Episode #24 – How Is Your Relationship With Monergism Going?

In this episode, Lewis and Dan play good tweet / bad tweet and find that songs are sermons and your relationship with God isn’t a unique snowflake. They then answer questions about which body of Jesus are we eating and different ways of preaching before heading into Hot Topics where they discuss “Are Lutherans Monergists?” and open air preaching.

Click Here To Download: Episode #24 – How Is Your Relationship With Monergism Going?

Click Here To Play: 

One thought on “Episode #24 – How Is Your Relationship With Monergism Going?

  1. FWIW…

    I came across the following statement on Facebook last week:

    “The Lutheran view admits no change of substance in the bread and wine, and makes the reception of Christ’s body contingent on faith (as I understand it).”

    My response:

    This is kind of correct, but I think it misunderstands the Lutheran beef with transubstantiation. The “Lutheran view” doesn’t stipulate or insist on a change of substance. But it isn’t accurate to say that it admits no change of substance. This starts with the Aristotelian category of “substance,” which is not where Scripture, the early patristic exegetes, or the gnesio-Lutheran fathers started when approaching the topic. With that said, there’s nothing inherently wrong with speaking about the modus essendi of the Sacrament in this parlance (it is fraught with certain pitfalls though). The main problem with Rome’s dogmatic definition of transubstantiation was not that it spoke of a change of substance. So far as it goes, that’s a broadly accurate statement: a change happens when the Verba are spoken, this is true. But when you freight the discussion with the full weight of Aristotle’s Physics and Metaphyics and the highly specific definition of “substance” derived from them, and then bind consciences with these definitions under pain of anathema, then…well…that’s bad.

    Consubstantiation/impanation is wrong because it posits a third “mystery substance” which is supposedly both bread and Body, etc.; but this actually undoes the mystery of the Real Presence in way which is far uglier than Rome’s doctrine of transubstantiation. Why? Because this hypothetical substance that would actually be neither bread nor Body. And the thing is, no one actually believes in consubstantiation, except perhaps some High Anglicans…in another century. It’s one of the most annoying strawmen of Lutheran doctrine out there. Roman Catholics learn that it’s “the Lutheran view” in CCD as kids, and then they trot it out all smart-like in discussions, because they can’t think outside of the substance-box and assume that no one else can, either. And, of course, Calvinists throw it around, too. For some reason.

    Curious as to your thoughts?

    Also, if you haven’t yet had a chance to read A.C. Piepkorn’s beautiful essay “Christ Today: His Presence in the Sacraments”, you can download it here. You will love it!

    Under the +Mercy

    S.st-C

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s