Oh! Oh! Oh! I Found Antithetical Statements in the Book of Concord

"Now what do I do?"

We used to laugh about the febrile WELS leaders having CG-asms. They would announce with great excitement that they just discovered "another Church Growth Principle."

I have just discovered antithetical statements in the Book of Concord.

All these years I have been pummeled for stating that marketing the Gospel is false doctrine. "That is Christian-bashing" I was told. I have been eviscerated in public for saying Fuller Seminary is the Great Sewer of Protestantism in America. "That is legalism. They are Christians. We can learn from them, too. I went to the Ohio Conference to deal with legalism down there." (Valleskey, on his Spoiling the Egyptians masterpiece, plagiarized from Larry Crab, who plagiarized Augustine, each crib far dumber than the previous one).

Here is one antithetical introduction in the Book of Concord:

From these, the antithesis also, that is, the false contrary dogmas, are manifest, namely, that in addition to the errors recounted above also the following and similar ones, which conflict with the explanation now published, must be censured, exposed, and rejected, as when it is taught:

That is from the Righteousness of Faith section in the Formula of Concord. Not it is not the Righteousness of No Faith, as the UOJ people would claim. They should read their Book of Concord, that big fat book behind the pile of synodical 3-ring binders.

Oh! Oh! Oh! I found another one:

38] However, it by no means follows thence that we are to say simpliciter and flatly: Good works are injurious to believers for or as regards their salvation; for in believers good works are indications of salvation when they are done propter veras causas et ad veros fines (from true causes and for true ends), that is, in the sense in which God requires them of the regenerate, Phil. 1, 20; for it is God's will and express command that believers should do good works, which the Holy Ghost works in believers, and with which God is pleased for Christ's sake, and to which He promises a glorious reward in this life and the life to come.

39] For this reason, too, this proposition is censured and rejected in our churches, because as a flat statement it is false and offensive, by which discipline and decency might be impaired, and a barbarous, dissolute, secure, Epicurean life be introduced and strengthened. For what is injurious to his salvation a person should avoid with the greatest diligence. (Good Works, Formula of Concord)

Censured and rejected? Strong words. A good test of Lutheran knowledge is this - Which man promoted good works as necessary? Which one denounced good works as injurious to salvation? Both men were important leaders after Luther. Major - good works are necessary. Amsdorf - good works are injurious. Can anyone imagine this happening today? No, the synods are too busy proving everyone is infallible by kicking out anyone who dissents.

The old Synodical Conference will keep on breeding Universalism by teaching justification without faith, absolution of the world without the Word. One man went to a dreary Easter service where everyone was promised death. "But that's OK. Everyone here is going to heaven." As he said, there is not much preaching that can be done with UOJ.

It is, therefore, dangerous and wrong to convert the Gospel, properly so called, as distinguished from the Law, into a preaching of repentance or reproof [a preaching of repentance, reproving sin]. For otherwise, if understood in a general sense of the entire doctrine, also the Apology says several times that the Gospel is a preaching of repentance and the forgiveness of sins. Meanwhile, however, the Apology also shows that the Gospel is properly the promise of the forgiveness of sins and of justification through Christ, but that the Law is a doctrine which reproves sins and condemns. (Law and Gospel, Formula of Concord)

Dangerous and wrong? Are they talking about Paul Kelm, who starts with the Gospel and moves to the Law? Or Wayne Mueller? Oh my.

Luther did not start the Reformation, by the grace of God, because he discovered the Gospel. After all, Spalatin explained the Gospel to him. The Gospel never went away. Luther mortally wounded the Whore of Babylon by distinguishing between sound doctrine and false doctrine. The pope (like our Lutheran popes today) could not stand antithetical statements. Without them, anything can be claimed, no matter what is intended.

Lutherans teach salvation by grace. So do Roman Catholics. A Lutheran/Roman Catholic conversation can be quite pleasant until one defines what is and what is not grace.

The Lutheran organizations have adopted a Roman Catholic attitude about doctrine - You can teach and believe whatever you want as long as you do not denounce anything. That is why pockets of dissent exist here and there, happily chirping to each other about how bad things are, but silent about false doctrine. A Roman Catholic priest can march in a religious procession with the seminary professors of the ELS and no one objects. An archbishop pedophile can teach WELS and the public while district popes defend and deny.

Ichabodians - watch and listen as pastors studiously avoid doing what the Book of Concord practices: publishing the antithetical statement. Until that happens consistently, the visible Lutheran Church will remain in the Slough of Despond.

An Unworthy Prayer

"Please make him stop quoting our leaders. Amen."

One of my students, ready to graduate, said, "What synod are you?" I said, "You are Lutheran, aren't you?" He denied it three times.

Non-Lutherans ask, if they know us fairly well, "What syNOD?" Only a trained Lutheran would say, with proper pronunciation, "What synod?"

Later he admitted to being raised Missouri Synod. He has served as a lay-pastor in a Pentecostal denomination. Many people tell me they used to be Lutheran, and this is definitely not a Lutheran town. Phoenix has the second-largest concentration of Mormons in America.

Why are there so many former Lutherans? The whining about verbatim quotations on Ichabod may give a clue.

Objections to quotations fall into two categories, both covered by the iconic prayer portrayed above:
1 - Do not quote the great Lutheran theologians of the past.
2 - Do not quote the apostate Lutheran leaders of today.

The Scriptures are plain and simple to comprehend. They have the power of the Holy Spirit to convert and to sustain faith. Unfortunately, people have battled to obscure the meaning of God's Word.

One cause is the promiscuous publication of Bible translations.

Another cause is the fog of Biblical interpretation, created by the last century of unbelievers who could find no other job than teaching the Scriptures to innocent seminarians.

The most destructive is the promotion of a union theology which dare not speak its name. Recessional Lutherans have spent the last 30 years leading people out of the faith via a cynical, discount Reformed-Pentecostal marketing strategy or a mystical and deceitful Roman/Eastern Orthodox confidence game. Either way, the duped are made to feel the real Church is anything but the Lutheran Church. But this goes under the banner of Confessional Lutheranism.

Luther properly identified the danger of all false doctrine in taking away from the glory of God, the clear message of the Scriptures. Can anything be more Satanic than taking people's attention away from God at work in the Means of Grace and getting them to focus on organizational strategy?

One WELS circuit pastor, driven out of the ministry by his brothers, said this, "We used to be a well run group of people. We never talked about the organization. Now that is all we talk about and the synod is falling apart." His sin against the Holy Spirit (from the Wisconsin perspective) was being mildly critical of the Church Growth Movement. His years of faithful service counted for nothing.

As long as the organization comes first, any lie is better than facing the truth. One WELS pastor wrote to say that he learned about his district, thousands of miles away from me, by reading my doctrinal bulletins. "You know more about what is happening a few miles away from me than I do." Rather than deal openly with the cause of multiple lawsuits and statutory rape by church workers, the district concealed the truth from everyone.

District Pope Robert Mueller said, at an official meeting, "If I tell the congregation that they are calling an adulterer, they don't want him." He was excusing his deceptions. A layman was astounded. "You don't tell them?" Later, Mueller complained about the need to certify that his clergy were not sex offenders. Psst - there is something in the Bible about that. Several places, I think.

As long as people think their job is to make the organization strong and prosperous, they can be led to and fro in error's maze confounded. Strangely, the Episcopalians have seen the light and reacted, with far more courage than can be found among the Lutherans. Bishops, usually the most timid of clergy, are leading groups of congregations away from apostasy.

Lutherans have lost their trust in the pure Word of God. They have lost track of their own theologians.

I estimate there are three approaches to the Book of Concord.

ELCA indifference - Oh yeah, this Book of Concord thing. I have the new edition.

LCMS/WELS/ELS rabbit's foot. I read it a little once. Had to in seminary. Not relevant today. Yes, we have a kiwi subscription to it. Quia? Oh, forgot. Yes, not a tennis subscription. Quatenus? Whatever.

The Great Discovery. Some have found that the Book of Concord deals with the great spiritual issues of all time. The Book of Concord is a one volume collection of Biblical exposition, the clearest possible teaching about God's Word. The Book of Concord collects the ancient confessions (Ecumenical Creeds) Luther's writings (Small and Large Catechisms, Smalcald Articles), Melanchthon's (Augsburg Confession and the Apology, Treatise), and the Concordists (Formula of Concord and the Book of Concord itself).