctified themselves in holiness:

2Chr. 35:6 So kill the passover, and sanctify yourselves, and prepare your brethren, that they may do according to the word of the LORD by the hand of Moses.

So the world, and most of evangelicalism, says to come to church just as you are, the same way you come to any worldly event.  Indeed, making no difference between the common or profane and the holy temple of God in this age is important enough to many evangelicals that they will refrain from giving people the gospel to instead focus upon the importance of coming to church in your T-shirt and jeans sporting your tattoo with your modern Bible version.  Come as you are, sing to God the tunes of the world, and add a little religion to your life--your life which is all about you.  By contrast, Scripture affirms, over and over again, that one is to sanctify himself before coming into the presence of the holy, holy, holy God.

So, in a true church, where the special presence of God is found in a manner comparable to the holy of holies in the Old Testament tabernacle (Gk. naos), you should not come just as you are.  You should sanctify yourself--you should come in a way that is distinctly different, that is not common, not profane, but set apart to the righteous Lord and God who dwells in a special way in His true church.  Jesus Christ walks in the midst of His churches, and He still hates any profanation of God's worship the way He did when he took a whip and drove out the moneychangers and merchants from the Temple (John 2) and when He sent fire from heaven to burn up those who failed to sanctify Him in their worship (Leviticus 10).

Nor should true churches set up special meetings where the people of God specifically fail to sanctify themselves in their appearance and come into the presence of God in an informal, casual, common way so that lost people who visit feel more comfortable.  There is no model for this in Scripture, and when in the New Testament a lost person comes under conviction after visiting church, it is because of the truth of the Word he has heard from the godly example and speech of the church members, not because they decided not to sanctify themselves. That is not the way to get the lost to confess "God is in you of a truth" (1 Corinthians 14:25), but to get them to confess:  "There is nothing special here."  Much less should church services be turned into carnivals with give-aways to attract children who would not come for Christ but will come for candy.

On the other hand, if you are going to a religious organization that does not fit the Biblical criteria for one of Christ's true churches, you might as well come as you are and make no difference between the holy and the common, since Christ is not there anyway.  Go for it!  But don't deceive yourself and think that you are doing anything that is for the glory and honor of God when you are there.  It's about you.  Be honest.

So, considered Biblically, a religious organization with a "seeker-sensitive, come as you are" philosophy of ministry is saying "God is not here.  This is about us and what we want. No to Immanuel, yes to ourselves.  The Bible says 'sanctify yourselves' before coming into God's presence--but we say exactly the opposite."

On a side note, the Keswick / Higher Life idea that "You cannot sanctify yourself" is the opposite of what the passages of Scripture above teach.  The sons of God, enabled by grace, do indeed sanctify themselves; that is one of the ways that God sanctifies them.

Please do not draw the conclusion from this article that the lost need to make themselves worthy before they can come to Christ. This post is about God's people and how they should come into the presence of God in His church, not about how the lost should come to Christ as empty-handed sinners with nothing but their sin.  Please also do not conclude that we should discourage lost people who know nothing about God's Word from hearing preaching or attending services if they do not dress nicely enough.  That is not what the post is about either.  Nor did the post say anything to the effect that the outside is more important than the inside; that is not the case. God does care about sanctifying all of who we are, inside and outside.  Do not take the post for what it does not say, but what it does say.

Let's just be honest with these passages of Scripture and recognize that the saints should sanctify themselves in their hearts, minds, and appearance before they come into the special presence of the God who commanded, "Be ye holy, for I am holy" (1 Peter 1:16; Leviticus 11:44).  Not soli mihi gloria, but soli Deo gloria.

-TDR