Ichabod, The Glory Has Departed: 2010-11-14

Plan focuses on regional Lutheran elementary school for three existing church schools: Trinity Lutheran in Kaukauna, St. John's in Wrightstown and St. Paul's and St. Mark in Green Bay | postcrescent.com | Appleton Post Crescent

Comment from LutherQuest (sic) - "Notice that all three are feeders for Fox Valley Lutheran High School. Fox Valley has been hurting for students as a result of the decline and closure of local elementary schools from the surrounding region. This decline is unescapable (sic), since baptism figures from while back tend to make each succeeding class size smaller than the previous. Fox Valley has made up for the loss in part by attracting foreign students, about 50-60 at any given time. Although they don't have a dormatory (sic), they've used the congregational support networks to find enough host families to take them in."

GREEN BAY — Several local Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod congregations may close their elementary schools to open a regional building.

The churches — Trinity Lutheran in Kaukauna, St. John's in Wrightstown, St. Paul's in Green Bay and St. Mark in De Pere— have met with members to discuss the possibility of closing their church schools to open one that would serve pre-kindergarten to grade 8.

Additional information

These links will open in a new window:
♦ Report: Favre admits leaving voicemails to ex-game hostess
♦ Photos: Can you help these pets find a home?
♦ Official hopes show spurs volunteering
♦ Sign up for news, weather and sports text alerts.

If the plan gets the go-ahead, Bock expects fundraising to take about a year with another year or so for engineering and construction. A new school could be open for the 2013-14 school year, he said, and the other schools would close.

"We want it to come across as a positive thing," said St. Mark Principal Jeremy Bock. "We can combine our resources to create a better school."

Combining resources could allow the school to hire a special education teacher or start music programs or programming for gifted and talented students, he said.
"Church schools are just too small to do some of those things, but that's what parents are looking for," Bock said.

The new regional school would sit on an independent campus and would not be tied to any congregation, nor would it be limited to just Wisconsin Synod, or WELS, families. Busing would be available.

A planning committee has pinpointed five potential sites: one along U.S. 41 and Brown County S, one along 41 near the Wrightstown exit, and three on a southern stretch of Lawrence Drive.

About a year ago, a group of pastors, teachers, laypeople and representatives of the Fox Valley Lutheran federation began meeting to discuss new ways to provide Christian education, Bock said. Fox Valley Lutheran High School in Appleton serves as the WELS secondary school for elementary schools in the Fox Valley and Green Bay areas.

"We're really looking for a new way to provide Christian education," Bock said.

Patti Zarling writes for the Green Bay Press-Gazette.

Read more: http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20101025/APC0903/310250130/Plan-focuses-on-regional-Lutheran-elementary-school-for-three-existing-church-schools-Trinity-Lutheran-in-Kaukauna-St-John-s-in-Wrightstown-and-St-Paul-s-and-St-Mark-in-Green-Bay#ixzz15scwKVJc

Biblical Concepts in the Lutheran Confessions Guard Against Doctrinal Error

Norma Boeckler's art can be viewed here.

First of all, the Lutheran Confessions begin with the Three Ecumenical Creeds, showing that the doctrine confessed in the Book of Concord is the historic Christian faith, not the opinions of a sect or cult. The Book of Concord is our treasure of God's wisdom, always relevant for Christians today, especially in these days of confusion and apostasy.

The Two Natures of Christ - Chemnitz wrote a masterpiece on this topic. The fundamental error of Calvin is his rationalistic confusion about the Two Natures. By teaching that the "finite cannot contain the Infinite," Calvin taught against the Real Presence in Holy Communion and also against the Two Natures. This rationalism erodes the doctrine of Calvin and turns it into Unitarianism.

Justification by Faith. By adding works as a requirement for salvation, the Church of Rome overturned the Gospel and turned Christ into Moses, Moses into the Savior, as Luther wrote. This semi-Pelagian heresy fuels all the errors of Romanism and creeps into Protestant theology as well. Sects often demand faith plus some work of the Law, violating justification by faith alone, apart from the works of the Law.

Efficacy of the Word versus Enthusiasm. God gave us certainty by binding His Holy Spirit exclusively to the Word. Faithfulness to God's Word is success, so no God-pleasing result can come from abandoning faithfulness to Him. Increasing the impression of success by apostasy is shameful, damaging to the ministers and their laity victims, deadly to all. In contrast, the humblest and poorest congregation is doing God's will and will bear the Fruits of the Spirit from doctrinal fidelity alone. We are not to judge results, as if we can order God around, but we must judge doctrine and practice.

The Means of Grace and Prayer. Because God has bound Himself to His Word, His Grace comes to us only through the Means of Grace - the invisible Word of teaching and preaching, the visible Word of the Sacraments. Those who want God-pleasing results in abundance only need to sow the Gospel seed in abundance. With the Internet today, this is easily (but rarely) done. The Sacraments are the best form of the Gospel for the uninitiated because they can be taught about God's will in binding His Gospel of grace to visible Means. Those who are ashamed of the Sacraments and hide them from Sunday worship are really confessing that they are ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, distrusting His efficacious Word, and substituting man's gimmicks for God's wisdom.

Prayer is the fruit of salvation, not the cause of salvation. When people are confused about the Means of Grace, they imagine they can pray Jesus into their hearts instead of realizing that Christ enters through the Gospel. They fear they must qualify with the right kind and correct fervency of prayer or they will not be forgiven. Instead, they should have the comfort of God's grace based upon the objective truth of Christ's atoning death and His resurrection from the dead.

We condemn. To continue in God's doctrine, revealed in the inerrant Scriptures, we must also condemn false doctrine whenever and wherever found. The Confessions contain many examples of false doctrine condemned in no uncertain terms. If we cannot discern false doctrine and reject it with clarity and conviction, we cannot maintain sound doctrine. Even a lowly maggot can distinguish between diseased flesh and healthy flesh. Believers should be just as discerning about doctrine, because this means life and death for souls.

Seventh Day Adventists Agree with WELS Kokomo
And LCMS Brief Statement:
Same Biblical Passages Misconstrued

"Study your dog notes, son, and stay away from those irrelevant old books, like the Book of Concord."

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Of Justification | The Lutheran Church - Missouri ...":

Not only do all Lutheran Synods confess the same false gospel of Universal Objective Justification but they are not alone.

The Seventh-Day Adventists also confess this same Universal Objective Justification
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Universal%20Justification.htm

---

Analysis of the Doctrine of
Universal "Legal" Justification

Larry J. Kane
Introduction

According to the 1888 Message Study Committee ("1888 MSC"), the 1888 message reveals many "fresh, beautiful truths . . . that are not usually understood today."[1] One such "truth" is the concept that Christ's death at the cross accomplished a legal or objective justification which is universally and unconditionally applied to all men.[2] This doctrine is said to derive from the observations that Christ has borne the sins of "all men" and has died the second death for "every man." It is viewed as the basis for the present life enjoyed by all men. This legal justification, also referred to as a corporate justification, is distinguished by its proponents from justification by faith, or "experiential" justification, and should not be taken to imply universal salvation wherein all men would be saved, some even against their will. The especial merit of such universal legal justification, as seen by the spokesmen for the 1888 MSC, is that it provides foundational proof and an earnest of the loving initiative taken by God to bring about man's salvation. When the full import of God's initiative on man's behalf is recognized, it is believed to be pivotal in galvanizing the sinner's complete devotion to, and saving faith in, Christ.

I. Examination of Key Scriptural Texts

A number of scriptural passages are cited as authority for the doctrine of universal or corporate legal justification.[3] This essay first summarizes an analysis of the pivotal scriptures and whether they support this tenet of the 1888 MSC. Later sections explore ancillary issues implicated by a universal or corporate legal justification, including the dimensions of justification by faith and the extent of God's initiative for the salvation of men.

Romans 3:23, 24
One of the cardinal rules of hermeneutics is that a scripture must be understood within the overall context in which it is found if the writer's intent is to be accurately discerned. The necessity of this principle lies in the fact that it is not usually possible to include all essential components of a proposition within one or two sentences. Often, several sentences or more are necessary to fully express the concept at issue. Moreover, more complex scriptural themes usually have many facets, not all of which are addressed within the immediate context of a statement on the matter. Thus, the more reliable approach for reaching a complete understanding of a particular proposition is to review all relevant statements from scripture which bear upon the issue.

These interpretative principles must be violated if Romans 3:23-24 is to be read as supportive or a universal justification, albeit only a "legal" justification. If one were to isolate these two verses from their surroundings, one might think the two could be linked directly so as to construe them to say that "since all have sinned, all are justified freely." This is apparently the view of the 1888 MSC.[4]

However, the immediate context of verses 23 and 24 is a passage extending from Romans 3:20-31 expounding upon the theme of righteousness by faith. The broader milieu spans back to the beginning of chapter 2 wherein Paul, in comparing Jews and Gentiles in relation to God and His judgment, concludes that both are in the same predicament. God, being "no respecter of persons,"[5] judges both by the same standard: by whether their deeds are righteous or unrighteous. Such being the case, the problem is succinctly stated in verses 10 and 23: "There is none righteous, no, not one." "For all have sinned."[6] Thus, Paul rightly observes in Romans 3:20 that no person (no "flesh") shall be justified before God by the deeds of the law. All have sinned and, consequently, are already condemned under the law.

It is at this point, beginning with verse 22, that Paul introduces his insightful summary of the plan of salvation: There is a righteousness of God arising from a source other than the keeping of the law, "even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe." This "righteousness by faith" is the direct, logical antecedent of the phrase "being justified freely by his grace" of verse 24. This justification, freely available through faith in Christ, stands in bold contrast to the unavailability of justification through observance of the law.

The mechanism by which the justification of verse 24 is freely provided is explained in the latter part of that verse and the following verse. It is the operation of grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, which is achieved by the sacrifice of His life as a propitiation. Significantly, this propitiation is stated to be effective for the sinner only through faith in His blood (vs. 25). It is the sacrificial death of the sinless Christ, as guilty man's substitute, which fully satisfies the penalty of the law and thus demonstrates God's righteousness and justice in remitting the sins of the believer and justifying him (vss. 25, 26).

From this we see that verses 23 and 24 of Romans 3 are not closely linked in parallelism such that the justification of verse 24 would be freely given, implied, to the "all" who have been found to be sinful in verse 23, as is advocated by the 1888 MSC. Instead, verse 23 is obviously a continuation of the last phrase of verse 22 and the combined passage is seen to be a parenthetical statement to emphasize that the "all" of verse 22 to whom righteousness is made available through their belief in Christ encompasses both Jew and Gentile, "for there is no difference, for all"-both Jew and Gentile-"have sinned."

This parenthetical remark harkens back to Romans 3:9-18 wherein Paul emphatically states that the Jews possess no moral superiority over the Gentiles for they all are under sin, none are righteous. Because all men, of all races and creeds, have sinned under God's law, there is no one who can be justified by the deeds of the law (vs. 20).

Consequently, Paul wishes to leave no doubt that "the righteousness of God without the law . . . which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all . . . them that believe" is equally relevant and essential to all men of all persuasions, Jew and Greek, free and bond, man and woman. Thus, the parenthetical sentence is added to accentuate the universal need. Verse 24 returns to the theme of verses 21 and 22: the righteousness (or justification) of God which is made available by faith in and through Christ.[7]

Dr. E. J. Waggoner, one of the principal articulators of the original 1888 message, is quite lucid on the interrelationship between verse 24 and verses 21-22. He comments extensively on Romans 3 in his seminal work, Christ and His Righteousness.<[8] On page 61 of this work, Waggoner declares: "The scripture that we have just been considering (Rom. 3:24-26) is but another statement of verses 21, 22. . . ."[9]

Since Romans 3:21-22 unmistakably describe righteousness (justification) by faith, we have Waggoner's unequivocal conclusion that one is "justified freely" (vs. 24) by faith alone. Nowhere in his discussion does Waggoner propose that the justification of verse 24 is different from the justification elsewhere described in verses 22-26. In fact, as mentioned below, his conclusion is quite the opposite: There is only one justification, that of faith (and, we must say, that which embraces both objective and subjective aspects).

Throughout the entire passage in Romans 3:21-31, Paul repeatedly identifies the key qualification to justification: that it is "by faith" in the redeeming Christ. (See verse 22, "which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all . . . them that believe"; verse 25, "propitiation through faith in his [Christ's] blood"; verse 26, "that he [God] might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus"; verse 28, "we conclude that a man is justified by faith"; verse 30, "one God, . . . shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.") Clearly, in the face of this consistent theme, there are no grounds on which to contend that the justification of verse 24 has a basis other than faith.

Any assertion that the justification described in Romans 3:24 is a universal "legal" justification, imputed without condition of faith, is manifestly at odds with Dr. Waggoner's understanding. As described above, Waggoner observes that Romans 3:24-26 is "but another statement of verses 21, 22." Thus, the justification freely provided by God's grace is the "righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe." Commenting elsewhere on Romans 3, Waggoner further emphasizes this point in his declaration that the justification of verse 24 means "to be clothed within and without with the righteousness of God," that is, to encompass both the imputed and imparted righteousness of God, to include both objective and subjective justification.[10] Moreover, the verses cited by Waggoner to explain how justification is given "freely" unquestionably convey the conditionality of that provision. The gift, free through it may wonderfully be, still must be accepted by the recipient. He must respond to Christ's invitation of Revelation 22:17, "'Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.' That is, let him take it as a gift."

Romans 5:12-18
It is this passage, and specifically verse 18, that is relied upon most heavily by the 1888 MSC in support of the doctrine of a universal "legal" justification. Here again, the interpretation advocated by the 1888 MSC is not consistent with application of sound hermeneutic principles, including the understanding of a verse within its larger context.

Verse 18 reads as follows:

Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

This verse is construed by the 1888 MSC as teaching a universal legal justification on two grounds. For one, the structure of the verse is viewed as a perfect parallel: The judgment which came upon all men by Adam's sin is matched by the free gift which came upon all men unto justification of life through Christ's righteousness. As there is no exception with the former, so there can be no exception with the latter.[11] Second, that the gift unto justification is free is viewed by Waggoner as "evidence that there is no exception to its application.[12]

In beginning an analysis of Romans 5, one first must recognize that it is a continuation of the theme introduced in the third chapter, that is, righteousness by faith. As discussed above concerning Romans 3:23-24, the only justification presented in the third chapter is that which is accessed by faith in Christ and His sacrificial death. So begins the fifth chapter: "Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

Friday, November 19, 2010

ELCA Professor Benne Sees the Light

Unintended effects: —How the ELCA’S aim for unity fractured the church

Dr. Robert Benne

Dr. Robert Benne

In its 2009 Churchwide Assembly in August of 2009 the Evangelical Lutheran Church took the momentous step to allow for the blessing of gay and lesbian unions as well as for the ordination of gays and lesbians in partnered relationships. It was the first major confessional church to take those steps. In anticipation of much disagreement about its decisions, the church struck what it thought was a compromise so that we could “journey together faithfully” even though there was no consensus on these issues. The instrument for compromise was the “bound-conscience” doctrine. Realizing that we now had no authoritative teaching on homosexual conduct, the Sexuality Task Force proposed and the Assembly agreed that all of us respect each other’s “bound-conscience” on these matters as we went about the life of our church. Also, since the official line of the church was that these issues were not church-dividing anyway, we could live with such a settlement. (It was unexplained why the ELCA should be immune to the church-dividing nature of these issues when many churches in America and in the world were experiencing painful divisions over them. Indeed, the leaders of the ELCA mistakenly projected their own assessment on the church at large.)

Well, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Since there is now no authoritative teaching and since we can claim “bound-conscience” on whatever teaching we prefer, this means that each parish and ultimately each individual has to decide which teaching is normative for them. In one fell swoop the Assembly turned the ELCA into a collection of congregations and individuals.

What has happened is that the conflict that the Assembly could not or would not solve has been ratcheted down to each parish and finally to each individual. The “compromise” has become the occasion for some hard fighting. Some churches are leaving the ELCA out of their “bound conscience.” Each attempt to leave—even when successful—creates enormous tension and conflict. Even churches who had prepared their laity for the crisis still have many members who believed that, in spite of all, the congregation should remain in the ELCA.

Other churches are withholding their benevolence money from the regional Synod and the ELCA in response to the ELCA decisions. This, too, creates conflict between the members who agree with the local leaders’ decisions and those who believe the parish ought to support the ELCA in spite of or because of its decisions. Those same churches are often taking time to decide whether to leave or stay, which extends the difficulties. Still other churches are taking milder actions: articulating where they stand on these matters and often providing options for members to divert their benevolence monies into their preferred causes. One church has contrived a “bound-conscience” fund for those who wanted to keep their benevolence away from the ELCA. (The Assembly certainly did not anticipate this use of the doctrine!)

The so-called compromise also presses individuals to decide where they stand, which congregation they want to belong to, as well as where they want their pledges to go. So a game of musical chairs is going on among many laity as they try to match their convictions with that of a particular congregation. A goodly number moved to other denominational chairs when the music stopped in August. Others moved to Lutheran congregations that fit their “bound conscience.” Many are still in a quandary about what to do. This “church shopping” presses churches to decide where they stand, which also causes tension.

In the face of this widespread fracturing, a small portion of churches have embraced the decisions of the ELCA and are moving quickly toward openly blessing gay and lesbian unions and calling ordained gays and lesbians in partnered relationships. Some of those parishes have been engaging in those practices for a long time; others now have official permission to exercise their “bound conscience” by adopting them. Laypersons in the latter group who disagree with this agenda no doubt depart for other more “orthodox” churches.

A far larger number of churches—perhaps even the majority of parishes in the ELCA—try to duck the challenge. Their pastors or laypersons say: “this is not an issue in our parish,” which can mean a number of things. It can mean that the pastor and/or the majority in the church agree with the decisions of the ELCA but are not going to make a big thing about it. They will face the issues when they come up. It can also mean that the issue is not important enough to get steamed up about, which follows the ELCA lead by viewing these issues as non-church dividing. These congregations, too, will face the issue when they have to. In either case, pastors and laypersons who are disturbed by the changes in the ELCA have to decide whether they can “go along to get along” in those congregations. Some will keep quiet, others will protest or leave. The largest number of congregations for whom “this is not an issue” more likely hope that this will not become an issue because it could indeed be church-dividing. These congregations are sometimes in a fragile enough condition that a controversy over sexuality issues may well spell the doom of the parish. If they take a clear position pro or con on the Assembly decisions they will lose people. And they cannot afford that. Other parishes are doing pretty well and don’t want to upset the apple-cart by introducing controversial issues. These are generally orthodox in teaching and practice and intentionally distance themselves from the workings of the ELCA.

It is understandable why churches want to duck the issue, but I suspect in the long run they will not be able to do so. Laity are slowly awakening to what is happening and will raise inconvenient questions about the direction of the congregation, synod, and the national church to which they belong. Besides, they might be directly confronted with pairs asking to be blessed. Then they won’t be able to duck.

Given this account, at least two insights are relevant:

First, it is easy to sympathize with orthodox individuals and congregations who are struggling about what to do. They didn’t ask for this. Therefore, it is important for the time being to respect the various decisions that are being made by the orthodox. Each parish situation and each individual situation is different. Some parishes and individuals simply cannot leave at this time. But as the full consequences of the church’s decisions become more visible and concrete—changes in the teaching materials, the rites, and the composition of the clergy, the path ahead may become clearer. As groups such as the Lutheran Coalition for Renewal and Lutheran Churches in Mission for Christ become more viable ecclesial bodies than the ELCA itself, the inclination to leave may be more intense.

Second, the fall-out reveals the foolhardiness of changing doctrine and practice before there are compelling biblical and theological arguments for doing so. In deciding it had no authoritative teaching on homosexual conduct, the church tossed the problem to congregations and individuals to decide for themselves, which is a sure-fire formula for conflict. The authorities in the ELCA were warned repeatedly that this maneuver would lead to the fracturing of the church. That is precisely what is happening.

***

GJ - Did these people ever read The Lutheran? I wrote for the magazine and knew three of the editors, two of them senior editors - Stauderman and Trexler. I met with Stauderman in his Philly office and had a meeting with Trexler at a conference in Michigan. Trexler published an editorial in The ELCA Lutheran, about 23 years ago, saying, "We have been ordaining homosexuals for years." In other words, it was not a real point of contention.

The LCA lasted only 25 years, always bragging about how great it was. The quotas were well known before the merger, and they included minority, homosexual, lesbian, and female representation.

I wrote about this in the much-hated Christian News, simply astonished that no one in the LCA or ALC wanted to do anything except applaud the merger or sit on their hands.

WELS was very embarrassed that their new recruit would point out Wisconsin snuggling with the Lavender Mafia in ELCA. The Love Shack at 2929 could not get enough of joint projects with ELCA and Missouri - all the while deriding Missouri and ELCA for having no "fellowship principles."

WELS leads the way in promoting a Talmudic approach to fellowship, while outdoing the Pharisees in hypocrisy. They have the close relationship between unionism and doctrinal indifference wrong. Unionism is the result of doctrinal indifference, not the cause. The cure is not creating another set of phony rules to violate, as The Guilt Factory (formerly The Love Shack) does with aplomb.

The solution is doctrinal integrity based upon the Word and the Confessions. Those who love the efficacious Word and the Biblical definition of the Sacraments will not have any urge to worship with the Babtists (Stetzer and Stanley), the New Agers (Sweet), and the Pentecostals (C. Peter Wagner). Their getting away with it only proves that the Conference of Pussycats is comprised of apostates.

Englebrecht is bad? What has Buchholz done about Jeff Gunn? ~~Nothing.~~ I had to correct that. After the DP swore to defund and kick Gunn out, Rev. Jeff was put on the board of Willowcreek's Little College in Milwaukee - and almost hired there. In fact, two other members of the stealth congregation are on the board, making DoubleCross the most influential ~~WELS~~ parish in WELS, education-wise. Ain't that sumthun, as my Grandpappy used to say.

From many such baby steps of apostasy came ELCA.

Some Kind Words from LPC:

Why we need Dr. Ichabod

Dr. Ichabod is the type of author, blogger that keeps me sane in Lutherland. I am not kidding. Let me explain.

Prior to coming to Wittenberg, I was in a Lutheran list-group some 5 years ago or so, and in that list-group there was a free exchange of ideas. Some orthodox conservative, some confused, some liberal, some having denominational identity crises etc. The free flow of interaction there impressed me. I came away concluding, hmmm, these people are not cultic, they are not a bunch of fundamentalist fruit cakes, Lutherans are honest and willing to follow where evidence leads them. I am happy to be named like them. That is what I thought about Lutherans.

The presence of Dr. Ichabod says that there are brave Lutherans out there who are willing to follow where ever the evidence (as per God's Word) leads them. Because if I look at Internet Lutherland, minus Ichabod, I will come away getting the impression that this is some exclusive club of pastors that feather their own nest, not perhaps in terms of money, but in terms of influence, i.e. a clique and thus a cult. The mark of a cult is that dissenters are eliminated, they are marked and avoided. Also, if blogdom is an indication, I will get the impression that Lutherans are mindless-herd-following people, they got no one who checks where the herd is going.

You might disagree with Dr. Ichabod, but it will do you good to read him, even if his style does not conform to yours. Onion skinned folk need to thicken a bit when they wonder off his blog, for he pulls no punches. In the end, your friend is the one who loves you in truth, rather than the one who loves your feelings. In fact, if you do not like him, the more you should read him. If you are from a different school, you should read him for proper scholarship demands that you read your critics, he could be giving you good service if by listening you adjusted what he found what is weak about you.

Let me suggest something, do not start with his posts, start with his sermons first. First you got to see the guy's pastoral nature, then you can read the posts. When you do, you will get a proper context of why his style is that way. This is the problem with people I know who criticize Dr. Ichabod to me. They read the posts but never bothered to read or listen to his Sunday videoed Divine Services.

Lastly, though the Synodical pastors do not like him, for people like me who come from outside the family, a refugee who has seen quite a bit, it is Ichabod who gives a good name to Lutheranism to me. For there are lots of Lutheran pastors out there receiving accolades, yet they do not behave like Luther, far from him, who was willing to stand alone. So I wonder why they call themselves Lutherans when they appear to be scared.

Just sayin...

1 are telling me what they think:

Stuart Wood said...

Hi LPC, Although I don't know Dr. Ichabod, I think I would probably like him and I appreciate what you are saying here. As a person who has also "come from outside the family", and as "a refugee who has also seen quite a bit", my experience with the Lutheran establishment has been very similar to your own. Overall, it has been very disappointing, almost a complete wash. I began my journey with Luther in January 1992, after having been a Reformed pastor for six years with a Masters in Bible Exposition from Talbot Theological Seminary. At the time, I had been very much struggling with the doctrine of limited atonement because many of my favorite authors and teachers held to it but I could not in all honesty see it in the Word of God. If true it also had severe implications as to my understanding of Christianity because it turned the whole matter of salvation into a dark inward-looking subjective focus on my own experience and deceptive heart, rather than the glorious truth that it all stands "extra nos". I first read Luther's Works vol. 22 on the Gospel of John 1-4. That book completely addressed my concern, especially Luther's beautiful explanation of John 1:29, "the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world". I had finally found someone (who was not an Arminian and who held to predestination) who also clearly affirmed the importance of the universal atonement of Christ and its necessary implications with the one and only true objective saving Gospel. I continued to read Luther's Works until I had finally read every one of them. What a gold mine I had found in Luther. He stood head and shoulders over everyone and anyone I had ever read or heard before. He straightened me out on every doctrine, and I came to see that he represented historical orthodox Christianity in all of its truth and purity. But then came the disappointment. I could not find any Lutherans who seemed to have a true regard for Luther and, more importantly, his unwavering adherence to the Word of God. I went to the LCMS, WELS, ELS, and CLC, and was disappointed by them all (to a lesser extent the ELS and the CLC). I have tried to engage on the internet, only to be constantly rebuffed for being "over the top", so to speak. In all of my wanderings I have only found one Lutheran group that matches what I have come to know, and that is that group in Australia, the ELCR. There is much more I could write, but that is a start and I do not want to over-tax the reader. If anyone would like to know more, just post something here and I will respond, or send me an email at: rivergums@sbcglobal.net Thanks, Stuart Wood

Saturday, November 20, 2010 3:07:00 AM GMT+11:00 ---

Garrett has left a new comment on your post "Some Kind Words from LPC:": I live around people who burn with some of the hottest anger against Dr. Ichabod. And as a student, I study under some people who would like to shut him out or shut him down. Worst of all: it's difficult to write papers on (and read books containing) false doctrine! So I should thank Dr. Ichabod for helping me to stay along the narrow way and the 'strait gate'. Even though the path is very difficult, its the encouragement and fearlessness of true believers that recharges me everyday. Confitemini Domino quoniam bonus, quoniam in aeternum misericordia eius! ---

N.N. wrote: You are the one checking where the herd is going. It seems most of the other pastors are grazing on false doctrine and like what they're swallowing. On the farm, the cows would chew and chew on their same old cud and never seem to mind the flavor. The same can be applied to these people who promote false doctrine, they can be shown over and over again what the true scripture says and they stay with their man-made false doctrine.

Of Justification | The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod Lies about Romans 4:25 and the Gospel

Fierce UOJ Advocate from LutherQuest (sic)

Of Justification | The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod: "17. Holy Scripture sums up all its teachings regarding the love of God to the world of sinners, regarding the salvation wrought by Christ, and regarding faith in Christ as the only way to obtain salvation, in the article of justification. Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25; that therefore not for the sake of their good works, but without the works of the Law, by grace, for Christ's sake, He justifies, that is, accounts as righteous, all those who believe, accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ's sake their sins are forgiven. Thus the Holy Ghost testifies through St. Paul: 'There is no difference; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,' Rom. 3:23, 24. And again: 'Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law,' Rom. 3:28."

KJV Romans 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Here it is in your beloved Reformed NIV:

NIV Romans 4:23 The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness-- for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

The Gospel of John Refutes the UOJ Two-Step

Norma Boeckler is working on a storybook in color, to be available in the future through Martin Chemnitz Press.

KJV John 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me; 10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; 11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. 12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Christian doctrine is taught by the Word of God, not by people who invent categories and parade their opinions as dwelling in the minds of the Concordists. The Deutschlander essay clearly reveals that the Synodical Conference uses its own opinions to judge the orthodoxy of the Concordists, who were insufficiently articulate in defining double-justification or in such agreement that they did not even need to mention it.

Even if the ELS, LCMS, and WELS had a joint convention and voted for UOJ, it would still be their opinion and not Christian doctrine. Nor will they ever convince those left untouched by the brainwashing of the synodical schools.

The Gospel of John is the unifying Gospel, the one which supplements and unites Matthew, Mark, and Luke by virtue of its harmony with the first three. Moreover, the apostolic authority of John is the strongest of the four, generously recording the very words of Christ.

I remember Robert Preus saying that Pentecostalism came from the unbalanced attention given to Christ, culminating in the Quest for the Historical Jesus. A. Schweitzer won the prize for writing the dullest book about Jesus with the best title in English. The original in German was "The History of Life-of-Jesus Research." See what I mean? People still buy Quest, but no one can read it. The good doctor was everyone's favorite crackpot for decades.

A denomination's teaching about the Holy Spirit can be more revealing than what it claims to teach about Jesus. Most people are discerning enough to know that false teachers are toying with the doctrine of Christ, so the Holy Spirit is sidelined.

The Era of the Holy Spirit
That is unfortunate, because the era of The Church is the exclusive work of the Holy Spirit. We have the Scriptures as God's own revelation through the work of the Holy Spirit. All preaching and teaching is the work of the Holy Spirit, although varying in its purity. All genuine faith comes from the Holy Spirit. The sacraments are effective because of the Holy Spirit working through the Word. Prayer is prompted and helped by the Holy Spirit.

Contrary to the pope, there is no Christian doctrine preserved and passed on by word of mouth through His Holiness and his bishops, the so-called Deposit of Faith. No doctrine can be assumed or extrapolated from the Scriptures, which clearly and plainly teach God's wisdom. No action of God can be attributed to Him apart from what is already revealed in His Word.

Any activity of the Holy Spirit divorced from the Word is called Enthusiasm in the Book of Concord. This word Enthusiasm is a convenient summary of what the Holy Spirit teaches in Isaiah 55:8-10:
1. God's Word always has the divine power of the Holy Spirit, so it never returns empty. (Double negative to emphasize the positive and eliminate any exceptions.)
2. It shall accomplish what God wills.
3. It shall be abundant in its effect.

John 16:8-9
Jesus taught what the Holy Spirit would do in one verse:

John 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove [convince, convict] the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

What is sin?

John 16:9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

Sin is not believing in Christ. Before they believe in Christ, they are in sin (not "in Christ"). They are only in Christ when they believe in Him.

John 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

This verse used to puzzle me. Perhaps many people pass over it. John 16:10 is in perfect harmony with the actual meaning of Romans 4:25 -

After presenting Abraham as the father of faith, who was counted righteous because of his faith, Paul wrote -

KJV Romans 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed [counted, reckoned] to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

The empty tomb of Easter and the Ascension means faith in Christ as the Son of God, Savior, Redeemer, Lamb of God. Righteousness and faith go together because we are justified by faith. Jesus was raised from the dead, we would believe and be counted as righteous. Without the Gospel, there is no faith. Without faith, there is no righteousness imputed to individuals.

KJV Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

KJV 1 Corinthians 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the
apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Deutschlander called attention to 1 Corinthians 15:2 in his nefarious essay. No wonder - it refutes his thesis that everyone receives grace and forgiveness without the Word, without faith. I selected ten verses because they close with God's grace being bestowed on him. Of course, Paul does not speak of grace without the Word. The risen Christ appeared before the Apostle and taught him the Word, bestowing His grace through the work of the Holy Spirit.

The Apostle John and the Apostle Paul agree with each other:

KJV John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Both taught and preached so people would believe and be justified by faith in Him.

There is not the slightest indication the Scriptures that anyone is forgiven apart from faith. Some expressions about justification are unfortunate, misleading, and wrong. Among them are the twisted statements of the UOJers, such as Walther and J. P. Meyer.

The Intrepids would rescue people from the slime-pits of Decision Theology, but their UOJ sends WELS, Little Sect, and Missouri pastors--giddy with Enthusiasm--to such Decision Theology mavens as Andy Stanley, Ed Stetzer, and Groeschel.

The Intrepids cannot find the spine to take on Church and Change, because the cornered rats fought them claw and fang. The Intrepids are eager to warn people away from justification by faith.

The Apostle John should have the last word on this...for now -

KJV John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

UOJ Primer Shows How Confused
The Syn Conference Loyalists Are

Carried away by UOJ

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "UFOs Can Also Be Proven in the Book of Concord":

Deutschlander proves the "caricatures" of UOJ to be true in these horrendous statements,

"But God remains gracious; and that grace, which by its very definition is not and cannot be earned or deserved, is active in seeking man’s salvation, man’s restoration to the innocent, the not-guilty, the just status with respect to God’s standard that man enjoyed before the Fall.

And that grace is perfectly and completely expressed in the obedience of One, which obedience is now charged, imputed and declared over all. Just as the “all” and the “many” are identical in guilt, so now are the “all” and the “many” identical in righteousness, in innocence; just as the guilt and the death were not merely available or possible on account of Adam’s Fall, so the restoration and the justification is the gift to all as an accomplished fact through the obedience of One, which obedience—again—is imputed.

To state it negatively, all sin has already been forgiven; it is a mutually exclusive proposition to say that God has given the obedience of His Son to all, and to say as well that man’s sin is not forgiven until he does something, or until he believes it.

The imputation of guilt did not require that the individual sin, nor that he believe himself a sinner; likewise the imputation of Christ’s obedience needs no work or belief of man to effect it or complete it. In sum, the sin of the whole world has already been forgiven."

There is no air left in the room when UOJ enters.

---

rlschultz has left a new comment on your post "Synodical Conference Navel Gazing - The Intrepid D...":

I hear a variation of that motto - "if you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, them baffle them with BS". We know that the brilliance is not there.

UFOs Can Also Be Proven in the Book of Concord

LPC has left a new comment on your post "Introduction to the Deutschlander UOJ Essay, 1977":

Pr GJ.

This is where Prof Deustchlander's scholarship goes down the tubes. Note what he said ... But even that is not really sufficient or suitable for stating the orthodox position in a clear and unequivocal manner. For our Fathers it was not difficult at all to consider objective and subjective justification under the same heading, and they were apparently unaware of any need to separate them or distinguish between them

First the admission of difficulty of establishing the theory without equivocation and then he goes into the brains of the BoC Fathers claiming so and so. He says, "they were apparently unaware"....?

I like to suggest to him that the BoC Fathers were unaware because they knew of only one justification that is JBFA.

This is wild and rampant anachronism and reckless abandonment to one's imagination also, an absolute argument from silence. Only a person bullied into submission can accept this argumentation.

If someone accepts this as evidence that UOJ should be believed, then I suggest by the same method, he accepts my proof that the BoC Fathers believed in UFOs also.

LPC

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Introduction to the Deutschlander UOJ Essay, 1977

Professor Daniel Deutschlander was one of the highly respected teachers at the late Northwestern College. No one wanted to admit it at the time, but the merger of Dr. Martin Luther College and NWC (nicknamed the Anschluss, after Hitler's annexation of Austria) was designed to end opposition to Church Growth and encourage feminist Enthusiasm. After all the lies and deceptions settled into the dust of history, the twin goals of the Anschluss proved to be overwhelmingly successful.

Deutschlander was known for opposing Church Growth and "Whoopee Worship." Some may remember that Ski's blog about going to the Babtist Drive conference was distinguished by his accidental meeting with Deutschlander, who thought Ski was in Atlanta to hear him speak at a WELS conference. Silly professor! Lavish grants are for worshiping with Babtists, not Lutherans.

Although Deutschlander's opposition to Church Growth is commendable, and his Theology of the Cross worth studying, his UOJ essay is another bow to the false doctrine of Pietism.

The end of the first paragraph is illuminating, because it was written before Kokomo, and J. P. Meyer's own words ignited the Kokomo controversy:

On the subject of this paper the author is aware of only one English language commentary that clearly expresses, distinguishes, and warns against the errors on the doctrine of Objective and Subjective Justification, namely our own J. P. Meyer’s commentary on II Corinthians, Ministers of Christ (cf. especially pp. 98-103). As Meyer points out, even the English translation of Pieper’s Dogmatics is subject to misunderstanding on this vital point.

From Thy Strong Word:

The Kokomo conflict began in July, 1978, in Kokomo, Indiana, at Faith Lutheran Church, WELS, served at that time by Pastor Charles Papenfuss, who was newly called to the congregation. When the parable of the Prodigal Son was being discussed by David Hartman for the upcoming Vacation Bible School, Pastor Papenfuss argued that the story “taught that God the Father has pronounced the entire world of lost sinners forgiven of all sins and that at the time of Christ’s suffering, death and resurrection gave unto all sinners the ‘status of saints’…Pastor Papenfuss said that even Judas and all people in hell were declared righteous, holy, innocent of all sin and given the ‘status of saints.’ He said that they too were declared to be guilt-free saints at the time of the resurrection of Christ.”[33] Hartman was surprised at the pastor’s statements and asked if that was the teaching of the WELS seminary. Papenfuss said it was. The pastor recommended J. P. Meyer’s Ministers of Christ to David Hartman. The conflict continued and the congregation voted on June 20, 1979, to endorse the four statements quoted below and to suspend the Hartman and Pohlman families from membership.

*33 Open letter published by Mr. and Mrs. David Hartman and Mr. and Mrs. Joe Pohlman, March 6, 1982.

---
From Deutschlander's essay:
The Treatment of Objective Justification by our Confessions
Our Lutheran Confessions have no separate article on Objective Justification; the closest we can come to a paragraph of formulation for this doctrine is in Article IX of the Formula of Concord, under the doctrine of election. But even that is not really sufficient or suitable for stating the orthodox position in a clear and unequivocal manner. For our Fathers it was not difficult at all to consider objective and subjective justification under the same heading, and they were apparently unaware of any need to separate them or distinguish between them. But such was and remained the case only so long as the orthodox had a clear understanding of the nature of faith; once that understanding was gone, it became necessary (at the end of the last century) to begin making such as distinction. (A possible reason for the loss of such an understanding we shall consider below in Part III.) But having said all that, we shall not go wrong in assuming that, had we asked then for it, they would have had little difficulty in making the distinction; indeed, given their clear and concise formulations on faith and its relation to justification, one can only conclude that they considered the distinction all but self-evident. We take note of this silence in the Confessions at this point and on this matter, lest someone charge us with indifference to the problem, or ignorance of its existence, or failure to take it into account.

GJ - So that means the Book of Concord is not orthodox because it does not include the Pietistic OJ/SJ formulation from Halle University! This paragraph simply screams for the attentions of LP Cruz. The Concordists would have done a Kokomo if they had been wiser and orthodox. Their silence on the double-justification formula proves they already accepted it

***

GJ - I doubtless speak for everyone in my happiness that J. P. Meyer cleared up that thorny issue.

Deutschlander 1977 Essay, Pages 1-3.