Norman Teigen (left) and Rolf Preus. Norman's father exposed the Synodical Conference error about the efficacy of the Word in the Lord's Supper. The ELS ministers chickened out on the topic,
just as they did with Pope John the Malefactor's destruction of the divine call.
LutherQuest(sic)
Rolf Preus: "When the synod is a church and a synod president with no altar or pulpit is nevertheless a pastor of the church then divine gospel authority is replaced by carnal legal authority not just potentially but necessarily.
The reason men cannot understand this is because they think they can understand the ministry of the Word apart from the actual divine justification of the sinner through faith. It cannot be done."
GJ - This comment is from a pastor I know:
Doesn't this sentence contradict UOJ? Rolf Preus arguing about the nature of the office of pastor!
---
Another person wrote:
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Kurtzahn, The Pancake Pope of the CLC (sic), Unloa...":
Rolf cannot comprehend the contents of the book he "edited", with his brother, maybe because they so mucked up the text and references of their late father's book; JUSTIFICATION AND ROME by Robert Preus.
They gave the book a very poor layout. But more importantly, it is obviously tampered with in the actual text proper, as well as in the reference sections, in not a few, but many places.
Many quotes from the BoC that their father would, I believe, have intended being in the text proper (to give greater clarity to non-Lutherans reading it), appear to have been dropped by his boys, probably because too detrimental to the UOJ barrow the Preus boys so vehemently continue to push.
The true Apostolic/Lutheran Justification by Faith Alone teaching; nevertheless shines clearly through, on the whole,in spite of the afore-mentioned impoverishments.
***
GJ - Some synodical trivia: I noticed that Rolf took on David Buegler here. Buegler was Jack Cascione's candidate for DP in Ohio. Cascione was delighted that his guy won - then his guy turned ecumenical overnight. What a shock! Rolf is Cascione's chapel dean at LutherQuest (sic). Rolf once went to the Ukraine to spend some Schwan or Stolzenburg money, thanks to Jay Webber. Birds of a feather do flock together - do not stand under their roosting places too long.
Rolf's position on the ministry, quoted above, contradicts UOJ. I hope he donates the manuscript of Justification and Rome to a library, so scholars can see what his father actually wrote. Having Rolf and Daniel edit it was a stroke of genius - like having two house painters touch up a Rembrandt.
The Little Sect on the Prairie had a chance to deal with doctrine when B. Teigen wrote his famous book on the Lord's Supper. Instead, they accepted synodical orders to silence themselves about Receptionism - the Synodical Conference error that the elements become the Body and Blood of Christ when received by the individual. The political reason behind the silencing was clear enough - no one could admit that Holy Mother Synod was ever wrong about anything. The doctrinal error behind Receptionism is Enthusiasm, thoroughly denounced by the Book of Concord - separating the Holy Spirit from the Word.
In muting themselves about Enthusiasm in the Lord's Supper, the ELS clergy and laity also silenced themselves about Enthusiasm in the Church Growth Movement. Orvick welcomed an essay endorsing Valleskey's Figs from Thistles essay (WLQ) and this endorsement was duly published in the ELS knock-off journal. CG is not just good - using it is analogous to plundering gold, silver, and jewels. Praise God from Whom all blessings flow. Amen. Here endeth the lesson.
Ditto the Mueller/Gurgle theses on the ministry. Once again the ELS clergy and laity rolled over and played dead. Are they the same group that stood up to the LMCS long ago? Obviously not. Emboldened, Pope John the Malefactor extended the Left Foot of Fellowship to anyone who dared to question Him (the divine pronoun used on purpose). I do not agree with Rolf's curious doctrine, but what Pope John did to Rolf's congregation was despicable: fire the pastor or get kicked out of the Little Sect. Moldstad, who was voted into the VP slot by the WELSian faction, has no aptitude for theology. As John Shep predicted long before it happened, Moldstad's attitude was and is - "Walk the plank."
Enthusiasm and compromise have contributed to the the neutering of the ELS. Perhaps the clergy have taken this verse to heart - and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. (Matthew 19:12)
I am pessimistic that Rolf Preus, Jay Webber, and others can ever admit to the error of UOJ, even as they contradict themselves in public and in private. If the Word does consecrate and Church Growth is evil, as Jay Webber seems to say, then UOJ is simply a third cancerous growth of Enthusiasm.
If one cannot divorce the ministry of the Word from the office, as Rolf did say on LQ (sic), quoted above, then UOJ is impossible.
One layman was struck by Kurtzahn and Preus looking down their noses at Lenski. This layman wrote:
"Just reading posts on the big I. I wonder what these guys do not like about Lenski`s comments about justification. What good does all Christ did for us without faith? Seems these guys do not want anything to do with faith and keep going on about the predestination controversy of the 1880`s. Also seems these are the same guys that promote the church growth stuff. I guess these guys make disciples."
In the past, the WELS pastors from the Bethany program seemed to have a much better grasp of Lutheran doctrine than did the pure-bred Wisconsin parochial school to NW prep to NWC to GA to Mequon students. Bethany program vet Dom Perignon Patterson is an exception, but I am told he started out well.
The only solution I can see for the ELS/WELS is having a multi-year, in-depth study of the Book of Concord. The Confessions are best studied in small sections, so they do not overwhelm people. I would start with the Formula of Concord (1580), since it constantly appeals to and uses the Augsburg Confession (1530) as its authority. I also like the Formula because of the issues addressed. Augsburg was more concerned with Rome. Fifty years later, Reformed influence also emerged as significant. Reformed doctrine is the biggest problem in the ELS and WELS today, especially since the leaders, past and present, are so smitten by it.
The major weakness of the Formula is quoting Luther. The conservative synods do not like Luther being quoted. That may kill any project involving the Formula of Concord.
3 comments:
My ELS pastor always gets a 'who farted' look on his face whenever the words 'confessional' or 'Book of Concord' are said.
I am an ELS layman who once was fully in agreement with the removal of the pastors and congregations from the Synod over the doctrinal statement: THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF THE WORD.
I realize, now how truly dense I was.
Those pastors were not previously held to a doctrinal statement on the ministry. Then, in 2005, the rules were changed in the middle of the game. Their 'sin'? They continued to preach/teach exactly what they'd preached/taught before, AND they had the nerve to say and hold to the fact that they would not change.
Oh. The other thing that binds them is that they're all Confessional!
That is not to say that there are no Confessional pastors in the ELS. There certainly are, and they are fine pastors.
Those who are gone are sorely missed, though for their fine preaching and teaching the Truth!
I pray for the day that the pastors and congregations involved are invited to return to the ELS, and that they accept in order that healing can begin.
Lutherans who teach the Truth, who dispense the Means of Grace must remain united, now more than ever in history.
The ELS lost a group of men who faithfully preached the Word and presided over the Sacraments. The congregations being served by those men are indeed fortunate.
Will there be healing in the ELS? Does the ELS need a new president in 2010? I believe that in order for healing to take place, there needs to be a new president elected at the 2010 convention.
LutherQuest documents Pastor Rolf Preus' confession on the doctrine of justification.
Statement: "The Confessions are relentless in their demand that forgiveness and justification in God's sight is granted because of the work of faith created by the Holy Ghost."
Rolf's response: No, they are not.
Statement: "The Gospel message is the promise and it is ours through faith. H.A. Preus denies this as do the doctrines of UOJ, OJ and UJ."
Rolf's response: That's a false statement. Neither H. A. Preus nor any adherent of objective justification denies this. Brett, you quote H. A. Preus H.A. Preus states, "We consider also that the Word of God surely
does not say that God will give us his Son when we believe in him or on the condition that we believe in him." You then say, "Yes it does as the Scriptures and Confessions declare:" But what you cite in no way supports your contention. What you need to understand is that those who hold to the doctrine of objective justification hold to the doctrine of justification by faith alone. When you establish a conflict between
objective justification and justification by faith alone you distort the meaning of both. You need to answer the question, "What does justifying faith believe?" In order to offer criticism of someone's position, you need to be able to articulate it in such a manner that those who hold it will recognize it as their position. From your comments posted on this thread so far, both before you read the essay by H. A. Preus and afterwards, you have not demonstrated that you understand the position you are attempting to refute. You continue to assign to adherents of objective justification positions they do not hold. I would also advise you to consider Pr. Jay Webber's post. Not only the Lutheran dogmatic tradition, but the old Synodical Conference held to this teaching. Are you sure that you want to cut yourself off from such an assembly of faithful teachers?
Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2008 - 7:38 pm:
Also,
Rolf: What you cite from the Confessions does not support this false statement. Forgiveness and justification in God’s sight is NOT granted because of the work of faith created by the Holy Spirit. Rather, the Holy Spirit creates faith by means of the granting of the forgiveness of sins and justification, that is, by means of the proclamation of the gospel. You reject this statement by H. A. Preus: “We consider also that the Word of God surely does not say that God will give us his Son when we believe in him or on the condition that we believe in him.” But Jesus said, “For God so loved the world that HE GAVE his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.” God did not give us his Son on the condition that we believe in him. A simple reading of John 3:16 will show us that! When you make faith a cause of God forgiving us you effectively bury Christ and negate everything he did to save us poor, wretched sinners. You render impotent our Lord’s redemption, propitiation, and atonement. You deny the Bible when you say that God is not propitiated unless and until we believe. The Bible says concerning Jesus, “And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” You ask if I agree with the following statement: “But God's act of forgiving sin, which is the same thing as God proclaiming and promising a sinner's forgiveness, is different from the effects of this act and can occur without this occurring, therefore also without faith being there.” Yes, I do. H. A. Preus is simply making a distinction between giving and receiving. While receiving requires giving, giving does not require receiving. When God tells the sinner he is forgiven and the sinner rejects God’s absolution in unbelief this does not make God a liar. He gave it. But what he gave was not received.
Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2008
Post a Comment