ICHABOD, THE GLORY HAS DEPARTED - explores the Age of Apostasy, predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, to attack Objective Faithless Justification, Church Growth Clowns, and their ringmasters. The antidote to these poisons is trusting the efficacious Word in the Means of Grace. John 16:8. Isaiah 55:8ff. Romans 10. Most readers are WELS, LCMS, ELS, or ELCA. This blog also covers the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Left-wing, National Council of Churches denominations.
Martin Luther Sermons
Bethany Lutheran Hymnal Blog
Bethany Lutheran Church Springdale AR 72762 Reformation Seminary Lectures USA, Canada, Australia, Philippines 10 AM Central - Sunday Service
We use The Lutheran Hymnal and the King James Version
Luther's Sermons: Lenker Edition
Click here for the latest YouTube Videos
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Sleet Storms Are for the Birds
A regular reader, 29a, known only by his hexidecimal number, warned me early that bad weather was moving in for Thanksgiving Day.
The radar map showed blues, pinks, greens, and yellows, all moving across Benton County, the northwest corner of Arkansas. We are a few miles south of the Missouri border, equidistant from the east and west boundaries of the county.
Sleet will fall until 3 PM, perhaps mixed with snow. We already heard the ambulances, since we are perched high above Route 71. We can look out the window and see cars dealing with the weather. Living along a ravine means beautiful scenery, wildlife, and enormous ditches to catch cars as they slide off the road.
Meanwhile, the birds and squirrels are expressing alarm by feeding rapidly. In general, birds will feed heavily just before a storm, but stay warm and dry during precipitation. It is the avian equivalent of coming home from a restaurant and watching the snow fall from the picture window.
But today, the birds and squirrels are in a feeding frenzy. That suggests their qualms match mine. Chickadees are flocking to the safflower. I opened the front door and saw a small squirrel enjoying the mixed seed, so I added more when he was gone. I provided another ear of corn, hoping I can see one of the squirrels eat later. If I refill the tree corn feeder, that will mean getting cold and wet. Maybe. I know it will get business today.
I never realized that trees and bushes were all-winter bird feeders until I read a book about feeding birds by hand. The best time to try it is right after a sleet storm, when all the bug cases are locked up in ice. Hidden in the bark and hanging on bushes - a wealth of food, waiting to hatch in the spring, to feed the baby birds. We learned in school that birds kept the insect population down. Perhaps the Creator wanted the bird population up.
Churchmouse Campanologist - Thanksgiving
Churchmouse Campanologist
A happy Thanksgiving to my American readers, wherever you might be today.
A footnote on William Henry Seward, whom you might recall from history class. Alaskans can be thankful for his foresight during his service in President Andrew Johnson’s administration:
Abraham Lincoln’s Proclamation of Thanksgiving
November 24, 2010 in Catholic, Protestant, secularism | Tags: Catholic, Protestant, God,United States, Thanksgiving, Abraham Lincoln, William Henry Seward, Alaska

In case you missed my 2009 posts on the subject, here is one dated November 25 and the other from November 26.
Last year, I ran across a thought-provoking post from Gregory Koukl of Stand to Reason Radio. It is a transcript of a 1994 broadcast he gave about this special day.
He discusses Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 Proclamation of Thanksgiving, which we’ll get to in a moment. But, first, here is what Koukl said after he read out the proclamation (emphases mine throughout):
We have set aside the day. On that day all over this country the post offices are closed, banks are closed, people observe the national holiday. But are they observing the holiday that Abraham Lincoln instituted in 1863? No, not quite.
Abraham Lincoln, in his official capacity as president, acknowledged that we owe everything to God. He called on us to humble ourselves in penitence for our disobedience, confess our sins with contrition, ask for God’s mercy and give Him praise for his love, for all of His care for us. This is not the Thanksgiving our country now officially observes, for it is de facto illegal for those under the color of governmental authority to take the initiative to honor God in this way.
Yes, as wonderful as Thanksgiving celebrations are, they are largely a secular affair. Food, football and, for the kids, Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. How many people attend church services on this day or say special prayers at home as a family? I haven’t mentioned solemn civic commemorations nationwide, as Koukl notes:
We can’t do that anymore …
My point is to show how far removed the present atmosphere of the so-called “separation of church and state” is from what was understood by our forefathers. The current practice is not the original notion of non-establishment that the Bill of Rights mandates, and Lincoln’s comments make this clear.
Notice how natural it was for someone like the president of our country–many would say the greatest president our country has ever seen (and probably the saddest)–in the midst of an agonizing trial of national proportions–the civil war–to call the nation to repentance, prayer, and thanksgiving to God.
What a man. And what a change we have gone through since then to now.
Last year, I reproduced George Washington’s Proclamation of General Thanksgiving from 1789. President Washington mandated a day of general thanksgiving and prayer — for the peaceful government which the newly-independent nation enjoyed, civil and religious liberty, the support of its foreign allies and for general prosperity — all of which he acknowledged came through God’s grace.
Koukl introduces the background to Lincoln’s 1863 Proclamation of Thanksgiving, which truly established it an annual national holiday:
In mid-1863 the tide of the war had just turned. Gettysburg was the turning point in early July–the 1st, 2nd , and 3rd of 1963–and on the 4th Vicksburg fell under Grant after a long five or six month siege there. It was a bad week for the South. So there was a big turning point in July and things started going the way of the Union. There was plenty to give thanks for, in a sense. Yet at the same time there was a bloody war continuing, and lives were still being lost. It would two more years of unimaginable carnage before the Civil War would end.
In the midst of this difficult time, President Abraham Lincoln declared Thanksgiving a national holiday and he did so with these words. [Read] closely, especially in light of the present atmosphere of so-called separation of church and state.
Koukl took the text below from Roy P Basler’s The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln.

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God.
In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.
Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.
No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People.
I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth.
By the President: Abraham Lincoln
William H. Seward,
Secretary of State
President Lincoln’s is an eloquent reminder of God’s blessings, even in an imperfect, conflict-driven world. Would that American politicians, following the example of two of the nation’s greatest presidents, encourage this type of reflection more often.

An outspoken opponent of the spread of slavery in the years leading up to the American Civil War, he was a dominant figure in the Republican Party in its formative years, and was widely regarded as the leading contender for the party’s presidential nomination in 1860 – yet his very outspokenness may have cost him the nomination. Despite his loss, he became a loyal member of Lincoln’s wartime cabinet, and played a rPublish Postole in preventing foreign intervention early in the war.[1]On the night of Lincoln’s assassination, he survived an attempt on his life in the conspirators’ effort to decapitate the Union government. As Johnson’s Secretary of State, he engineered the purchase of Alaska from Russia in an act that was ridiculed at the time as “Seward’s Folly“, but which somehow exemplified his character. His contemporary Carl Schurz described Seward as “one of those spirits who sometimes will go ahead of public opinion instead of tamely following its footprints.”[2]
Switching to Safflower Seed Is for the Birds
Bruce Church convinced me to switch from mixed seed to safflower. We have cardinals, blue jays, and chickadees. All three love sunflower seeds and safflower. Squirrels are not fans of safflower seeds.
The Duncraft feeder has kept squirrels out, so that was not the big issue. The Walmart store in Jane had a better deal on safflower than sunflower seed.
Duncraft sent me one of their html emails, and I looked over their offerings too. They promote blended seeds of all types, plus a few choices in single seed bags (sunflower, safflower). I have concluded that the seed companies are far more interested in buying habits than feeding habits.
I dumped the old, blended seed on the ground and put the safflower seed in the Duncraft feeder. Soon a chickadee was lighting on the feeder, picking up a seed, looking at me, and flying off. When the sun is rising, the birds cast shadows on the far wall as they light and feed.

The squirrels are getting their due. They get mixed seed on the window sill and the sheltered planter near the front door. They also have the corn feeder outside the dining room, beyond the deck. I put a lot of mixed seed in the planter and it was all gone the next day.
An ear of corn mounted on a tree is fun, because the squirrels swirl around the trunk as they determine who is going to eat next. Their uneven legs are designed for movement on trees, so they hop awkwardly on the ground, but flow effortlessly up and down trees.
Duncraft wants to sell me expensive balls of nesting material. Instead, we have three mobile hair factories. The dogs shed tufts of hair, which birds love for their nests. Birds have been recycling since Creation.
In praise of … the Authorised Version | Editorial | Comment is free | The Guardian
In praise of … the Authorised Version | Editorial | Comment is free | The Guardian
In praise of … the Authorised Version
From the cradle to the grave, those of us who ply the wordy trade are in debt to the King James Bible
Editorial
The Guardian, Thursday 25 November 2010
To every thing there is a season, so it is confusing that the anniversary celebrations of the 1611 publication of the Authorised, or King James, Version of the Bible should already be well under way in 2010, six weeks before the anniversary year and more than five months before the 400th birthday on 2 May. But such premature acts are signs of the times, and the Duke of Edinburgh launched things on Tuesday with a party; tonight a church in Preston has a non-stop reading, while over the coming weeks commorative events will be fruitful and multiply. The great and the good, to say nothing of Richard Dawkins, are giving their support, so the writing is on the wall for those who delay in joining in. What's to celebrate? Well, from a material point of view, the Authorised Version is one of Britain's biggest exports – 2.5bn copies cast upon the waters so far, though some put the figure much higher. Less measurably, the British Museum's Neil MacGregor rates it one of the first rocks of Britishness – "made by the whole island to be used by the whole island." Then, as David Crystal shows in his wonderful book Begat: the King James Bible and the English Language, the Authorised Version has probably had more impact on the language than any other work – contributing no fewer than 257 phrases in everyday use. From the cradle to the grave, those of us who ply the wordy trade are in its debt. Even if you do not turn to the Authorised Version itself next year, do read Mr Crystal's book. No rest for the wicked.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010
In praise of … the Authorised Version
From the cradle to the grave, those of us who ply the wordy trade are in debt to the King James Bible
Editorial
The Guardian, Thursday 25 November 2010
To every thing there is a season, so it is confusing that the anniversary celebrations of the 1611 publication of the Authorised, or King James, Version of the Bible should already be well under way in 2010, six weeks before the anniversary year and more than five months before the 400th birthday on 2 May. But such premature acts are signs of the times, and the Duke of Edinburgh launched things on Tuesday with a party; tonight a church in Preston has a non-stop reading, while over the coming weeks commorative events will be fruitful and multiply. The great and the good, to say nothing of Richard Dawkins, are giving their support, so the writing is on the wall for those who delay in joining in. What's to celebrate? Well, from a material point of view, the Authorised Version is one of Britain's biggest exports – 2.5bn copies cast upon the waters so far, though some put the figure much higher. Less measurably, the British Museum's Neil MacGregor rates it one of the first rocks of Britishness – "made by the whole island to be used by the whole island." Then, as David Crystal shows in his wonderful book Begat: the King James Bible and the English Language, the Authorised Version has probably had more impact on the language than any other work – contributing no fewer than 257 phrases in everyday use. From the cradle to the grave, those of us who ply the wordy trade are in its debt. Even if you do not turn to the Authorised Version itself next year, do read Mr Crystal's book. No rest for the wicked.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Important Chart for Understanding UOJ
I knew the Intrepids were on the run when they published an incomplete merger chart - not that a complete one would be more edifying.
Church history is a book for heretics, just as the Bible is. Luther said that about the Bible. WELS is always chewing on the intuitu fidei bone, but funniest of all - on legalism. Folks, if you want to avoid legalism, leave WELS now. Only the minuscule CLC (sic) can beat the Wisconsin sect in legalism.
Thanksgiving Eve Service - Wednesday at 7 PM Central
Thanksgiving, 2010
Pastor Gregory L. Jackson
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/bethany-lutheran-worship
Bethany Lutheran Worship, 7 PM Central Standard Time
The Hymn # 558 All Praise to Thee 4.44
The Order of Vespers p. 41
The Psalmody Psalm 100 p. 144
The First Lection 1 Timothy 2:1-8
The Second Lection Luke 17:11-19
The Sermon Hymn # 574 Come Ye Thankful 4.9
Thanksgiving Is Medicine
The Prayers and Lord’s Prayer p. 44
The Collect for Peace p. 45
The Benediction p. 45
The Hymn #361 O Jesus King 4.1
KJV 1 Timothy 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. 7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. 8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
KJV Luke 17:11 And it came to pass, as he went to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee. 12 And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off: 13 And they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us. 14 And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go shew yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed. 15 And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God, 16 And fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan. 17 And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine? 18 There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger. 19 And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.
Thanksgiving Is Medicine
KJV Luke 17:17 17 And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine? 18 There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger. 19 And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.
Thankfulness to God one of our most important responses to all He gives us, but this thanks is often forgotten – or replaced with bitterness, anger, and coveting.
The illustration of the 10 lepers is noteworthy. Only one out of 10 thanked Jesus for taking away the most horrible and stigmatizing disease of that era.
When I told my wife that I usually get 10% of the students posting comments about liking the class, she said, “That is the normal ratio, just like the Bible.” They normally press the most positive response for the survey, which affects my future income. But they seldom write in personal remarks, which are also kept and read by the supervisors. The interesting fact is that this ratio of 10% holds true for class after class, no matter where the students come from or what the subject matter is.
What God gives is vastly different from anything we can do for others, because He gives us life and prosperity, the blessings of the Gospel, everlasting life, and a country where we can still enjoy our religious freedom. Very few people in history have lived with such prosperity and freedom.
Our response to what God gives is either healthy and healing, or unhealthy and damaging.
Our attitude toward God expresses our faith in Him. As Chytraeus (Book of Concord editor) said, “Doubting the graciousness of God is a sin.” Even the kindest and most loving parents (who are fallible) will do plenty of things their children view as negative, restrictive, oppressive, and just plain mean. When children grow up, they realize that the very things they resisted the most were the surest signs of parental love.
The irony is that we become more thankful to God when our faith is more child-like (rather than childish). We have to become more mature to realize God’s wisdom and love in all that He does. Unlike human parents, He can change things in a moment, so the times of difficulty are revealed as a necessary prelude to blessings.
Many opportunities that might have given me financial stability would have also tied me down. For example, one university is now offering people like me full-time positions, but only if I live in Phoenix. A year ago I would have interviewed for that position and received a full-time job, because they are short in that area. And we would be lining up for our pat-downs and body scans instead of routinely seeing our grandchildren.
So it is better to be laying up treasures in heaven rather than on earth, where moth and rust do corrupt and thieves break in and steal (and not all of them bankers – some are neighbors).
I told my classes that I would go easy on deadlines this week, as I always do for holidays, because time with their family and friends is more important than deadlines. What do we remember in 20 years? – The great committee meeting? Beating a deadline? Or a priceless moment with a family member or friend?
Many people mis-identify what they should be thankful for. The eternal treasures of the Gospel are the most important. What God alone can give us goes along with the Gospel. Every single life is precious in His eyes, and should be in ours as well. Marriage and the family are God’s Creation, declared His will by the Word. World-wide, even the pagans observe the importance of the family, even though they often distort its meaning.
I have noticed, living in this area where people take the Christian faith seriously, that it constantly influences how they treat each other. Smiles, thank-yous, and God bless you are quite common. So is an attitude of patience and consideration. That can also be the way we treat one another in Christian Church and in our families, co-workers, and friends.
Politeness creates a different attitude, and the words we use generate a different kind of atmosphere, if we are thankful to God.
This thankfulness is derived from being forgiven of our sins and knowing God loves us. We cannot be thankful if no sins are forgiven. When people imagine there is no reason for repentance, because the whole world is free of sin, they are not thankful.
The true Gospel produces the Fruits of the Spirit. Variations on the Law will never produce those fruits, especially when they are demanded as proof of a transformation.
Many times we need to evaluate what we are thankful for, and what we are overlooking. My experience over the years has shown me that people would much rather have the ordinary blessings known only in a family than all the honors and glory of the world – although the outward honors and privileges seems so appealing from a distance.
Most people realize that a terrible price is paid for the glamour, and they would rather have the simple joys of life instead.
A poll would probably show that everyone would like to have fresh citrus in their backyards in the winter. They would like to walk outside in summer clothes and pull an orange, lemon, grapefruit, or tangelo from a tree.
In Phoenix we saw oranges hanging on trees and dropping on the ground, uneaten. Roof rats were attracted to them. (“Very cute creatures,” a scientist told us. I said – “Not on your own roof.”)
We had two lemon trees and a tangelo tree. The fact is, an abundance of free citrus made me say, “Oh, I will go out and harvest some tomorrow.” The very proximity of the fruit, the ease of harvesting, made them less desirable. It was not like my first berry on my first vine, that I waited and watched while it ripened, only to see a jay fly off with it.
I always picked the citrus eventually, although I had to give away lemons by the bag.
The Gospel comes to us in the same abundance. Now that faithful congregations are so rare, people value them that much more. They wonder, “Can I drive 50 or 100 miles each Sunday?” I cringe at the situation because the ordinary LCA congregation in the 1960s was far more conservative in worship and preaching than the typical “conservative” church of today.
One woman even began giving me the Church Growth talk before inviting me to her LCMS church. “We had a study and we have to start reaching out into our community, inviting more people, or we are going to die.” Nothing she said in her sales pitch mentioned the Gospel, proclaiming the Word, or being faithful. It was “do, do, do.” Very sad.
In our own families, the fruit of the Gospel shows in our appreciation for each other and our expressions of that attitude. It is so easy to say “I want to” or “I am happy to” instead of “Do I have to?” One student impressed me by saying how important gift-giving had become to him. He learned that from his Asian relatives, because gift-giving is practiced so carefully. That is not the same as buying everything someone wants, but little acts of kindness, such as unexpected flowers, not to mention speaking the words.
In fact, as one author noted, people respond differently to acts of love. Some like gifts while others like the words being spoken. Still others look at gestures shown.
Thankfulness is contagious and spreads to others, and it is medicine for the soul. A merry heart doeth good, like a medicine, as the Proverbs say.
Luther said, “You have as much laughter as you have faith.’
Quotations
Lenski:
When Christians do pray for themselves, the blessings they receive are by no means confined to themselves; equally, when they pray for all men, their rulers, etc., “all men” not only includes all Christians but the many blessings secured by this prayer for the non-Christians, for rulers and people are again not confined to non-believers. One of the very great results will be the one here stated. Some specify what is to be prayed for. The best interpretation as to the contents of such a prayer is that embodied in our General Prayer: “Cause thy glory to dwell in our land, mercy and truth, righteousness and peace everywhere to prevail, etc.… Graciously defend us from all calamities by fire and water, from war and pestilence, from scarcity and famine,” etc.
Stellhorn comments: “In the case of an individual mature Christian little or nothing for his own spiritual life may depend on the government of his country; the most wicked government may afford him opportunity to attest and to prove his faith in the most notable way. But for the weaker and younger Christians and thus for the congregation and the church, which as a rule consists for the greater part of such, ‘a tranquil and quiet life’ is necessary if it is to be at the same time a life of ‘godliness and gravity.’… How disorder and wild, undisciplined conditions in a country, how especially cruel persecution harms the weaker members of the church and thus the church herself, experience has abundantly proved. Thousands, hundreds of thousands have permitted themselves to be drawn away from the Christian confession and life, have lost faith and salvation, no more living ‘in all godliness and gravity.’ ”
Lenski, R. C. H.: The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon. Columbus, O. : Lutheran Book Concern, 1937, S. 540
"Since now, in the sight of God and of all Christendom [the entire Church of Christ], we wish to testify to those now living and those who shall come after us that this declaration herewith presented concerning all the controverted articles aforementioned and explained, and no other, is our faith, doctrine, and confession, in which we are also willing, by God's grace, to appear with intrepid hearts before the judgment-seat of Jesus Christ, and give an account of it; and that we will neither privately nor publicly speak or write anything contrary to it, but, by the help of God's grace, intend to abide thereby: therefore, after mature deliberation, we have, in God's fear and with the invocation of His name, attached our signatures with our own hands."
Thorough Declaration, Of Other Factions and Sects, Formula of Concord, Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 1103.
"'If there ever was a strictly conservative body, it surely is the Missouri Synod. Nevertheless, this growth!...It is a mark of the pastors and leaders of the Missouri Synod that they never, aye, never, tire of discussing doctrine on the basis of Scripture and the Confessions. That is one trait that may be called the spirit of Missouri. People who thus cling to doctrine and contend for its purity are of an entirely different nature from the superficial unionists who in the critical moment will declare five to be an even number. God will bless all who value His Word so highly.'"
(Dr. Lenski, Kirchenzeitung, May 20, 1922)
cited in W. A. Baepler, "Doctrine, True and False," The Abiding Word, ed., Theodore Laetsch, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1946, II, p. 515f.
"We should not consider the slightest error against the Word of God unimportant."
What Luther Says , An Anthology, 3 vols., ed., Ewald Plass, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959, II, p. 637.
"Error and heresy must come into the world so that the elect may become approved and manifest. Their coming is in the best interests of Christians if they take the proper attitude toward it. St. Augustine, who certainly was sufficiently annoyed by wretched sectaries, says that when heresy and offense come, they produce much benefit in Christendom; for they cause Christians industriously to read Holy Scriptures and with diligence to pursue it and persevere in its study. Otherwise they might let it lie on the shelf, become very secure, and say: Why, God's Word and the text of Scripture are current and in our midst; it is not necessary for us to read Holy Scripture."
What Luther Says, An Anthology, 3 vols., ed., Ewald Plass, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959, II, p. 639.
“You cannot of a truth be for true doctrine without being unalterably opposed to false doctrine. There can be no 'positive theology' where the God-given negatives have been eliminated from the Decalog."
Norman A. Madson, Preaching to Preachers, Mankato: Lutheran Synod Book Company, 1952. Preface.
---churchmousec (http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Thanksgiving Eve Service - Wednesday at 7 PM Centr...":
Excellent sermon, Dr Jackson -- truly outstanding. Hope it would be all right if I reprint it -- with credit and link -- on my blog next Thanksgiving?
You covered all the bases here in a marvellous way.
Thank you.
Churchmouse
***
GJ - Churchmouse--and others--feel free to use the sermon with credit. Or it can be quoted in part with credit. I am confident that Church and Change will not be plagiarizing it.
WELS Love Shack Annex for Sale - 2949 Mayfair
The Annex to The Guilt Factory--formerly known as The Love Shack--is up for sale.
Here is the link.
Christian Life Resources and Dating Center (formerly WELS Lutherans for Life) will have to move or boost their rent.
Labels:
ELCA; ELS; LCMS; WELS
Took the Words Out of My Mouth
This came up in the topic on congregations that are voting to leave, but it seem this is a separate topic.
This is what they report to be the new requirements that will be voted on at the ELCA's August 2011 Churchwide Assembly.
The proposed changes — all of which make the process more difficult for congregations — include the following:
A congregation must hold a 30-day consultation period with its bishop before taking a first vote to leave the ELCA, in addition to the current 90-day consultation after a congregation’s first vote.
The synod bishop is given authority to determine how the consultation will be conducted “in consultation with” the congregation’s council.
The bishop will be able to appoint “designees” with whom the congregation will be required to consult.
The bishop or his/her designee must be granted the opportunity to speak at special congregational meetings regarding ending ELCA affiliation.
A congregation will be required to vote by a two-thirds majority to join a new Lutheran church body, or else it will be “conclusively presumed” to have become an independent Lutheran congregation, potentially forfeiting its property.
Congregations will be required to meet any financial obligations to the ELCA before leaving.
Congregations must wait at least six months before taking another first vote if the original first vote does not achieve the required two-thirds majority.
Congregations must wait at least six months and restart the process if their second vote does not achieve the required two-thirds majority.
Congregations which fail to follow the specified process must obtain synod council approval in order to leave the ELCA.
My observation: They strike me as quite Draconian. And, I'm speculating, but perhaps this proposal will serve to accelerate the number of congregations leaving the ELCA. Another thought: in spite of what appears to me a somewhat "it's nothing" attitude when the numbers of ELCA congregations leaving or associating with other groups as these things are reported from the ELCA PR office, it seems that in fact there is great angst at the national level over the growing exodus out of the ELCA. Proposing such stringent measures indicates the level of concern. I can see these proposals actually having the opposite effect of what might be intended. I suspect that between now and next August the ranks of the NALC are going to grow beyond what anyone in the NALC, or the ELCA, may have anticipated.
End of McCain Quotation
---
James Gale, another heavy hitter on the ALPB Forum:
Some of the changes do resolve ambiguities. Others add what might be regarded as helpful additional details. And if this had all been proposed, say, 20 years ago, one could read it without any suspicion regarding motives. However, in the current environment, motives will be questioned. The church council doesn't trust congregational leaders to provide truthful information. Unhappy congregations don't trust their synods to refrain from unjustifiable power grabs. And the church council's solution? Add a new, highly legalistic process to govern how congregations leave the ELCA.
I think that this is a big mistake from the ELCA's perspective. A very big mistake. It will foster distrust, further poisoning an already close-to-toxic environment.
Looking at the substance, the new proposal has problems. Among those --
The church council wants to add a new consultation period before the first vote. Why? Is the reason to ensure that a congregation has the benefit of the synod's best and strongest statements and arguments before deciding whether to leave? If so, that purpose is already served by the existing consultation period, which takes place after the first vote and before any second vote. In other words, the current process ensures that a congregation won't vote to leave without the benefit of whatever the bishop and his or her colleagues have to say. So what new purpose is served by the new consultation period? None, really, other than to add more complexity to the process of considering whether to leave the ELCA. In other words, it makes the process more difficult. That's about it.
Richard Mathison stated his concern for the provision that arguably gives the bishop the power to decide what form any consultation will take. The bishop could arguably decide, for example, that he or she (and any number of "designees") would deliver the sermon each Sunday during the discernment process. The bishop and any number of "designees" are given voice at the congregational meetings at which a congregation votes on whether to leave. In other words, these provisions would arguably give the bishop power to be very heavy-handed. And the congregation would have no choice but to go along. That would hardly be effective consultation. The rules should require that all sides agree on what is and what is not appropriate, including regarding the rights of bishops at congregational meetings.
The new sub-section (g) is at first glance perplexing. It states that "congregations seeking to terminate their relationship with this church which fail or refuse to comply with each of the foregoing provisions in 9.62., shall be required to receive Synod Council approval before terminating their membership in this church." What does that mean? Is this an acknowledgement that not all congregations are obligated under their congregational governing documents to follow the general rules? After all, if the ELCA could impose a new rule on all congregations, there would be no need for this sub-section. All congregations would be required to comply. Period. On the other hand, if the ELCA can't impose a process on congregations, this new sub-section could only apply to those congregations adding it to their congregational constitutions. In other words, the sub-section would apply only to congregations that have added all the new rules to their congregational governing documents. As to them, the sub-section would be redundant. So what purpose does this serve?
In the short term, I think that the answer is "none." But this sub-section has the potential to be a very dangerous trojan horse. Once a congregation has added it, that congregation would never be permitted to delete it. And going forward, the ELCA could amend Section 9.62, thereby unilaterally imposing new limitations on the ability to leave the ELCA. These new limitations could even put a congregation's property at risk. Congregations therefore should understand that if they add this sub-section to their constitutions, the ELCA will gain enormous new power over them -- power that congregations will be legally unable to resist. The ultimate power regarding whether a congregation leaves will pass from congregations to the ELCA and its synods.
In short, while some parts of the proposal might be helpful, it is on balance, a turkey. And not one for which to give thanks. Indeed, sub-section (g) is downright toxic.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
ELCA Going Senile, Or
ELCA Bishop Mark Hanson As the Obama of Lutherdom
Let's see: glasses, cool head mike, timing lights, stole...
Stop laughing!"
ELCA NEWS SERVICE
November 23, 2010
ELCA Joins Effort to Keep Clean Air Act Regulatory Authority Intact
The denominations and faith-based organizations released a joint letter to the Senate Nov. 23 in which they stated they "are called to protect and serve God's great creation and work for justice for all of God's people."
"We believe that the United States must take all appropriate and available actions to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. We therefore urge you to oppose any efforts to undermine the authority of the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions," according to the letter. In particular, the religious groups noted challenges to the Clean Air Act from U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., who has proposed delaying regulation of greenhouse gases by the Environmental Protection Agency.
"We urge you to protect the Clean Air Act and allow the Environmental Protection Agency to use the full strength of the law to ensure that God's creation and God's children remain healthy," the letter stated.
---
Specifically, some council members may be elected whose skills and expertise are deemed crucial to the governance of the ELCA. The council also proposed eliminating a number of advisors because costs cannot be justified as mission support declines. Input from these constituencies could be provided in other ways, according to the background information.
Christina Jackson-Skelton, ELCA treasurer, said the projection for 2011 current fund income is a decrease of nearly $2.5 million from revised estimates for 2010. In particular, the 2011 budget is based on $48 million in anticipated mission support income, reduced from the $51 million in anticipated mission support for 2010, she said. The estimate for ELCA World Hunger income for 2011 is $1.7 million less than for 2010.
***
GJ - ELCA is favor of abortion for any reason, but opposed to capital punishment for convicted criminals. They give innocent babies the death penalty, without the benefit of a trial, yet WELS and Missouri both work with ELCA gladly.
ELCA is worried about the Clean Air Act yet spends its dwindling resources on more political lobbying.
Mark Hanson has total control of the structure, or the Lavender Mafia has total control of him. Either way, he appears to be the senile, doddering old fool of British comedy, flexible about the Ten Commandments, obstinate about his power.
Labels:
ELCA; ELS; LCMS; Methodist
What Sasse Says: Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper
What Sasse Says: Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper
Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper
In his doctrine of the Lord's Supper, Calvin tries to find the via mediabetween Luther and Zwingli. Already in the first edition of theInstitutio, which appeared in the year of the Wittenberg Concord, his doctrine was almost complete. Without mentioning names, he rejects the understanding of the Words of Institution held by Luther on the one hand, and by Zwingli and Oecolampadius on the other hand. Neither is the bread the body or the body is the bread, nor is the bread a mere sign or figure of the body. In the Sacrament 'we are spiritually fed', that is, our souls are fed with the body and blood of the Lord. There is no Real Presence of the body of Christ in the sacrament, as Luther believes, for the body of Christ exists, locally circumscribed, in heaven.
From This Is My Body, Luther's Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar (Revised Australian Edition, Lutheran Publishing House, Adelaide, 1977), pp261-262.
Compiler's note: These words are a masterpiece of condensation - Sasse succeeds, in about 150 words, where others who have written books on the subject have failed - he has pinned down Calvin's doctrine of the sacrament.
From This Is My Body, Luther's Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar (Revised Australian Edition, Lutheran Publishing House, Adelaide, 1977), pp261-262.
Compiler's note: These words are a masterpiece of condensation - Sasse succeeds, in about 150 words, where others who have written books on the subject have failed - he has pinned down Calvin's doctrine of the sacrament.
UOJ Debate and Information on Extra Nos

Just wanted to add...
We need pastors who are prophetic, not pastors who are politicians.
LPC
We need pastors who are prophetic, not pastors who are politicians.
LPC
Sunday, November 21, 2010 7:31:00 AM GMT+11:00

Dear LPC,
I agree. A pastor is a true pastor to the extent that he proclaims and remains true to the Word of God. "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (1 Pet. 4:11), that is, be the very mouthpiece of God to his congregation. Anything outside of this or inconsistent with this is of no benefit to the true Christian.
The true Christian is a child of light and ever comes to the light of God’s Word, while the hypocrites are children of darkness and flee the light lest their deeds be exposed (John 3:20,21). It is the nature of the true Christian to desire, regard, and continue in the Word of God and to progress in it’s truth and purity. Jesus said, “If ye continue in My Word, then are Ye My disciples indeed” (John 8:31).
The Christian cannot abide indefinitely with error. He will eventually expose it and become separated from it. Either opposition will force this separation or he will separate himself. Jesus said, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me” (John 10:27). “And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers” (John 10:5). The Apostle John writes, “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error” (1 John 4:6). “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9).
While Christians may be found in Gospel-teaching (but otherwise false churches), they will not continue in such communities. Like migrating salmon they will make their way from the salty oceans of the world to the brackish waters of heterodoxy to the pure sweet springs of orthodoxy. This journey is against the current and very wearisome, but the true Christian knows no other course. From pool to pool, denomination to denomination, he seeks the upward course to be gathered together with the saints of God who have gone before him.
Stuart
I agree. A pastor is a true pastor to the extent that he proclaims and remains true to the Word of God. "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (1 Pet. 4:11), that is, be the very mouthpiece of God to his congregation. Anything outside of this or inconsistent with this is of no benefit to the true Christian.
The true Christian is a child of light and ever comes to the light of God’s Word, while the hypocrites are children of darkness and flee the light lest their deeds be exposed (John 3:20,21). It is the nature of the true Christian to desire, regard, and continue in the Word of God and to progress in it’s truth and purity. Jesus said, “If ye continue in My Word, then are Ye My disciples indeed” (John 8:31).
The Christian cannot abide indefinitely with error. He will eventually expose it and become separated from it. Either opposition will force this separation or he will separate himself. Jesus said, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me” (John 10:27). “And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers” (John 10:5). The Apostle John writes, “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error” (1 John 4:6). “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9).
While Christians may be found in Gospel-teaching (but otherwise false churches), they will not continue in such communities. Like migrating salmon they will make their way from the salty oceans of the world to the brackish waters of heterodoxy to the pure sweet springs of orthodoxy. This journey is against the current and very wearisome, but the true Christian knows no other course. From pool to pool, denomination to denomination, he seeks the upward course to be gathered together with the saints of God who have gone before him.
Stuart
Monday, November 22, 2010 3:20:00 AM GMT+11:00

Dear Stuart,
It is sad that today's modern Lutheran pastor does not take his cue from Luther. They all want to be winsome. They do not offend, they also do not risk anything.
Talking about Synods, I encountered in the Internet, an ex-Calvinisticus turned Lutheranus. He actually believes that the LC-MS is THE VISIBLE church.
Initially most of the readers of my blog came from there but I had to write where the pieces fall and then they turned off.
What is this, theology of glory?
LPC
It is sad that today's modern Lutheran pastor does not take his cue from Luther. They all want to be winsome. They do not offend, they also do not risk anything.
Talking about Synods, I encountered in the Internet, an ex-Calvinisticus turned Lutheranus. He actually believes that the LC-MS is THE VISIBLE church.
Initially most of the readers of my blog came from there but I had to write where the pieces fall and then they turned off.
What is this, theology of glory?
LPC
Monday, November 22, 2010 1:33:00 PM GMT+11:00

Hi LPC,
I have heard of this "theology of glory" but have never understood what it is. Perhaps someone else can enlighten us to this. As to the LC-MS being the "VISIBLE CHURCH" I would not agree with that at all. They are at best a heterodox Lutheran group, having long ago gone wrong on the doctrine of church fellowship. From what I have read and understand they went especially bad with the "Statement of the 44" in 1945 where they redefined Romans 16:17,18, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." In 1945, they defined this verse as referring only to those who overtly denied the Gospel (rather than all false doctrine), and thus opened the flood-gates to false teachers. They have never been the same since, and all of their pastors and members are in disobedience unto the Lord's Word unto this very day. To be the true "VISIBLE CHURCH" means to hold to the Word of God in all of its truth and purity. This, the LC-MS does not do.
L. W. Spitz writes, “Purity of doctrine is, therefore, the criterion for orthodoxy. This implies the preaching, teaching, and profession of divine truth in all its purity, and the administration of the Sacraments in full accordance with their divine institution. The church which does this is an orthodox church. To the extent that any church does not do this, it is a heterodox church. This difference must never be ignored, particularly in our time when the slogan "not creeds, but deeds" is so generally adopted and religious indifference and the spirit of unionism are rampant, frequently cloaked in the guise of charity… To qualify as an orthodox church, a church must be faithful to all the doctrines of the Bible.” (The Abiding Word, Vol. 1, p. 285.)
Francis Pieper adds, “It is God’s will and command that in His Church His Word be preached and believed in purity and truth, without adulteration. In God’s Church nobody should utter his own, but only God’s Word (1 Pet. 4:11). Chaff and wheat do not belong together. All “teaching otherwise,” heterodidaskalein, is strictly forbidden. 1 Tim 1:3: ‘As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine.’ It is important to point out again and again that in all Scripture there is not a single text permitting a teacher to deviate from the Word of God or granting a child of God license to fraternize with a teacher who deviates from the Word of God. God is against the prophets who proclaim their own dreams (Jer. 23:32 ff.). And all Christians without exception are commanded to avoid such (Rom. 16:17; 1 Tim. 6:3 ff.).” (Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 3, p. 422)
I have heard of this "theology of glory" but have never understood what it is. Perhaps someone else can enlighten us to this. As to the LC-MS being the "VISIBLE CHURCH" I would not agree with that at all. They are at best a heterodox Lutheran group, having long ago gone wrong on the doctrine of church fellowship. From what I have read and understand they went especially bad with the "Statement of the 44" in 1945 where they redefined Romans 16:17,18, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." In 1945, they defined this verse as referring only to those who overtly denied the Gospel (rather than all false doctrine), and thus opened the flood-gates to false teachers. They have never been the same since, and all of their pastors and members are in disobedience unto the Lord's Word unto this very day. To be the true "VISIBLE CHURCH" means to hold to the Word of God in all of its truth and purity. This, the LC-MS does not do.
L. W. Spitz writes, “Purity of doctrine is, therefore, the criterion for orthodoxy. This implies the preaching, teaching, and profession of divine truth in all its purity, and the administration of the Sacraments in full accordance with their divine institution. The church which does this is an orthodox church. To the extent that any church does not do this, it is a heterodox church. This difference must never be ignored, particularly in our time when the slogan "not creeds, but deeds" is so generally adopted and religious indifference and the spirit of unionism are rampant, frequently cloaked in the guise of charity… To qualify as an orthodox church, a church must be faithful to all the doctrines of the Bible.” (The Abiding Word, Vol. 1, p. 285.)
Francis Pieper adds, “It is God’s will and command that in His Church His Word be preached and believed in purity and truth, without adulteration. In God’s Church nobody should utter his own, but only God’s Word (1 Pet. 4:11). Chaff and wheat do not belong together. All “teaching otherwise,” heterodidaskalein, is strictly forbidden. 1 Tim 1:3: ‘As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine.’ It is important to point out again and again that in all Scripture there is not a single text permitting a teacher to deviate from the Word of God or granting a child of God license to fraternize with a teacher who deviates from the Word of God. God is against the prophets who proclaim their own dreams (Jer. 23:32 ff.). And all Christians without exception are commanded to avoid such (Rom. 16:17; 1 Tim. 6:3 ff.).” (Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 3, p. 422)
Monday, November 22, 2010 3:38:00 PM GMT+11:00

Dear Stuart.
Actually, they go further earlier than that. In Brief Statement 1932 Article 17, I highlight to you the offending unBiblical statement,
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."
The bolded words are wrong and is referred to as UOJ. No where does Scripture teach that by the Atonement of Jesus - God has automatically declared everyone righteous be alive, going to be alive at that event. The Whole World is NOT in Christ. Yes indeed Jesus died for everyone /person of the World. He paid for their sins, but those who reject this atonement are not declared righteous (Justified) by God. Never has been.
Justification and Atonement are not the same and co-equal. The former is grounded and is the benefit of the Atonement. UOJ is a confusing term, and confusing concept. It says that God declares someone righteous without the application of the Means of Grace at the Cross and then once again at the point the Means of Grace is applied and believed. It is a two headed monster.
This is what Dr. Ichabod, Brett Meyer and I have been contending as it is the source of Enthusiasm in the churches, - Church Growth and Seeker Sensitivity etc. Others are also now contending against this though they have not come out blantantly vocal about this. Do read lots of materials of Dr. Ichabod on UOJ. There are also lots of discussion here for you to consider for example this one and its comments to start off the controversial words...
http://extranos.blogspot.com/2010/03/grinding-my-ax.html
My church is in the LCAus Synod and fortunately has no such official statements, hence, we are able to argue and protest of any move towards this. Though of course, many pastors in it are influenced by LC-MS on the conservative side.
LPC
Actually, they go further earlier than that. In Brief Statement 1932 Article 17, I highlight to you the offending unBiblical statement,
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."
The bolded words are wrong and is referred to as UOJ. No where does Scripture teach that by the Atonement of Jesus - God has automatically declared everyone righteous be alive, going to be alive at that event. The Whole World is NOT in Christ. Yes indeed Jesus died for everyone /person of the World. He paid for their sins, but those who reject this atonement are not declared righteous (Justified) by God. Never has been.
Justification and Atonement are not the same and co-equal. The former is grounded and is the benefit of the Atonement. UOJ is a confusing term, and confusing concept. It says that God declares someone righteous without the application of the Means of Grace at the Cross and then once again at the point the Means of Grace is applied and believed. It is a two headed monster.
This is what Dr. Ichabod, Brett Meyer and I have been contending as it is the source of Enthusiasm in the churches, - Church Growth and Seeker Sensitivity etc. Others are also now contending against this though they have not come out blantantly vocal about this. Do read lots of materials of Dr. Ichabod on UOJ. There are also lots of discussion here for you to consider for example this one and its comments to start off the controversial words...
http://extranos.blogspot.com/2010/03/grinding-my-ax.html
My church is in the LCAus Synod and fortunately has no such official statements, hence, we are able to argue and protest of any move towards this. Though of course, many pastors in it are influenced by LC-MS on the conservative side.
LPC
Monday, November 22, 2010 4:17:00 PM GMT+11:00

Dear LPC,
I actually have never heard of this controversy, so please bear with me as I try to give at least my initial take on this. First, I see your point, and this statement, taken in the sense in which you are taking it, does look wrong to me also. However, I don't think that Pieper means this in the way it's being taken. I say this for a number of reasons.
1) I have read everything available in the English language by Pieper and I know for a fact that he would not consider a person "justified", that is, "forensically declared righteous" in the technical sense of the term, until that person believes in the atoning work of Christ. So we have to cut him some slack as to perhaps poorly wording something and thus inadvertently leaving it open to misunderstanding.
2) You can see from what immediately follows this statement what Pieper believes about justification. He writes, "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." I think we all would accept that statement as correct.
3) The Lutheran fathers sometimes spoke of "justification" and "being declared righteous" in a looser, less technical sense than what they mean by "justification" in the sense of being “forensically declared righteous” at the point of one's faith. For instance, I am currently reading Jakob Andreae, whose six sermons provided a foundation to the Formula of Concord, and he commonly equates justification with the forgiveness of sins. In this sense, is it not true that the whole world's sins have been forgiven through Christ's suffering and death on the cross? Is it not true that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them" (2 Cor. 5:19).
4) You feel that Pieper misspoke because, as you say, "not the whole world was in Christ". I think Pieper would agree with you. But it is true that the whole world is justified in Christ if they would but believe it. Just as a person who refuses to open his eyes does not change the fact that the sun is shining, so the world which refuses to acknowledge Christ's glorious work on their behalf does not negate the fact that Christ died for the forgiveness of their sins.
My main point in all this is to say that if you had Francis Pieper at your side for a conversation about this, I believe that he would surely agree with you and explain what he meant. He perhaps spoke too loosely here, without realizing how that could be wrongly taken, but do we not all do the same at times? Let us in Christian charity put the best construction on what a person says and move on. From my end, there is enough real error to combat without involving ourselves in these sorts of sophistries.
Thanks again,
Stuart
I actually have never heard of this controversy, so please bear with me as I try to give at least my initial take on this. First, I see your point, and this statement, taken in the sense in which you are taking it, does look wrong to me also. However, I don't think that Pieper means this in the way it's being taken. I say this for a number of reasons.
1) I have read everything available in the English language by Pieper and I know for a fact that he would not consider a person "justified", that is, "forensically declared righteous" in the technical sense of the term, until that person believes in the atoning work of Christ. So we have to cut him some slack as to perhaps poorly wording something and thus inadvertently leaving it open to misunderstanding.
2) You can see from what immediately follows this statement what Pieper believes about justification. He writes, "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." I think we all would accept that statement as correct.
3) The Lutheran fathers sometimes spoke of "justification" and "being declared righteous" in a looser, less technical sense than what they mean by "justification" in the sense of being “forensically declared righteous” at the point of one's faith. For instance, I am currently reading Jakob Andreae, whose six sermons provided a foundation to the Formula of Concord, and he commonly equates justification with the forgiveness of sins. In this sense, is it not true that the whole world's sins have been forgiven through Christ's suffering and death on the cross? Is it not true that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them" (2 Cor. 5:19).
4) You feel that Pieper misspoke because, as you say, "not the whole world was in Christ". I think Pieper would agree with you. But it is true that the whole world is justified in Christ if they would but believe it. Just as a person who refuses to open his eyes does not change the fact that the sun is shining, so the world which refuses to acknowledge Christ's glorious work on their behalf does not negate the fact that Christ died for the forgiveness of their sins.
My main point in all this is to say that if you had Francis Pieper at your side for a conversation about this, I believe that he would surely agree with you and explain what he meant. He perhaps spoke too loosely here, without realizing how that could be wrongly taken, but do we not all do the same at times? Let us in Christian charity put the best construction on what a person says and move on. From my end, there is enough real error to combat without involving ourselves in these sorts of sophistries.
Thanks again,
Stuart
Tuesday, November 23, 2010 1:18:00 PM GMT+11:00

Stuart, I am afraid you are wrong. Pieper probably did more to establish absolution without faith than any other person. Walther taught it, but it was not LCMS boiler-plate until the Brief Confession of 1932, Pieper's last work. I believe UOJ is the best single explanation for the doctrinal apostasy of Missouri, WELS, and the ELS. Proof is the inability of their pastors and leaders to say one peep against Church Growth.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010 1:31:00 PM GMT+11:00


Dear Gregory,
My guess is that we're on the same side here, and I am happy to be proven wrong. In all honesty, though, I have trouble accepting that Pieper "did more to establish absolution without faith than any other person". I have never seen even the slightest tinge of that in any of his writings, and if I had, I would have dropped him like a hot potato.
Also, just so you know where I am coming from, I do not belong to the LC-MS, and have no loyalties to their luke-warm, compromising, apostate Lutheranism today. I have had plenty of run-ins with them, and I have found nothing but hard-heartedness towards the Word of God and arrogance. But that being said, I do respect some of their fine teachers and pastors of the past before they went down hill.
Now as we compare notes as to what went wrong with them, I think there is a better explanation than this issue of objective/subjective justification, which I do consider a bit of a subtlety. I think the problem began when they redefined Romans 16:17,18 on the doctrine of church fellowship in 1945. It was this error that opened the door to false teachers in their seminaries and false pastors in their churches. This also accounts for the Church Growth movement and their many other ridiculous compromises with modern-day Fuller-led Churchianity.
But as I said, I came into this from the outside, and whether the LC-MS has fallen for this or some other reason is not that crucial to me. It's somewhat of an in-house Lutheran fight which I have never had any skin in. Most of what I have now shared has come from what I have learned about this from the pastors of the ELCR, and at this point, those explanations seem more compelling to me than this issue of Pieper going bad on the doctrine of justification.
Thanks for whatever feedback and clarity that you can give.
God's Blessings,
Stuart
My guess is that we're on the same side here, and I am happy to be proven wrong. In all honesty, though, I have trouble accepting that Pieper "did more to establish absolution without faith than any other person". I have never seen even the slightest tinge of that in any of his writings, and if I had, I would have dropped him like a hot potato.
Also, just so you know where I am coming from, I do not belong to the LC-MS, and have no loyalties to their luke-warm, compromising, apostate Lutheranism today. I have had plenty of run-ins with them, and I have found nothing but hard-heartedness towards the Word of God and arrogance. But that being said, I do respect some of their fine teachers and pastors of the past before they went down hill.
Now as we compare notes as to what went wrong with them, I think there is a better explanation than this issue of objective/subjective justification, which I do consider a bit of a subtlety. I think the problem began when they redefined Romans 16:17,18 on the doctrine of church fellowship in 1945. It was this error that opened the door to false teachers in their seminaries and false pastors in their churches. This also accounts for the Church Growth movement and their many other ridiculous compromises with modern-day Fuller-led Churchianity.
But as I said, I came into this from the outside, and whether the LC-MS has fallen for this or some other reason is not that crucial to me. It's somewhat of an in-house Lutheran fight which I have never had any skin in. Most of what I have now shared has come from what I have learned about this from the pastors of the ELCR, and at this point, those explanations seem more compelling to me than this issue of Pieper going bad on the doctrine of justification.
Thanks for whatever feedback and clarity that you can give.
God's Blessings,
Stuart
Tuesday, November 23, 2010 1:57:00 PM GMT+11:00

Hi Stuart,
Pieper going bad on the doctrine of justification.
For me the doctrine of justification is the most crucial of all. Luther said you can get everything in Scripture right but if you get the Gospel wrong, you are still in error.
At least you have been made aware of the controversy and you can study for yourself. Ichabod has plenty of resources from both sides of the fence on this.
I object to Pieper on exegetical grounds. Pieper was not naive, he knew if he is to be believed he had to ground his teaching from Scripture and he did misread the exegesis of Scripture at key strong passages which he believed where UOJ was taught.
When I first became Lutheran, I thought UOJ was just another way of speaking about the atonement until I discovered that they equate the atonement to be the same as justification. I walked away from this after reading more exposition on this. In my discipline (maths/logic) you are not to mix categories unless you have clear grounds of evidence that the categories are the same. UOJers to me, made a fallacious move in their methods when they equated and interpreted passages as teaching justification co-equal with the Atonement.
UOJers hate with utmost hatred Calvinists when in fact both their theological methods are the same, like a thief hating another thief, since they compete for the same loot. Calvinism assuming that Atonement and Justification are the same and seeing not all have faith pulls Atonement to the side of Justification declaring that the Atonement is subjective - hence, Limited. UOJers seeing the same thing but noting that Atonement is universal pulls Justification to the side of the Atonement declaring Justification to be universal too. JBFA properly distinguishes these two from one another.
A few years ago one of well known Reverend Doctor of LCAus in my state was consulted by my young pastor about what I said of UOJ. This theologian encouraged him in UOJ against my opposition. That theologian has now left LCAus and has become a Papist. UOJ is functional universalism. I say functional because though UOJers deny it, the effect is the same. Hence, Rome since Vatican II has some compatibilities with it, absurdity.
Absurdity is the opposite of rationalism and Christianity is neither of these.
There is a break way group from LCAus, the AELC which broke away because they thought LCAus will ordain women, but LCAus did not accept this and so the LCAus today will not have women pastors, at least perhaps for another some years, we know liberals never stop until they get what they want or simply leave. Anyway, I could not touch AELC because of their UOJ statements. At least with LCAus, there is no official such statements hence, it is an open fight, for now.
May the Lord guide you in your study of these matters.
LPC
Pieper going bad on the doctrine of justification.
For me the doctrine of justification is the most crucial of all. Luther said you can get everything in Scripture right but if you get the Gospel wrong, you are still in error.
At least you have been made aware of the controversy and you can study for yourself. Ichabod has plenty of resources from both sides of the fence on this.
I object to Pieper on exegetical grounds. Pieper was not naive, he knew if he is to be believed he had to ground his teaching from Scripture and he did misread the exegesis of Scripture at key strong passages which he believed where UOJ was taught.
When I first became Lutheran, I thought UOJ was just another way of speaking about the atonement until I discovered that they equate the atonement to be the same as justification. I walked away from this after reading more exposition on this. In my discipline (maths/logic) you are not to mix categories unless you have clear grounds of evidence that the categories are the same. UOJers to me, made a fallacious move in their methods when they equated and interpreted passages as teaching justification co-equal with the Atonement.
UOJers hate with utmost hatred Calvinists when in fact both their theological methods are the same, like a thief hating another thief, since they compete for the same loot. Calvinism assuming that Atonement and Justification are the same and seeing not all have faith pulls Atonement to the side of Justification declaring that the Atonement is subjective - hence, Limited. UOJers seeing the same thing but noting that Atonement is universal pulls Justification to the side of the Atonement declaring Justification to be universal too. JBFA properly distinguishes these two from one another.
A few years ago one of well known Reverend Doctor of LCAus in my state was consulted by my young pastor about what I said of UOJ. This theologian encouraged him in UOJ against my opposition. That theologian has now left LCAus and has become a Papist. UOJ is functional universalism. I say functional because though UOJers deny it, the effect is the same. Hence, Rome since Vatican II has some compatibilities with it, absurdity.
Absurdity is the opposite of rationalism and Christianity is neither of these.
There is a break way group from LCAus, the AELC which broke away because they thought LCAus will ordain women, but LCAus did not accept this and so the LCAus today will not have women pastors, at least perhaps for another some years, we know liberals never stop until they get what they want or simply leave. Anyway, I could not touch AELC because of their UOJ statements. At least with LCAus, there is no official such statements hence, it is an open fight, for now.
May the Lord guide you in your study of these matters.
LPC
Tuesday, November 23, 2010 4:48:00 PM GMT+11:00

Stuart,
I wanted to add that I have not found any rebuttal to Walther Maier's anti-UOJ exegesis of Pieper's Scripture. Up to now, I still yet to find direct statements from Maier repudiating the things he wrote in this paper which criticizes Pieper passages...
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/MaierJustification.pdf
LPC
I wanted to add that I have not found any rebuttal to Walther Maier's anti-UOJ exegesis of Pieper's Scripture. Up to now, I still yet to find direct statements from Maier repudiating the things he wrote in this paper which criticizes Pieper passages...
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/MaierJustification.pdf
LPC
Tuesday, November 23, 2010 4:51:00 PM GMT+11:00

Hi Stuart, I've been happily following your conversation with LPC. I like the "I'll side with Christ, let the world pass away" approach that you have. It is one that you have by the grace of God and one that will endure, grounded on the pure Word.
I see that you are new to the UOJ controversy and was in agreement with your statements until your Point #3 on Tuesday the 23rd. You state, "For instance, I am currently reading Jakob Andreae, whose six sermons provided a foundation to the Formula of Concord, and he commonly equates justification with the forgiveness of sins. In this sense, is it not true that the whole world's sins have been forgiven through Christ's suffering and death on the cross? Scripture and the Confessions agree that Justification is the forgiveness of sins. What you can't find is the UOJ statement that the whole world's sins were forgiven by Christ on the cross - paid for in full, YES, absolutely. Forgiven, no, not without the Holy Spirit working through the Means of Grace to work contrition and faith. This is how subtle the doctrine of UOJ has been creeping into the world. Thanks to Pastor Jackson, LPC and others there is a plethora of discussions covering this specific example and all other false teachings of UOJ to review.
Again, very nice having a chance to follow this discussion.
In Christ,
Brett Meyer
I see that you are new to the UOJ controversy and was in agreement with your statements until your Point #3 on Tuesday the 23rd. You state, "For instance, I am currently reading Jakob Andreae, whose six sermons provided a foundation to the Formula of Concord, and he commonly equates justification with the forgiveness of sins. In this sense, is it not true that the whole world's sins have been forgiven through Christ's suffering and death on the cross? Scripture and the Confessions agree that Justification is the forgiveness of sins. What you can't find is the UOJ statement that the whole world's sins were forgiven by Christ on the cross - paid for in full, YES, absolutely. Forgiven, no, not without the Holy Spirit working through the Means of Grace to work contrition and faith. This is how subtle the doctrine of UOJ has been creeping into the world. Thanks to Pastor Jackson, LPC and others there is a plethora of discussions covering this specific example and all other false teachings of UOJ to review.
Again, very nice having a chance to follow this discussion.
In Christ,
Brett Meyer
Tuesday, November 23, 2010 5:20:00 PM GMT+11:00

Stuart,
Actually I wish to commend Brett Meyer's writings to you which you will find here and also at Dr. Ichabod's. Both of them showed me first the inconsistencies and caused me to check the points from Scripture, it made me realize the beauty of the means of grace in that exercise. They have suffered more than I have in contending against this error.
This controversy actually happened more than a hundred years ago in American Lutheranism- You will not find the language of objective and subjective in the BoC neither its concepts. Even during C F W Walther's days there have already been those who opposed the promotion of UOJ. Walther formalized this concept and made this a part of the lingo. If there is anything objective it is the Atonement but this is not the same as Justification. Justification is founded on the Atonement and through faith in that Atonement and hence, anywhere Justification is found in Scripture its twin - faith is hanging around near by. Just look at this in Romans.
I think you and Dr. Ichabod are right in pointing the defects of the Synods, but where you differ is in pointing out where they went south.
We believe they went south at UOJ.
LPC
Actually I wish to commend Brett Meyer's writings to you which you will find here and also at Dr. Ichabod's. Both of them showed me first the inconsistencies and caused me to check the points from Scripture, it made me realize the beauty of the means of grace in that exercise. They have suffered more than I have in contending against this error.
This controversy actually happened more than a hundred years ago in American Lutheranism- You will not find the language of objective and subjective in the BoC neither its concepts. Even during C F W Walther's days there have already been those who opposed the promotion of UOJ. Walther formalized this concept and made this a part of the lingo. If there is anything objective it is the Atonement but this is not the same as Justification. Justification is founded on the Atonement and through faith in that Atonement and hence, anywhere Justification is found in Scripture its twin - faith is hanging around near by. Just look at this in Romans.
I think you and Dr. Ichabod are right in pointing the defects of the Synods, but where you differ is in pointing out where they went south.
We believe they went south at UOJ.
LPC
Tuesday, November 23, 2010 5:49:00 PM GMT+11:00

Hi LPC/Brett,
Thank you both for your comments. LPC, I'll plan to read some of these sources you have cited and get back to once I have more to say. I am going to be away for a few days for the Thanksgiving holiday, so I did not want to keep you waiting.
Brett, I have always taken the word "justification" (in its strictest sense) as referring to the fact that God judicially "declares us righteous" at the moment that we believe in Christ and His atoning work in our behalf. As Luther says, a foreign righteousness, that is, the righteousness of Christ is imputed (reckoned) to our account. God now sees us "clothed" in Christ's righteousness. "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Cor. 5:21). Or, "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." (Rom. 10:3). This is what I understand by the expression "subjective justification".
As for the universal atonement of Christ and what the theologians call "objective justification", I have taken this as the fact that Christ via His suffering and death at the cross, paid for our sins, yea, even the sins of the whole world. With His own blood, He has purchased for us the forgiveness of sins and a perfect righteousness. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them" (2 Cor. 5:19). In God's sight, the doors of heaven have been flung wide open and He, on His part, has declared a full and free pardon for all men and for all sins that ever have or ever will be committed. He has declared a full acquittal to all the world in spite of their many offenses because of the work of His Son on their behalf. In this sense the world is seen as "forgiven" and "righteous" in God's sight, that is, through the lens of Christ and His atoning death.
The unbelieving, however, do not become possessors of this forgiveness and righteousness because they through their own hard hearts and willful unbelief refuse to take refuge under the lens and choose of their own perverted will to remove themselves from God's loving and reconciled smile that ever radiates through this lens.
I probably have not said anything that you do not already know, but I wanted to express it so that you would better understand where I am coming from.
One last thing, I do not believe in Christ IN ORDER TO be forgiven, but rather I believe in Christ BECAUSE I am forgiven. The whole matter stands "extra nos", outside of me. I am only believing what God Himself says is already true, and for me not to believe would be to make God a liar.
God's blessings to you all,
Stuart
Thank you both for your comments. LPC, I'll plan to read some of these sources you have cited and get back to once I have more to say. I am going to be away for a few days for the Thanksgiving holiday, so I did not want to keep you waiting.
Brett, I have always taken the word "justification" (in its strictest sense) as referring to the fact that God judicially "declares us righteous" at the moment that we believe in Christ and His atoning work in our behalf. As Luther says, a foreign righteousness, that is, the righteousness of Christ is imputed (reckoned) to our account. God now sees us "clothed" in Christ's righteousness. "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Cor. 5:21). Or, "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." (Rom. 10:3). This is what I understand by the expression "subjective justification".
As for the universal atonement of Christ and what the theologians call "objective justification", I have taken this as the fact that Christ via His suffering and death at the cross, paid for our sins, yea, even the sins of the whole world. With His own blood, He has purchased for us the forgiveness of sins and a perfect righteousness. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them" (2 Cor. 5:19). In God's sight, the doors of heaven have been flung wide open and He, on His part, has declared a full and free pardon for all men and for all sins that ever have or ever will be committed. He has declared a full acquittal to all the world in spite of their many offenses because of the work of His Son on their behalf. In this sense the world is seen as "forgiven" and "righteous" in God's sight, that is, through the lens of Christ and His atoning death.
The unbelieving, however, do not become possessors of this forgiveness and righteousness because they through their own hard hearts and willful unbelief refuse to take refuge under the lens and choose of their own perverted will to remove themselves from God's loving and reconciled smile that ever radiates through this lens.
I probably have not said anything that you do not already know, but I wanted to express it so that you would better understand where I am coming from.
One last thing, I do not believe in Christ IN ORDER TO be forgiven, but rather I believe in Christ BECAUSE I am forgiven. The whole matter stands "extra nos", outside of me. I am only believing what God Himself says is already true, and for me not to believe would be to make God a liar.
God's blessings to you all,
Stuart
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:58:00 AM GMT+11:00

Hello Stuart,
I highlight One last thing, I do not believe in Christ IN ORDER TO be forgiven, but rather I believe in Christ BECAUSE I am forgiven. The whole matter stands "extra nos", outside of me. I am only believing what God Himself says is already true, and for me not to believe would be to make God a liar
There is sense that this might be taken properly. I do have a question, does belief do anything to your status with God, does it carry andy change of status at all?
I am just wondering if God has already declared you righteous before you even before you believe, why will he now get angry at you if you do not believe? He has already been good to you in the first place before you believe so why would God now be angry if you don't?
Further, is a person under God's wrath before the person believes? If the answer is YES, how is that then related to the fact that God has already declared him righteous (forgiven), it is inconsistent under this scheme to say YES then. For that would mean God is delcaring him righteous prior to faith and at the same time angry with him because he has not got faith yet.
I am asking these question to provoke thought. In this then it seems now after the Cross every one starts off forgiven and only become unforgiven if they do not believe. Is that the right picture?
Rather I think every one starts off under God's wrath and then the means of grace brings us INTO christ so we are now under blessedness rather than curse.
LPC
I highlight One last thing, I do not believe in Christ IN ORDER TO be forgiven, but rather I believe in Christ BECAUSE I am forgiven. The whole matter stands "extra nos", outside of me. I am only believing what God Himself says is already true, and for me not to believe would be to make God a liar
There is sense that this might be taken properly. I do have a question, does belief do anything to your status with God, does it carry andy change of status at all?
I am just wondering if God has already declared you righteous before you even before you believe, why will he now get angry at you if you do not believe? He has already been good to you in the first place before you believe so why would God now be angry if you don't?
Further, is a person under God's wrath before the person believes? If the answer is YES, how is that then related to the fact that God has already declared him righteous (forgiven), it is inconsistent under this scheme to say YES then. For that would mean God is delcaring him righteous prior to faith and at the same time angry with him because he has not got faith yet.
I am asking these question to provoke thought. In this then it seems now after the Cross every one starts off forgiven and only become unforgiven if they do not believe. Is that the right picture?
Rather I think every one starts off under God's wrath and then the means of grace brings us INTO christ so we are now under blessedness rather than curse.
LPC
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:49:00 AM GMT+11:00

Hi LPC,
These are excellent questions that you have and provide a great opportunity to bring clarity to this matter. First, you ask, "does belief do anything to your status with God, does it carry any change of status at all?" My answer would be, "No". Our belief does not do anything to our status with God. Our faith is simply the means (conduit) that brings the already-reconciled God's good will and forgiveness to us. The living water in the reservoir is what it is - life and eternal refreshment purchased for our souls by the blood of Christ. But faith is the conduit by which this gracious stream comes to us and becomes our own.
You ask, "if God has already declared you righteous before you even believe, why will he now get angry at you if you do not believe?" This is not the right way to look at this. God declared you righteous in Christ before you believed, but this righteousness is not effective to you personally until you believe. Again, think of the reservoir analogy. The water exists. It was wrought by God for you and is sincerely intended for you, but without the conduit of faith you remain without it.
God has declared you forgiven and righteous "in Christ", but the problem is that you in your unbelief are not yet "in Christ" but "in Adam". When you believe you are "delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son" (Col. 1:13), you are no longer "in Adam", but now reside "in Christ". You now are a partaker of all the benefits that Christ purchased for you by His atoning death.
Next you ask, "is a person under God's wrath before the person believes?" The answer is "Yes", because through his unbelief he has not appropriated all of the blessings (forgiveness, righteousness, life, etc,) which only reside "in Christ". He has, in fact, been "declared righteous in Christ" (as Pieper says), but he himself is not yet "in Christ" where this declaration has been made and is effective.
A good way to think of all this is the analogy of an umbrella in a storm. Christ is our umbrella. If we by faith stand under the umbrella (in Christ) and look up through the umbrella, we see the face of God with a friendly smile. However, if we, of our own depraved unbelief, reject the umbrella, and stare into the skies without Christ, we rightly see nothing but fury and wrath on the face of God (the storm). This same analogy would hold true with the Passover house. Stay in the house, you have warmth, protection, grace and life. Venture outside the house, and you have death and damnation.
Hope this all helps.
God's blessings,
Stuart
These are excellent questions that you have and provide a great opportunity to bring clarity to this matter. First, you ask, "does belief do anything to your status with God, does it carry any change of status at all?" My answer would be, "No". Our belief does not do anything to our status with God. Our faith is simply the means (conduit) that brings the already-reconciled God's good will and forgiveness to us. The living water in the reservoir is what it is - life and eternal refreshment purchased for our souls by the blood of Christ. But faith is the conduit by which this gracious stream comes to us and becomes our own.
You ask, "if God has already declared you righteous before you even believe, why will he now get angry at you if you do not believe?" This is not the right way to look at this. God declared you righteous in Christ before you believed, but this righteousness is not effective to you personally until you believe. Again, think of the reservoir analogy. The water exists. It was wrought by God for you and is sincerely intended for you, but without the conduit of faith you remain without it.
God has declared you forgiven and righteous "in Christ", but the problem is that you in your unbelief are not yet "in Christ" but "in Adam". When you believe you are "delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son" (Col. 1:13), you are no longer "in Adam", but now reside "in Christ". You now are a partaker of all the benefits that Christ purchased for you by His atoning death.
Next you ask, "is a person under God's wrath before the person believes?" The answer is "Yes", because through his unbelief he has not appropriated all of the blessings (forgiveness, righteousness, life, etc,) which only reside "in Christ". He has, in fact, been "declared righteous in Christ" (as Pieper says), but he himself is not yet "in Christ" where this declaration has been made and is effective.
A good way to think of all this is the analogy of an umbrella in a storm. Christ is our umbrella. If we by faith stand under the umbrella (in Christ) and look up through the umbrella, we see the face of God with a friendly smile. However, if we, of our own depraved unbelief, reject the umbrella, and stare into the skies without Christ, we rightly see nothing but fury and wrath on the face of God (the storm). This same analogy would hold true with the Passover house. Stay in the house, you have warmth, protection, grace and life. Venture outside the house, and you have death and damnation.
Hope this all helps.
God's blessings,
Stuart
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 1:07:00 PM GMT+11:00
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)