Elton John Will Sing "Candle in the Wind" Right after the WELS Benediction

AC V has left a new comment on your post "Crumbled have spires in every land! Here stands th...":

True story re WELS wedding service: WELS pastor says, "It's OK for the Catholic friend to sing her solo RIGHT AFTER the benediction." I guess at that point the Unit Concept gets unplugged.

Memoirs of an Apostate, Who Lived To See the Bitter Fruits of His Labor.Syn Conference Apostates, Take Note

Carl Braaten enjoyed a charmed life in ELCA academics.
Then they threw him under the bus.

Carl E. Braaten, Because of Christ, Memoirs of a Lutheran Theologian, Eerdmans, 2010, 210 pages paperback.

When Mrs. Ichabod and I were in college at Augustana, Braaten was the boy wonder at the newly merged Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago. LSTC included Augustana Seminary, the ULCA Maywood Seminary, a Nebraska seminary, and some easily forgotten promises to the Finns.

The seminary merger was one reason why I never considered going to LSTC.

Braaten was the son of Norwegian Lutheran missionaries to Madagascar, growing up on that gigantic island. He came back to the States in 1946 to attend St. Olaf College (ALC) and Luther Seminary. In between he got a Fullbright Scholarship to study philosophy in Paris.

Braaten graduated from Luther Seminary in 1955 and entered the doctoral program at Harvard University. "Paul Tillich meant a lot to me," he wrote on page 32. Nothing is said about the appalling infidelities of Tillich, whether marital or doctrinal. Tillich's wife published a book about her wandering husband, who liked photos of women crucified, slept with the wives of his students, and behaved like a jerk. For example, he sold the same theology title to two publishers at once. The Fortress Press biography of Tillich, written by one of his academic friends, noted Tillich's bizarre inclusion of pagan myth in his Systematics. Tillich also bragged up his own importance in various ways. He wanted a job in Hitler's Germany because he was instrumental in promoting the cause of national socialism. His biographer said that Tillich did little beyond talking in coffee shops! Similarly, Tillich acted as though Columbia University's philosophers had great respect for him when he taught at Union Seminary (The Devil's Playground) in NYC. In fact, they did not.

But one does not make a dent in academic theology while pointing out these verities, even in class. I dared to mention some details in the Frank Fiorenza class at Notre Dame. Fiorenza (Roman Catholic) and Tjaard Hommes (liberal Dutch) were furious that I dared to say such things, even though I left out the whips, affairs, and girls-on-crosses. Frank said, "Lutherans do not understand Tillich." I responded with, "Lutherans do not understand a Lutheran?"

Tillich wrote from a philosopher's point of view, which must have harmonized well with Braaten's interests. Modern philosophy displaces theology, using the categories while expelling the content. Almost all of modern theology is written that way, providing a nifty income for closet atheists who moan about teaching nine hours a week - if that.

Tillich won many awards, which allowed him to study in Europe. He also heard Karl Barth lecture in Basel. He was thrilled to hear Barth, but Tillich was clearly his favorite. Tillich and Braaten worked closely together, so Braaten was happy to see Tillich emerge as a famous theologian in Germany and in America. Tillich was on the cover of Time magazine at one point. Few theologians can equal that.

Tillich and Barth are in the same boat as intellectual frauds. Neither one was remotely Christian in thought. Both of them borrowed heavily from the labor of others. Barth let his mistress, Charlotte Kirschbaum, do most of the work in the Dogmatics. Tillich let his grad students did an inordinate amount of his work. Graduate students were not going to kick about doing Tillich's work for him, since he had the power to make careers, as he did for Braaten.

Critical thinking is not an attribute of modern theology. To address the theologians' lack of faith in the Word of God is academic suicide. Apostates are quick to put everyone through a quick colloquy. They do not allow believers into their club.

Braaten has nothing but scorn for "Fundamentalists," which is his word for those who still believe in the authority and inerrancy of the Scriptures. Braaten goes back and forth. He condemns his church opponents for not being confessional, but no one opposed Christian theology more boldly than Braaten in his glory years.

He brags about his Braaten/Jenson Dogmatics, which attacks every article of faith in the Apostles Creed. The crucifixion of Christ is compared to a man hit by a truck, an accident meaning nothing. The gigantic two-volume set is a travesty in writing. To borrow from Luther, it is not even a pile of manure served on a silver platter. The serving dish is a garbage can lid, the inept style of closet atheists trying to act important. They wrote about basic Christian doctrine - Luther believed it, we do not.

And they were trying to rescue ELCA from the radicals. Read the paragraph above again, slowly. Add that the Trinity, in that book, is nothing more than "God, the man Jesus, and the divine spirit of the community." (I paraphrased that statement from memory.)

Braaten also helmed a journal called dialog, the lower case title serving as a reminder of how trendy they were - at the time. He enjoyed being a subversive until his troops over-ran his own position, took away his leadership, and kicked him to the curb.

Braaten's Bitter Fruits
Merger was the first game that burned Braaten. The radicals thrown out of their leadership in the LCMS--led by WELS' own Jungkuntz, a UOJ fanatic--were known collectively as the Seminex bunch. They were blooded veterans of many battles, from a synod where vicious in-fighting, kidnapping, and cover stories began with C. F. W. Walther.

The tiny, fading AELC (Seminexers) were allowed to dominate the ELCA merger talks. They created the gay-feminist quota system that would remove every single person like Braaten from any influence. The radicals opposed the traditional Name of God, but Braaten's book did the same. The memoir sounds like "No fair when you play our game of subversion. We had a blast doing it, but you are going too far." I see a parallel with the current leadership of Missouri, WELS, and the micro-mini sects. What they conceived and carried to term is an ugly little bastard child, who keeps growing and biting his parents.

I went to LSTC for research and also to visit the president of the seminary, Bill Lesher, in discussions about publishing the book. He kept confusing the words "biography" with "bibliography," which made the church history professor roll his eyeballs. Lesher pointed out that they could not keep several Midwestern seminaries going at once. Seminex merged into LSTC and Wartburg has been insolvent, but LSTC (Bergendoff's dream school) is still in deep trouble financially. Nota bene, defenders of WELS schools, this seminary meltdown was discussed 29 years ago. Ba-zing.

Seminex Drives Braaten Out
The Seminex faculty came to LSTC as a team, and they quickly took over. The chapel services conducted worship by avoiding male names or pronouns for the Trinity. Braaten was offended and quit coming to chapel. Boo-hoo Braaten. Did he oppose it at the service? No. Did he organize the other students who opposed this? No. He wrote a letter and quit coming. Does that sound familiar, WELSians? He wrote a letter.

The homosexual issue quickly took over, too. Deppe, as a Seminex professor, was arrested for soliciting a male policeman at a public park in St. Louis. Nevertheless, he still came over with the Seminex faculty. The rogue AELC seminary was also the official seminary of the homosexual Metropolitan Community Church, training and certifying their pastors, male and female, homosexual and lesbian. Did that give LSTC pause? Apparently not.

But Braaten complained about the Lavender Mafia's work at the seminary and in ELCA. Braaten stayed in ELCA but left LSTC.

Here are some quotations and insights, from his book, which perfectly parallel the sects considered more conservative than ELCA. The methods are exactly the same.

Page 121
"The theology that backed up the 'paradigm shift' at LSTC was either antinomian or a close relative." (Everyone is already forgiven - UOJ and Seminex's Gospel Reductionism, led by WELS' own Jungkuntz.)

Page 126
Quotas for Blacks did not increase Black membership in ELCA. (Nevertheless, WELS embarked on multi-culturalism with ELCA and Missouri.)

Page 132:
"Nobody who bucks the system gets elected to any office in the ELCA. This is why only retired bishops dare to speak out against the ordination of gay clergy in partnered relationships and the blessing of same-gender unions in the church. Even theological professors have become muted for fear of appearing out of sync with the rising trends in church and society. So much for the 'here I stand' courage of the founding father of the Lutheran movement. not even faint echoes of that are to be heard in the church establishment and its publications, for example, the Lutheran Magazine, Lutheran Partners, as well as books published by Augsburg Fortress Publishing House. Censorship is massive, complete, and effective, however it works."

Page 140
"From where I was sitting, the handwriting on the wall was so clear, I felt a person had to be blind not to see it."

Braaten also wrote about professors telling him they were too terrified to do or say anything about ELCA's deviancy.

Braaten enjoyed the comforts and prestige of an academic life, the security of tenure, high pay, numerous grants for study tours. He created the foundation for everything that turned the ELCA into a nightmare for anyone with a shred of faith. The extreme radicalism finally stirred up Braaten's memories of Biblical memorization, catechetical instruction, the good old days.

That is how the Word blinds people. The more time and energy they devote to attacking the Scriptures and mocking the Reformation, the blinder they become. One cannot juggle the Word, which always has the divine power of God, and come away unscathed.

The faculties of WELS, Missouri, and the Little Sect think they can ignore their own apostasy while saying "Naughty naughty" to ELCA. All Thrivent has to do is toss some money in the air, rent some rooms at the Notell Conference Center, and the Four-letter Synods are there, tongues hanging out.

The Goodsoilers, part of the Lavender Mafia in ELCA...and beyond.

I would have flown to Chicago just to see this chapel service.
The co-founder of Earth Day murdered and composted his girlfriend.

The Holy Trinity

Good Friday, 2011

Good Friday Vespers, 2011


Pastor Gregory L. Jackson

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/bethany-lutheran-worship

Bethany Lutheran Worship, 7 PM Central Time

The Hymn # 172 O Sacred Head 2:55
The Order of Vespers p. 41
The Psalmody Psalm 22 p. 128
The Lections

The Sermon Hymn #143 O Dearest Jesus 2:56

The Sermon – Atonement and Forgiveness

The Prayers
The Lord’s Prayer
The Collect for Grace p. 45

The Hymn #151 Christ the Life 2:78

Isaiah 52:12 For ye shall not go out with haste, nor go by flight: for the LORD will go before you; and the God of Israel will be your rereward. 13 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.
14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: 15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.
KJV Isaiah 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

KJV John 19:1 Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. 2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, 3 And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands. 4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him. 5 Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! 6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him. 7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. 8 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid; 9 And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? 11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. 12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar. 13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. 14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! 15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. 16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away. 17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha: 18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst. 19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. 21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. 22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written. 23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. 24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did. 25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. 28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. 29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. 31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. 33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: 34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. 35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. 36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. 37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced. 38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus. 39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. 40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. 41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. 42 There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

For Holy Communion Preparation on Easter Sunday
O Lord Jesus Christ, we thank Thee, that of Thine infinite mercy Thou hast instituted this Thy sacrament, in which we eat Thy body and drink Thy blood: Grant us, we beseech Thee, by Thy Holy Spirit, that we may not receive this gift unworthily, but that we may confess our sins, remember Thine agony and death, believe the forgiveness of sin, and day by day grow in faith and love, until we obtain eternal salvation through Thee, who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Ghost, one true God, world without end. Amen.

Atonement and Forgiveness

Today I was working on the great statements of the Book of Concord, turning some of them into graphics, so others would remember them and perhaps use them in various ways. Each graphic has a statement from the Book of Concord, either associated with its author’s portrait or its content.

The Book of Concord really means – The Book of Harmony. I used to make fun of all the Concordia names here and there. We even have a Concordia village for assisted living, not too far from us.

When I discovered how much disharmony there was in Luther-land, and how painful it was, I began to appreciate the beauty of doctrinal harmony.

All the passages of the Book of Concord fit together well, even though they come from various authors. The reason is – they faithfully teach what the Bible teaches, and that book is one unified Truth, with many authors, cultures, and times.

When I hear from my Jewish Lutheran friends, this harmony is especially memorable. Far back in time, their ancestors were chanting in Hebrew and looking for the promised Messiah. Now they have the unusual mission of representing the Jewish mission today, just by their existence. Their faith says, “We believe Jesus is the Promised Messiah.”

This ancient religion begins at Creation, with the Son of God as the Creating Word (Gen 1 and John 1). The first Gospel Promise is Gensis 3:15, when Adam and Eve (real people, not concepts or myths, as the NNIV teaches) were promised the Savior, who would crush the head of Satan.

The Old Testament patriarchs believed in the Messiah, too. Abraham believed, and it was counted as righteousness. The Prophets and King David offered hundreds of predictions about the Messiah, and every single one of them came true. We are enormously pleased with ourselves when one prediction comes through, and we hasten to forget the many that did not come true.

Only God could offer, in writing, hundreds of promises, and have them all fulfilled. This makes the prophecies all the more compelling – we see bits and pieces of them all over the Old Testament, never congregated in a single place. And yet, if we see how the Bible holds Jesus the way a cradle holds a baby (Luther), then we can see the Messiah in many other places as well.

One is the Angel of the Lord.

Another is where we see the Hebrew word “salvation,” which is the Hebrew version of Jesus’ name. In many places in the Psalms, we can replace “salvation” with “Jesus” and the verse makes sense. In fact, it makes even more sense.

Psalm 9:14 That I may shew forth all thy praise in the gates of the daughter of Zion: I will rejoice in thy salvation.

Nothing upsets the apostates more than finding Christ in the Psalms and Isaiah. They have been trying to purge those associations for about 200 years, especially in the last 75. They would be so pleased if no believers remained, as long as everyone kept supporting the church institutions financially. Do not be offended. Many denominations today have no Christian content offered by their leaders, but they are keen on gathering money and even become temporary Fundamentalists on the issue of tithing.

This long preparation of God’s people for the Messiah meant that centuries of animal sacrifice would inform them about the innocent Lamb of God, Isaiah 53.

The Word of God teaches us about salvation strictly from God’s perspective and power. That is, God determined how mankind would be saved and put that plan into action, far beyond the counsel or wisdom of man.

We can see that because the Atonement of Christ is clearly portrayed in Isaiah 53. I have never found a group of children who missed the association with Christ – the spotless lamb, the silence before the shearers, the rejection and humiliation – all point to Christ. At the time, no one thought that to be true of the Messiah. When Jesus fulfilled all things, this reading from Isaiah became part of the New Testament. Almost every word of Is. 53 is found in the New Testament.

We can see how the 500 Old Testament references to sheep and shepherds were a preparation for the Good Shepherd. Nor should we think it is an accident to have Psalm 22 (about the crucifixion) just before Psalm 23, about the sheep and his Shepherd.

In other words, the more we know the Old Testament, the more we see the Gospel in the Old Testament.

God determined the solution for man’s sinful nature. He planned the giving of His beloved Son so that the Savior would redeem the sins of the world and be the ultimate sacrifice.

Even though evil men carried out the plan, God used all their evil for good. People received warnings about what they were doing. That only made them more obstinate and angry. And yet in the midst of this, God converted people through His Word. The soldier guarding the crucifixion was converted, saying, “Truly this man was the Son of God.” The repentant thief confessed his sin and his faith in Christ.

This too is God’s plan. Believing is salvation, not just the start of salvation. As the Book of Concord teaches, we are forgiven in believing, because of the power of the Word.

This is a great message of comfort – because the crucifixion reminds us of our sinful nature. Those are our sins He paid for, the only proper way to meditate on the meaning of the cross. Anyone who wants to lay the blame on the religious opponents or the Roman authorities has missed the point of Bible. God wants all men saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. Blaming others is not repentance.

A contrite person has true Godly sorrow for sin, which takes many forms. All sin really begins with a lack of trust in God. If the Ten Commandments are utterly true, then breaking one of them in any way is a lack of trust in God’s wisdom. He commands what is good for us.

An honest evaluation of our nature means that we make up for our sinful nature by doing good things for others or whatever bargain we might want to make.

Forgiveness comes from believing that the Savior died on the cross for the sins of the world and for my sins. The Word convicts us, as Jesus promised, for not trusting utterly in Christ, in His mercy.

The comfort of the Gospel is the complete and full forgiveness He gives us through faith. Yes, faith is a good thing. The goal of the Bible is to proclaim the Promises so that we believe in them.

What about all that Law, all the threats and condemnation? The Law is necessary to soften our hearts and prepare them for an honest view of ourselves, a mirror that reflects our nature accurately. The Law leads us to Christ and the Good Shepherd directs us from there, serving God and our neighbor out of love rather than compulsion. Of course, we wander, like sheep, but the shepherd dog of the Law nips our heals and brings us back to the fold.

Am I forgiven by God of all my sins? Believing is forgiveness, as Luther taught from the Bible. The instant that the Gospel plants faith in our hearts, we receive that forgiveness, declared by God in His Word.

The American Spectator : Translating the Word

They did not pay attention to Heston then, so the result was - The Planet of the Apes.


The American Spectator : Translating the Word

THE PURSUIT OF KNOWLEDGE

Translating the Word

By Roger Scruton from the April 2011 issue

The 400th anniversary of the King James Bible has received only muted celebrations in the English-speaking world, and no celebrations at all elsewhere. This book, which shaped the syntax, the imagery, and the wisdom of everyday discourse among speakers of English, and which has probably been more frequently quoted than any other source, including the Greek and Hebrew originals, is now receding behind the screen on which our ephemeral messages are scribbled. But the history of the English Bible is of great importance to us today, since it reminds us that our civilization is built upon translations. The Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Wulfila Bible (the fourth-century translation into the Gothic language), the Wycliffe Bible, and the translations of early reformers -- the Czech Králice Bible, Luther's Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the seminal translation by William Tyndale on which the King James translation is ultimately based -- all these have brought with them profound and far-reaching changes in the social, political, and religious lives of ordinary people in Christian Europe.

Every new translation has offered a promise of power to some and a threat to the power of others. A society governed by a privileged class of priests and clerks, whose authority derives from a text that only they can read, will be suspicious of translations of that text, and inclined to forbid them. Wycliffe survived only because he was protected by the powerful John of Gaunt, and Tyndale was burned at the stake in Bruges. Still, by the time of King James I versions of the Bible in English were available in every church, and it was no longer a threat to any vested interest to authorize a new and complete translation. How lucky we English-speakers were, that this translation should have been made in the wake of the Elizabethan dramatists, at a time when the English language was at its most muscular and taut, when it could be applied to matters both earthly and heavenly and at once give a fully imagined account of them, gripped in what Gerard Manley Hopkins was to call the "native thew and sinew" of the English tongue. All subsequent translations, set beside this version, are on a downhill path toward banality, and by the time of the New English Bible (completed 1970) it is fair to say that the immediacy and urgency of the King James Bible had been more or less dissolved in watery literal-mindedness.

It is not just the literary merits of the King James Bible that recommend it, however. This was the Bible that the Pilgrim Fathers brought with them across the Atlantic, that the Methodist riders took around the farmsteads and cabins of rural America, the Bible that the merchant adventurers carried to India, Australia, and Africa, the Bible that provided the texts of Handel's oratorios and which inspired the hymns of Isaac Watts and Charles Wesley. It is the Bible that was planted in the depths of the English-speaking soul during the crucial centuries when the sphere of English-speaking freedom was formed. I doubt that you can understand the motives of the early settlers of America without it. It gave them the names of their towns and villages, the names of their children, the maxims of their daily life and the routines and rituals of their sparse forms of enjoyment. They fought and cursed, made love and sermons, in the language of the King James Bible, and everywhere about us we see the difference that this has made. Ask yourself how it came about that a suburb of Washington, D.C. should bear the beautiful Hebrew name of Bethesda and you will unearth a history that is dependent at almost every point on the King James Bible and its immediate sources in Tyndale and Myles Coverdale.

BUT THERE ARE OTHER and equally interesting ideas suggested by the history of biblical translation. When Christendom was first shaping itself from within the Roman Empire it was by means of the Vulgate, St. Jerome's Latin version of the sacred texts. Those early Christians did not doubt that their most authoritative text, the one which contained the most direct messages yet received from God to man, had been translated from other languages, spoken by other people, in whom God had, for reasons of His own, chosen to confide. A kind of openness to the world and to other ways of life was the natural consequence of this. And this openness has characterized the Christian religion ever since.

I may be wrong, but it does seem to me that this marks out an important cultural difference between Christian civilization and Islam. Ever since the 11th-century triumph of the Asharite school of Islam it has been orthodox to believe that the Koran cannot be translated, that the surahs were literally spoken, as we find them, to the Prophet, and that any attempt to represent their meaning in another language would falsify God's word. Versions of the Koran in other languages are therefore routinely described as "interpretations." A devout Muslim may learn to recite the Koran in Arabic without knowing, except in rough outline, what it means. And it is only Arabic speakers, who today form less than 20 percent of Muslims, who know what nonsense it is to say that this text cannot be translated. Of course, something islost in translation -- in particular the taut, breathless syntax of the original, and the poetic rhythms of the rhyming prose. But then, something is lost in every translation. And as our Bible teaches us, something may also be gained, and the gain may be more than the loss. It is perhaps true of St. John's Gospel that the Greek original is inferior to Tyndale as literature. But the reader of Tyndale will discover exactly what the writer of the Gospel intended to say.

The official non-translatability of the Koran has had important political consequences. The mullahs and ayatollahs have been able to assert a kind of monopoly over the sacred text, to withhold it and themselves from public scrutiny, and thereby to establish theocratic forms of government in which they hold power in God's name. The downgrading of secular authority and secular law, the claim to absolute and incorrigible justification, follow from this as a matter of course. This is what we have seen in Iran and will no doubt see in Egypt should the Muslim Brotherhood finally fulfill its ambition of ruling that country, its Christian minority included, according to theshari'ah.

The translatability of the Bible has had equally far-reaching political consequences. When the nation-states of Europe began to emerge after the Reformation, it was partly because people were beginning to see that law and language are far more reliable criteria of political loyalty than dynasty and religion, since law and language are instruments of peace, whereas dynasties and religions are always at war. The translations of the Bible brought the Christian religion to heel, contained it within the borders of the linguistic community, and overcame the medieval orthodoxy that, in matters of religion, the real authorities were situated elsewhere and outside the kingdom. They helped to domesticate the religious impulse and who can doubt, looking back at the wars of religion, that Europeans needed, at the time, to identify themselves in some other and more peaceful way than the way of faith?

TRANSLATION OPENS THE WAY to a new kind of scholarship. Granted that the texts we hold sacred originated in Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, and Greek, what do we know about the people who first wrote them down, and how can we be sure what they meant by the words they wrote? During the late 18th century this question gave rise to the science of biblical hermeneutics, which led the universities of Europe toward a new kind of skepticism. It became clear that the ancient texts belonged to specific social and political contexts, and that they were not necessarily aimed at the whole of humanity. People began to assign precise dates to them, to draw a map of Jewish history, and to distinguish which parts of the Gospels told the authentic story of Christ's mission, and which were later fabrications.

This scholarship has made it difficult to think of the Bible as God's word -- that is to say, as the word spoken to prophets and others by God. At best the Bible consists of words inspired by God, words which might have been marred and distorted in the process of recording them, and in which the element of inspiration and the element of fabrication might be hard to unravel. (Think of the bloodthirsty book of Joshua, for instance, and the story of Rahab, about whom the best can be said is that she was a whore: did God have a hand in that?) It is impossible that the Bible should now have, for the educated Christian, the kind of authority that the Koran has for the Muslim. The Bible is a text to be discussed and interrogated, whose message does not remain entirely the same from generation to generation, but which responds to the changing circumstances of those who consult it. And one proof of its inspired nature is that it always does respond, that it offers thoughts, arguments, words, and guidance in all the changing scenes of life -- including the changing scenes of our species-life. We can no longer point to the Bible as the final authority in any disputed question. But the Bible is as much a help to us as ever it was to the Pilgrim Fathers. It has persuaded us to take responsibility for our actions, and not to bequeath our problems to humorless old men in beards who pretend that only they know how to read the sacred text.

That makes it the more sad that the King James Bible, which raised us to a higher level of seriousness, should have slipped behind the screen, taking with it so much of the English-speaking soul. 

Justification by Faith in the Augsburg Confession

"Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness is His sight. Romans 3 and 4."
Augsburg Confession, IV. Justification. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 45. Tappert, p. 30. Heiser, p. 12f. Romans 3; Romans 4.

Luther on the Power and Use of the Word

This Would Solve a Lot of Problems, If Lutherans Still Taught This - As They Falsely Claim

Feel Free To Use My Graphics, No Restrictions

You are welcome to use my graphics--Tim Glende included--as long as you give credit to the source. Just provide the link or the name of the blog. I changed my mind about that. I would like to see the doctrinal quotations used, borrowed, even stolen, as long as they appear all over and influence more study.

Norma Boeckler's illustrations are protected by copyright, so you may not copy them. The trouble is, artwork tends to spread from copying copies, etc. Mequon graduates understand. They often give a sermon that is being preached, with the same title and Scripture, in ten denominations at once.

Point of Disgrace Blurb.Illiterate in English and Christian Doctrine

AC V has left a new comment on your post "Crumbled have spires in every land! Here stands th...":
"I would like to thank Limmer for expanding my empire and honoring me by stealing my email, sending it out in his name and Parlow's."

UWM's "Point of Grace" (....Lutheran?.....Church?) version of Willow Creek:

Worship

Our Sunday morning worship service is at 6:30 P.M. (sic) We have our Choir practices (in season) before the 6:30 P.M. service. Prayer group follows the dinner after the 6:30 P.M. service. Our worship style is a non traditional one in the sense that there are no pews, rather table and chairs. We use guitar, piano and percussion and a variety of other insturments (sic) for our music along with video screen. The point of it all is to gather together for an opportunity of fellowship, confession, forgivness, (sic) encouragement, bible (sic) study and prayer. We hope that you will join us.

http://www.tpog.net/worship/

LP Cruz, Calvinism, Universal Grace

L. P. Cruz, PhD, math.



I have been away for so long in these Calvinist and Arminian categories. People use the word Grace elastically. It is used as a place word for love etc etc.


However, by enlarge, in Calvinism, universal grace means universal salvation. It is said that Calvinism believe in universal grace but is limited by the atonement. Calvinism believe in universal salvation but if you are not one of those Jesus died for you are not included in it. This is how the term is being used.


For a discussion of this, see the entry on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyraldism. In this entry you will see what universal grace means in Calvinism. See the quote below with notes in parens (which are mine BTW).


And his[Amyraut's] opponents allowed that the idea of a universal grace, by which [universal grace that is] no one was actually saved unless included in the particular, effective decree of election, was permissible. In this way hypothetical universalism was sanctioned as a permissible view, along with the particularism that had characterized historic Reformed orthodoxy, and a schism in the French Church was avoided
Therefore here, grace and being saved is the same.


Because Atonement and Justification are the same in Calvinism, Amyraut's view ( he affirmed TU(L)IP except the L), is called hypothetical universalism. Can we see how this category mixes and collapses concepts?


Indeed, here is a site which discusses universal grace and universal atonement in the same breath and concludes in biblical universalism


http://www.spiritofgrace.us/gracestudies/saving-grace.html


This group affirms universal grace (universal justification) and universal atonement.

You can then ask LIndee, how is his Lutheranism different from this group since he uses the same Calvinistic categories together in one sentence.


In fact, this is a Calvinistic way characterizing Lutheranism - using the words universal grace and universal atonement in the same sentence.


Lorraine Boetner a Reformed Theologian of long ago, used the same terms together to describe and characterize Lutheranism .


Goodness, shall we accept the description of Lutheranism from a Calvinist? I would like to vomit on this guy's coffee.


I agree with you, I do think, Lindee's piece can be made to enlarge and welcome the entry of UOJ on the scene, such that anyone who denied UOJ like the Ichabodians, will be branded right away as a Calvinist.


LPC

***

GJ - I am adding this from a source:

What follows is a quote from the Heick entry in Bodensieck (volume 1, pp. 164-165, The Lutheran Awakening ):

The anti-nomistic tendencies of Grundtvigianism were shared by a movement named after the Danish island of Bornholm on which, for a time, it gained a special foothold(P.C.→Trandberg, who later moved to Chicago, →Rosenius, →Hedberg; v.i.). The theology of these men is marked by a one-sided emphasis on the Gospel of free grace. They practically identified reconciliation and justification, "The world is justified in Christ" (objective justification).

Crumbled have spires in every land! Here stands the font before our eyes Telling how God did receive us; The altar recalls Christ’s sacrifice And what His table doth give us;

AC V has left a new comment on your post "Downward Trends for Synodical Sinecures":

"Madison student chapel next?"

Looks like it's already coming down, crumbling that is...in Lutheran worship practice. At the chapel dedication service if it weren't for the gown Trapp is wearing, you'd think it was an E-Free congregation complete with praise band, screens, and without an altar and font:




Willowcreek's Little Chapel

Praise band. Check. Movie screens. Check. No altar. Check. No communion rail. Check. No baptismal font. Check.
Box on wheels pulpit. Check.

Trapp spent millions on the building and joined the Willow Creek Association, twin goals of Church and Change. Doctrinal deviancy is a plus in WELS: the less Lutheran, the better.

Answering Whether Lindee Advocates UOJ "Universal Grace"

UOJ has its own canon: Kretzmann, Zorn, J. P. Meyer, Valleskey, Bivens. Tis funny how UOJ crosses over into Fuller Seminary study (Valleskey, Bivens).

Frederick said...

"We have misgivings", "deep misgivings", "seem to allow"

It is a travesty of our current time in the history of the world, and specifically in the history of the Lutheran Church, that there is a hesitancy to make clear statements identifying specific teachings as being false. Perhaps it is a result of being so near the end of the age that the current climate within the Lutheran Synods inhibits open discussion of doctrine and practice that directly or indirectly exposes the Synods to Scriptural and Confessional scrutiny. In my opinion the opening of this post is a reflection of this climate negatively affecting the ability to call a spade a spade for the benefit of the Church. "We have misgivings", "deep misgivings", "seem to allow" are all used in reference to doctrinal teachings made by theologians of the LCMS, ELS and Wels which are not taught in Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions and, in fact, stand opposed to them. Matthew 5:37 and James 5:12 are applicable to this issue. We should be bold in Christ, slaves to Him alone and speak clearly and plainly the pure Word, letting our yea be yea and our nay be nay. May we never equivocate on what the clear Word of Scripture declares.

"we are yet convinced that it is necessary to recognize in our justification both objective and subjective aspects."

I don't believe this is true. This is a solution in search of a problem. I would defend my contention by pointing directly to the Lutheran Confessions. As Pastor Rydecki clearly stated in an earlier post, the BOC fully and faithfully explains everything that Scripture teaches concerning Justification. Acknowledging that the BOC does not treat Justification as Objective and Subjective but as one Justification declared by faith alone in Christ. There are no false doctrines that are not adequately dealt with using Scripture and the BOC without having to parse the doctrine with the Objective and Subjective nature of Justification. This is proven by the fact that Subjective Justification is equally Objective. There is no aspect of Justification that is not Objective. Even my believing is worked solely by the Holy Spirit through the efficacious Means of Grace, lest any man should boast. This Scriptural truth really makes the differentiating terms of Objective and Subjective misleading from the very beginning. Again, OJ and SJ are solutions looking for a real problem and leading souls away from Christ's pure doctrine in the process.

"On the other hand, all of God's subjective work, His work in man, must constitute nothing other than the distribution of God's completed work in Christ, and not itself be any part of His work on man's behalf. If man's faith completes God's work, the wicked falsehood of synergism prevails."

To say that, "His work in man (is) not itself any part of His work on man's behalf" is incorrect. How can it be said that the gracious gift of faith with which man clings alone to Christ for the forgiveness of his sins, through which a man dies to sin and is raised again, just as Christ, to Life in Him and through which a man becomes a child of God, is not a part of Christ's work on man's behalf? It is true that the Atonement was completed by Christ at Calvary: Christ's righteousness paid for all sins. As a man's full trust in Christ is an Objective work of God in those He has called, it cannot be said that the gracious working of that faith is not a part of Christ's work on man's behalf. This sentiment and confession concerning faith is a fruit of the root of the weed called Universal Objective Justification (UOJ). Please allow me to explain by addressing the latter half of the quote. To say that, "if man's faith completes God's work, the wicked falsehood of synergism prevails" is incorrect. Quite possibly as a hyper reaction to works righteousness, Objective Justification (OJ) teaches that if faith does anything ie: justifies the individual or is righteousness, then it is synergistic and becomes a work of man to justify himself. Because of this, OJ teaches that faith is nothing but an open and outstretched hand receiving what was already declared to be true: that the sinner was already forgiven, justified and declared righteous by God without and long before faith. Faith is of the Holy Spirit, it is Christ's righteousness graciously worked in man through Baptism and the Word purely taught and strengthened through Word and Sacrament. Because it is solely of the Holy Spirit the Confessions say that faith justifies, faith is that righteousness whereby the unjust are declared just, Justified. Synergism can never be applied to anything that faith does since it is a gracious gift of God. The quoted confession concerning faith is a consistent teaching of the false gospel of Objective Justification, neither of which are found in Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions.

This error is extended further in the post when it is stated, "If, in the atoning work of Christ, God has only met half-way, so that now He is merely able to forgive us our sins; if justification itself is not accomplished until faith is in the sinner’s heart: why, then the atoning work of Christ is not sufficient to effect forgiveness and justification, but our faith must also contribute something to this end. Ohio’s position in this matter is shared by Iowa. Both synods deprive justifying faith of its Biblical character, that of simply receiving, accepting, and grasping, the forgiveness of sins which is in store for all the world in Christ Jesus;"

The Synodical Conferences error was to teach the forgiveness of sins of those upon whom the wrath of God, over sin, still abides: the whole unbelieving world who stand outside of Christ. The Ohio Synods error was in "met half-way" which teaches synergism of man's required work to complete his own justification. Your error was in attributing faith to man and thus stripping it of the nature and work that God has given it. You all have deprived justifying faith of its Biblical character.

Thank you,
Frederick Schroeder

November 19, 2010 5:52 AM

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2010/11/carl-manthey-zorn-on-justification.html

ELCA Budget

"We did it. We finally did it. We destroyed the Lutheran Church."


ALPB

In Sunday's (!) ELCA News Service release ELCA Council Recommends Budget Proposals Through 2013, we finally find this in the 16th (of 18) paragraph:

          At its meeting April 9-10, the council recommended the assembly adopt a current
          fund spending proposal of $61.8 million for 2012, along with an $18.5 million income
          proposal for ELCA World Hunger. Additionally, for 2013, it recommended the assembly
          adopt a current fund income proposal of $61.9 million and an $18.5 million ELCA
          World Hunger income proposal.

The budget approved by the 2009 CWA for 2010 was $76.69 million, with 2011's at $76.78 -- both of which were reduced to $69 million by the ELCA Church Council a few months later.

The 1990 ELCA budget was $102.5 million.  According to the CPI calulator of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, it would take a bit over $173 million to purchase the same goods and services in 2011.

PAx, Steven+

***

GJ - Don't believe for a second that ELCA spends that much on world hunger. The money is siphoned off to support lobbyists in Washington DC, all the states, and Canada. The best buddy of WELS and Missouri lobbies for abortion and evolution with world hunger money - not that there is anything wrong with that.

Here It Comes Again

Looking for Luther has left a new comment on your post "Doing the Lindee Two-Step":

Just seeking some clarification here.

Have you spoken with Pastor (sic) Lindee? Attempting to take his words and actions correctly- perhaps my universal grace he simply was trying to state that God's grace isn't only for some people, but for all people. (For God wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth) I can see how saying universal grace might give the impression of the world recieving Grace apart from the Means of Grace. Again, I would hope this is not Pastor Lindee's stance. Rather, God so loved the world- that's grace. The world did not deserve such love. And yet God, in his grace, sent his son to die for the sins of the World.(Does this mean the whole world is going to heaven? Sadly, no.) I think perhaps this is what was meant by "universal grace"- a counter to the Calvinist idea that God's grace was only for the elect.

***

GJ - Have you spoken with him? I do not know which entity appointed you as his guard dog. I would call this a case of ordination-by-comment. He is a computer guy who attended Northwestern College.

I have read his previous excuses for UOJ, which are posted on the Intrepid blog, unless they were euthanized. I take him at his word until he repudiates his errors.

That weird cracking noise you might hear happens when you open the Book of Concord the first time. The glue on the binding crackles a bit. Be gentle and the Triglotta will last a long time, even after being thrown under the bus.

According to the Large Catechism, published doctrine can be debated in public without resorting to the Matthew 18/Eighth Commandment Two Step. The charge of slander cannot be against discussing doctrine.

Let's say Luther, Chemnitz, and Paul are wrong about justification by faith. It does not hurt to debate the topic in public.

Pastors and laity are doctrinally comatose because the Pietistic leaders prevent any honest discussion. What happened to the synod that held meetings all over the US about fellowship with Missouri? Now they go to Fuller events with Missouri, ELCA, and anything that moves.

In addition, a careful reading of the Large Catechism will also show that notorious criminals can be discussed in public, to serve as a deterrent against similar crimes. Instead, WELS has covered up for its criminal class of clergy.

WELS DP Ed Werner was known for arranging the adoption of illegitimate children from his former parish. The babies were from minor girls. Who was their daddy?

As soon as the Werner story came out, WELS had a cover story, which was fronted by a DP's son, Keith Free, now head of American missions. Keith did not seem to buy the story, which was quickly buried under the enormous heading of "Things We Never Discuss."

There is a close relationship between refusal to clarify doctrine (beyond the repeat-after-me stuff) and the criminal cover-ups of murder, embezzlement, molestation, and more.

---

Looking for Luther has left a new comment on your post "Here It Comes Again":

Hey,

Meine schult. Forgive me for my error. Honest mistake. I read Intrepids frequently, and tend to just blur the group together as "pastors".

Anyways,I'll shoot Lindee an e-mail to ask him about the "universal grace" thing. I just would hate for his words to be taken out of context and misconstrued. I understand you feel very strongly from his past remarks that you know exactly what he meant, but I'd prefer to hear him explain himself and then, without a shadow of a doubt, eithe (sic) exonerate him or condemn him.

Thank you for your time.

***

GJ - When sending a snarky comment, spelling counts.

We all await--with bated breath--your verdict.

I was forgiven before I was born, according to your bunch, so your response seems less than gracious.

I would be happy if the entire UOJ crowd would say "Jackson teaches justification by faith" (linked) "We are against it, for the following reasons..."

But no, they argue without evidence, beat around the bush, and expect everyone to know their target. Lindee was not being polemical in the post cited, but he was not being candid either.

Holy Communion Quotations

By Norma Boeckler

Holy Communion

"And just as the Word has been given in order to excite this faith, so the Sacrament has been instituted in order that the outward appearance meeting the eyes might move the heart to believe [and strengthen faith]. For through these, namely, through Word and Sacrament, the Holy Ghost works."

Apology Augsburg Confession, XXIV (XII), #70. The Mass. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 409. Tappert, p. 262. Heiser, p. 123.         

"Our adversaries have no testimonies and no command from Scripture for defending the application of the ceremony for liberating the souls of the dead, although from this they derive infinite revenue. Nor, indeed, is it a light sin to establish such services in the Church without the command of God and without the example of Scripture, and to apply to the dead the Lord's Supper, which was instituted for commemoration and preaching among the living [for the purpose of strengthening the faith of those who use the ceremony]. This is to violate the Second Commandment, by abusing God's name."

Apology Augsburg Confession, XXIV. #89. The Mass. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 413f. Tappert, p. 265f. Heiser, p. 124.     

"Whoever denies the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper must pervert the words of Institution where Christ the Lord, speaking of that which He gives His Christians to eat, says: 'This is My body,' and, speaking of that which He gives them to drink, says: 'This is My blood.' [Also 1 Corinthians 10:16]

Francis Pieper, The Difference between Orthodox and Heterodox Churches, and Supplement, Coos Bay, Oregon: St. Paul's Lutheran Church, 1981, p. 40. 1 Corinthians 10:16.

"If Reformed theology wishes to free itself from the confusion of self-contradiction and its other Christological errors, it must by all means eliminate its rationalistic principle that the finite is not capable of the infinite."

Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols., St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951, II, p. p. 275.                

"And all these are established by the words by which Christ has instituted it, and which every one who desires to be a Christian and go to the Sacrament should know. For it is not our intention to admit to it and to administer it to those who know not what they seek, or why they come."

Large Catechism, The Sacrament of the Altar. #2. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 753. Tappert, p. 447. Heiser, p. 210.         

"For it is not founded upon the holiness of men, but upon the Word of God. And as no saint upon earth, yea, no angel in heaven, can make bread and wine to be the body and blood of Christ, so also can no one change or alter it, even though it be misused. For the Word by which it became a Sacrament and was instituted does not become false because of the person or his unbelief. For He does not say: If you believe or are worthy you receive My body and blood, but: Take, eat and drink; this is My body and blood."

The Large Catechism, Sacrament of the Altar. #16-17. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 757. Tappert, p. 448. Heiser, p. 211.      

"On this account it is indeed called a food of souls, which nourishes and strengthens the new man. For by Baptism we are first born anew; but (as we said before) there still remains, besides, the old vicious nature of flesh and blood in man, and there are so many hindrances and temptations of the devil and of the world that we often become weary and faint, and sometimes also stumble."

The Large Catechism, Sacrament of the Altar. #23. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 757. Tappert, p. 449. Heiser, p. 211f.        

"Therefore it {communion}is given for a daily pasture and sustenance, that faith may refresh and strengthen itself so as not to fall back in such a battle, but become every stronger and stronger. For the new life must be so regulated that it continually increase and progress; but it must suffer much opposition. For the devil is such a furious enemy that when he sees that we oppose him and attack the old man, and that he cannot topple us over by force, he prowls and moves about on all sides, tries all devices, and does not desist, until he finally wearies us, so that we either renounce our faith or yield hands and feet and become listless or impatient. Now to this end the consolation is here given when the heart feels that the burden is becoming too heavy, that it may here obtain new power and refreshment."

The Large Catechism, Sacrament of the Altar. #24-27. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 759. Tappert, p. 449. Heiser, p. 211.  

"For here in the Sacrament you are to receive from the lips of Christ forgiveness of sin, which contains and brings with it the grace of God and the Spirit with all His gifts, protection, shelter, and power against death and the devil and all misfortune."

The Large Catechism, Sacrament of the Altar. #70. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 769. Tappert, p. 454. Heiser, p. 214.         

"Therefore, if you cannot feel it {the works of the flesh, Galatians 5:199ff. above}, at least believe the Scriptures; they will not lie to you, and they know your flesh better than you yourself...Yet, as we have said, if you are quite dead to all sensibility, still believe the Scriptures, which pronounce sentence upon you. And, in short, the less you feel your sins and infirmities, the more reason have you to go to the Sacrament to seek help and a remedy."

The Large Catechism, Sacrament of the Altar. #76-78. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 771. Tappert, p. 455. Heiser, p. 214.       

"Calvin was dissatisfied with Zwingli's interpretation of the Lord's Supper, but his own interpretation was also wrong. He said that a person desiring to receive the body and blood of Christ could not get it under the bread and wine, but must by his faith mount up to heaven, where the Holy Spirit would negotiate a way for feeding him with the body and blood of Christ. These are mere vagaries, which originated in Calvin's fancy. But an incident like this shows that men will not believe that God bears us poor sinners such great love that He is willing to come to us."

C. F. W. Walther, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, trans., W. H. T. Dau, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1928, p. 185.     

"Is the Lord's Supper the place to display my toleration, my Christian sympathy, or my fellowship with another Christian, when that is the very point in which most of all we differ; and in which the difference means for me everything--means for me, the reception of the Savior's atonement? Is this the point to be selected for the display of Christian union, when in fact it is the very point in which Christian union does not exist?"

Theodore E. Schmauk and C. Theodore Benze, The Confessional Principle and the Confessions, as Embodying the Evangelical Confession of the Christian Church, Philadelphia: 1911, p. 905f.        

"For in Confession as in the Lord's Supper you have the additional advantage, that the Word is applied to your person alone. For in preaching it flies out into the whole congregation, and although it strikes you also, yet you are not so sure of it; but here it does not apply to anyone except you. Ought it not to fill your heart with joy to know a place where God is ready to speak to you personally? Yea, if we had a chance to hear an angel speak we would surely run to the ends of the earth."

Martin Luther, Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed. John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983 II, p. 199.     

"In addition there is this perversion, that whereas Christ instituted the use of His Supper for all who receive it, who take, eat, and drink, the papalist Mass transfers the use and benefit of the celebration of the Lord's Supper in our time to the onlookers, who do not communicate, yes, to those who are absent, and even to the dead."

Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, trans., Fred Kramer, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1986, II, p. 498.       

"However, you will be sure as to whether the sacrament is efficacious in your heart, if you watch your conduct toward your neighbor. If you discover that the words and he symbol soften and move you to be friendly to your enemy, to take an interest in your neighbor's welfare, and to help him bear his suffering and affliction, then all is well. On the other hand, if you do not find it so, you continue uncertain even if you were to commune a hundred times a day with devotions so great as to move you to tears for very joy; for wonderful devotions like this, very sweet to experience, yet as dangerous as sweet, amount to nothing before God. Therefore we must above all be certain for ourselves, as Peter writes in 2 Peter 1:10: 'Give the more diligence to make your calling and election sure.'"

Martin Luther, Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed. John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983 II, p. 211. 2 Peter 1:10.

"Hence it is manifest how unjustly and maliciously the Sacramentarian fanatics (Theodore Beza) deride the Lord Christ, St. Paul, and the entire Church in calling this oral partaking, and that of the unworthy, duos pilos caudae equinae et commentum, cuius vel ipsum Satanam pudeat, as also the doctrine concerning the majesty of Christ, excrementum Satanae, quo diabolus sibi ipsi et hominibus illudat, that is, they speak so horribly of it that a godly Christian man should be ashamed to translate it. [two hairs of a horse's tail and an invention of which even Satan himself would be ashamed; Satan's excrement, by which the devil amuses himself and deceives men].

Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article VII, Lord's Supper, 67, Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 997. Tappert, p. 581f. Heiser, p. 270.    

"Dr. Luther, who, above others, certainly understood the true and proper meaning of the Augsburg Confession, and who constantly remained steadfast thereto till his end, and defended it, shortly before his death repeated his faith concerning this article with great zeal in his last Confession, where he writes thus: 'I rate as one concoction, namely, as Sacramentarians and fanatics, which they also are, all who will not believe that the Lord's bread in the Supper is His true natural body, which the godless or Judas received with the mouth, as well as did St. Peter and all [other] saints; he who will not believe this (I say) should let me alone, and hope for no fellowship with me; this is not going to be altered [thus my opinion stands, which I am not going to change]."

Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article VII, Lord's Supper, 33, Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 983. Tappert, p. 575. Heiser, p. 267.  

"Besides this, you will also have the devil about you, whom you will not entirely tread under foot, because our Lord Christ Himself could not entirely avoid him. Now, what is the devil? Nothing else than what the Scriptures call him, a liar and murderer. A liar, to lead the heart astray from the Word of God, and blind it, that you cannot feel your distress or come to Christ. A murderer, who cannot bear to see you live one single hour. If you could see how many knives, darts, and arrows are every moment aimed at you, you would be glad to come to the Sacrament as often as possible."

The Large Catechism, Sacrament of the Altar. #80-82. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 771f. Tappert, p. 456. Heiser, p. 214.