He would be banned today by LutherQuest (sic).
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Luther and Ordination":
Why don't we call ordination a sacrament? Because the author of the Formula insists it isn't:
Martin Chemnitz, Ministry, Word, and Sacrament: An Enchiridion
Q. 222
Q: "But why is ordination of ministers of the church not a Sacrament, though the Apostles laid hands on those called to the ministry and through that laying on of hands necessary gifts were conferred on ministers? (1 Ti.4:14; 2 Ti 1:6)
A: No doubt the legitimate call and ordination of ministers of the church is established by the Word of God and confirmed with the promise of divine blessing; and that affords very sweet comfort. But ordination does not have this promise, that he who wants to obtain the grace of God and eternal salvation must be invested with the holy priesthood. For also many who have prophesied will hear this fearful sentence of Christ on that day: I never knew you; depart from Me, etc. (Mt. 7:23). And besides, the laying on of hands has no express command in the Word of God, but the apostles used that ceremony as a thing indifferent, for the sake of public prayers.
And unction, which the papists practice in ordaining elders, has neither any command nor promise in the Scripture of the New Testament; but, contrary to the Word of God, it reduces the ministry of the New Testament to the shadows of Levitical ceremonies. Since, then, the ordination of ministers of the church lacks both the element and the promise of grace, both of which are required for the essence of a Sacrament in the New Testament, it neither is nor can be called a true sacrament.
---
7] The adversaries understand priesthood not of the ministry of the Word, and administering the Sacraments to others, but they understand it as referring to sacrifice; as though in the New Testament there ought to be a priesthood like the Levitical, to sacrifice for the people, and merit the remission of sins for others. 8] We teach that the sacrifice of Christ dying on the cross has been sufficient for the sins of the whole world, and that there is no need, besides, of other sacrifices, as though this were not sufficient for our sins. Men, accordingly, are justified not because of any other sacrifices, but because of this one sacrifice of Christ, if they believe that they have been redeemed by this sacrifice. 9] They are accordingly called priests, not in order to make any sacrifices for the people as in the Law, so that by these they may merit remission of sins for the people; but they are called to teach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments to the people. 10] Nor do we have another priesthood like the Levitical, 11] as the Epistle to the Hebrews sufficiently teaches. But if ordination be understood as applying to the ministry of the Word, we are not unwilling to call ordination a sacrament. For the ministry of the Word has God's command and glorious promises, Rom. 1:16: The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Likewise, Is. 55:11: So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of My mouth; it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please. Augsburg Apology
***
GJ - I don't want to go all Iowa Synod on the readers, but I can see both viewpoints. Of course, Chemnitz' fine book is not the ruled norm while the Apology is.
I find it rather dense to argue against a position taken by the Apology. By itself, Melanchthon's defense of the Augsburg Confession would be one of the great theological works in history.
But of course, the Synodical Conference has consistently taught a position against Luther - ever since Pieper, with the stage set by CFW Walther himself. The ELS has made the Book of Concord null and void while raising a Walther sermon to the level of Holy Writ. The Methodists did the same with Wesley's sermon collection - with predictable results.
I suggest people read the Apology's clear and compelling witness about justification by faith.
If more Zinzendorfs keep showing up, people will start reading the Book of Concord again.
***
PS - "Not unwilling" is a litotes, something not taught in the synodical education process, apparently. Here is a Mormon link to help out someone in need of rhetoric lessons.
The litotes is a way of insisting on something in a modest, understated way. If someone mentioned that I had over 3,200 posts, I could say, "I was not unaware of the total."
Or I might post, "Dealing with the evasions and confusions of the UOJ crowd is no small task." Does that mean it is a small effort or a Herculean labor?
---
LCMS Pastor Art Bolstad sent this:
"Ordination and installation look a lot alike, in a sense, both make a
man the pastor of sheep (the Greek word for "pastor" literally means
"shepherd". However, there is a difference.
When a man decides he should study to be a pastor, he is doing something
approved by God (1 Timothy 3:1). Notice the focus here on the desires
of the man. There is no call mentioned only his "desires". Notice too
that "desire" is not the same as achievement. In other words, just
because a man desires to be a pastor, does not mean that he will ever
actually be one.
In John 10:1-5 Jesus talks about the difference between a shepherd who
comes in through the door of the sheepfold and a thief who comes in over
the fence. Then in John 10:7 He says that He Himself is the door.
Ordination is the door through which the sub-shepherd meets His sheep.
A man attempting to "shepherd" sheep on his own (without going through
Jesus (the door) or not being ordained) is described in John 10:12-13 as
a hireling, and worthless.
Ordination places a man in an office created by God (administered by His
Church), the office of Pastor. In ordination a man accepts the
responsibility of being a shepherd for the sheep which God sends him.
Ordination itself does not imply that there are (or even will be) sheep
to be shepherded. Ordination is, if you will, between God and a man.
That ordination brings with it God's direction and blessings is
commented on in 1 Timothy 4:14). Both 1 Timothy 4:14 and 1 Timothy 5:22
say that ordination is given by other previously ordained pastors.
Ordination then is going through Christ as the door in John 10.
On the other hand, installation is when a pastor receives sheep to be
cared for. No one would want to be installed without the promise of
God's blessing on the man being installed, nor would the people
receiving the pastor want one who proposes to operate without God's
blessings. The choosing of a particular pastor is done by the
congregation (Acts 14:23).
Consider the parallel to the anointing of David. David was anointed
King as a young man but did not become King for around 20 years. Thus
there was a distinction between entering the office and entering the
application of the office. 1 Samuel 16:3; 2 Samuel 5:4. Also David
became King by the choice of the people even though he had been anointed
by Samuel some 15 years earlier.
Installation and ordination, as was commented above, are the activities
of 2 different sets of Gods representatives. Installation is a
congregational activity while ordination is a pastor's activity. The
meaning of each is different, they involve different sets of God's
representatives, and both are documented and prescribed in Scripture."
