Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "WELS Church and Change Cannibals:Outreach Means Po...":
I agree with many of your reports of symptoms but I must add, certainly not all. Nevertheless I fundamentally disagree with your diagnosis of the cause. If Lenski's Ohio synod doctrine of election intuitu fidei with its concomitant limited atonement were the solution, then there'd still be an Ohio Synod today instead of generic ELCA congregations and a miserable excuse for a seminary in Columbus. Furthermore, while some theological clods make statements naively implying receptionism, the fact is one can, and MUST not go beyond Scripture to determine an exact time of the real presence. The correct doctrine is that the real presence is effected by the Words of Christ, repeated by the pastor, and that nevertheless, there is no sacrament apart from the sacramental use, which includes 1. Consecration, 2. Distribution, and 3. Reception. Lutherans have always confessed this and therefore refused to accept private masses with no communicants as the papacy promoted.
Theology is a refined enough matter, that it is not to be "fought" with mere "slogans" and clodhopper formulations. Hab vorsicht mit deinen theologischen formulären. In so doing the true statements you make will be much more "effective" (even though you seem to reject "effectiveness" out of hand).
***
GJ - The thesis falls apart with the author's lack of knowledge about Lenski. They replaced him at the seminary, deliberately, with a liberal who taught the opposite. That paved the way for ELCA's merger. They also formed a committee to silence Lenski on inerrancy, so the old ALC began in 1930 with a compromised statement. That also greased the skids for ELCA.
Receptionists have two mottoes defining their error -
1. "We don't know the exact moment the elements are the Body and Blood of Christ." I agree that the Enthusiasts do not know and will never know. See Teigen's excellent book on the topic. The Synodical Conference was in error and remains in error by dancing around the issue.
2. "The elements become the Body and Blood when received by the communicant." I heard that from a WELS pastor. Normally I discuss things like that, but my jaw dropped open and stayed open. Before that, I had trouble believing anyone defended or taught Receptionism. Even Gawa, in WELS, admitted the old Synodical Conference was wrong. However, the compromising dance "We don't know" is not the answer.
I read a lot of "repeat after me" WELS slogans from the Sausage Factory in the post above.
Another red herring is the intuitu fidei charge against Lenski. He is the only American Lutheran to produce a complete New Testament commentary, very well written, with an extensive knowledge of Lutheran dogmatics. I do not think Lenski is perfect, but he overshadows anyone else in America. The Book of Concord is my ruled norm, not Walther, Lenski, Valleskey.
---
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Bad Sentence Construction, Worse Theology":
So do you approve of bells to signify the exact moment that you claim to know?
***
GJ - My, my - a Straw Man fallacy enclosed in sarcasm - that sounds so Mequonisch.
I approve of B. Teigen's fine book.
And I approve this - from Luther's Large Catechism:
"On the other hand, such is the efficacy of the Word, whenever it is seriously contemplated, heard, and used, that it is bound never to be without fruit, but always awakens new understanding, pleasure, and devoutness, and produces a pure heart and pure thoughts. For these words are not inoperative or dead, but creative, living words."
---
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Bad Sentence Construction, Worse Theology":
Confessing orthodox Lutheran, thank you for the full elaboration of the initial anonymous poster. You are right, it is only in our limited human thinking that we try to take apart the one divine action of the Sacrament of the Altar, and begin all sorts of worthless logomachia. (Yet it is true, there are numbskulls on both sides of the issue that can't master the simplicity of Holy Scripture and the Lutheran doctrine as presented in the Bool (sic!) of COncord (sic). This is nothing new of course. Cf. the "Hamburger Streit") Thanks again.
***
GJ - I like that - both sides of the issue. Therefore, a compromise that will appeal to two sides at once is best. But see below the conclusion of the Formula of Concord.
"We have no intention of yielding aught of the eternal, immutable truth of God for the sake of temporal peace, tranquility, and unity (which, moreover, is not in our power to do). Nor would such peace and unity, since it is devised against the truth and for its suppression, have any permanency. Still less are we inclined to adorn and conceal a corruption of the pure doctrine and manifest, condemned errors. But we entertain heartfelt pleasure and love for, and are on our part sincerely inclined and anxious to advance, that unity according to our utmost power, by which His glory remains to God uninjured, nothing of the divine truth of the Holy Gospel is surrendered, no room is given to the least error, poor sinners are brought to true, genuine repentance, raised up by faith, confirmed in new obedience, and thus justified and eternally saved alone through the sole merit of Christ." (Closing of Formula of Concord, Triglotta, p. 1095)
Cited in Francis Pieper, The Difference Between Orthodox And Heterodox Churches, and Supplement, Coos Bay, Oregon: St. Paul's Lutheran Church, 1981, p. 65.
In fact, the Enthusiasm of the Synodical Conference, which emerged from Pietism, created the war and division. The Enthusiasts still insist on their own interpretation. Their answer in the ELS was to silence B. Teigen's position and treat him badly.
