Saturday, May 14, 2011

Bored Layman Wants To Discuss Ron Paul for President


A WELS LCMS layman wants to discuss Ron Paul for President. I do not like political discussions on this blog, but people may want to learn more about presidential candidates. Feel free to post comments with website information, etc.

Ron Paul was barely on the radar four years ago. Now he is creating quite a stir. I am not sure who would be the best conservative candidate this time.

We should all study the issues and be well informed. The "new" Obama research has not surprised me, because I was posting most of it before his election. Long ago, before another election, I predicted: "The Clintons will be so bad that entire bookstores  will be filled with books about them." That came true.

If people want to start flame wars about various candidates, I will just eliminate the thread. This post is designed to link to information. I am glad that a member asked me about Ron Paul about four years ago. That made me pay attention to news about him. His son is also a politician. These are unusual times.

I will only let informational comments through. If you think a website has a good argument for or against someone, share the link. Thanks.

---

California wrote:

For many years I was actively involved in politics in one capacity or another in organized activity related to a political party, participation in local candidate's campaigns both local, state and national, as well a paid position in a county campaign for a U.S. Senate candidate who was not elected.

It was the latter experience, decades ago, which opened my eyes to the reality that energies expended by the ordinary voter at local levels has very limited effect on outcomes of elections, for there exist entities which the political laymen has little or no reason to suspect, who work behind the scenes (often of the same party of a candidate the establishment does not like). After that awakening, I decided to expend any political energies or experience to working on issues. Another conclusion reached is that it is sad that voters begin to assess candidates only after the campaign season begins. It is important that candidate's history (voting records, public personal information, writings, utterances, etc.) be studied and known long before a candidate declares candidacy for office. Then campaign rhetoric should be measured against the existing track record.

It needs to be kept in mind that when assessing secular political candidates, the measure must be in terms of Constitutional integrity, for that is what they swear to uphold. Their commission is not to be compared with religious fellowship. That is a mistake many self identified political conservative Christians continue to make.

Before discussion about Ron Paul's candidacy, there are plenty of resources to study before launching into pro or con. His Congressional Record is public for anyone to review. A google search will bring up first person speeches and positions taken....enough to occupy anyone. He has written books, and books have been written about him. A couple come to mind. 1. END THE FED 2. THE REVOLUTION: A MANIFESTO 3. LIBERTY DEFINED (new book just out). Another less known little volume, THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION (The writings and speeches of Congressman Ron Paul with foreward by Charlotte Iserbyt-author of the Deliberate Dumbing Down of America). The latter was available on lulu.com.


AFTER doing the homework, then discussion re: specific candidates, Ron Paul or any others would at least be based on what is on public record or whether pertinent information about any candidate has been obviously withheld from public records.

AC V Likes the Epitome of the
Holy Communion Debate:
What's Wrong with Drive-by Sacraments



AC V has left a new comment on your post "Closed Communion Means Holy Communion within the C...":

"Holy Communion is a pastoral and congregational act, just the opposite of distributing Quarter Pounders at McDonalds. There is no Constitutional right to commune at another parish. People in the same sect should generally stick to their own congregation."

Excellent summary!

Closed Communion Means Holy Communion within the Congregation, Among Those Not Under Discipline


i-eat-pietists (http://i-eat-pietists.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Imagine a Doctrinal Pussycat Writing a Public Letter...":

I hardly think you can go so far as to say that Pres. Schroeder is allowing "love" to overcome all forms of doctrine. Likely, the whole situation is not known and false conclusions are being drawn. If your first assumption is that they are heterodox, then you are going to see that in everything they say and do, but if you don't, and know that these men are faithful students of the Word, then one can easily see how this could be more than just showing love and slacking in doctrine. Even so, fellowship is not a haughty, demoralizing doctrine that we preach, but rather it is a teaching of the joy believers share with each other. For the sake of true unity, we separate ourselves from those who teach false doctrine. Knowing this and that pastors are taught such things, couldn't we assume that there was far more to this situation than just what Pres. Schroeder said?

---

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Imagine a Doctrinal Pussycat Writing a Public Lett...":

Other blogs are simply gushing about (W)ELS President Mark Schroeder's 2011 Emmaus Conference statements. I take it they agree 100% with his confession. That, or, they are using the New Age NNIV version of Matthew 18 - you can publicly praise a person's public confession but any criticism must be expressed privately.

In his Emmaus essay President Schroeder relates a situation where a young WELS pastor was faced with a decision to allow a congregation member's tearful sister to commune with her even though the visiting sister was a member of the Lutheran Church - Canada (LC-C is in fellowship with the LCMS). The WELS pastor allowed the sister to commune with the congregation and her sister. Pastor Schroeder finished this example by stating, "But it was an exception that a loving application of fellowship principles allowed - even demanded - him to make." [page 46]

By this confession the President of the (W)ELS teaches that Love and Loving applications of doctrine may allow, nay, it demands that the church act against God's Word, against Christ and His doctrine. And since nowhere in Scripture, or the Lutheran Confessions, is this taught the exercise of these Loving applications are completely subjective and at the discretion of the clergy and laity. Therefore we have the situation at St. Peter where the overwhelming love for lost souls has lead the church and synod district officials to teach and practice falsely with an eye on making disciples for Christ. What did Ski say he would do to make a disciple, "everything short of sinning."

Chances are you won't hear anyone publicly rebuke the false statement by President Schroeder. They are far too eager to reunite the old synodical conference even though each of them, the ELS, WELS and LCMS, are utterly rotting with false teaching and false practice contrary to Scripture, Christ and the Lutheran Confessions. Will the faint milquetoast confessional voices be able to stem the tide of a united apostasy? Not likely since they are unwilling to publicly confess the central doctrine of Justification with "this we confess" and "this we condemn" for fear of offending their unbelieving "Christian" brothers and sisters. All while Jeske and Time of Grace risk a major groin pull while straddling the (W)ELS and LCMS. And if the ELS was willing to strip naked and spin one hundred and eighty degrees on the doctrine of the Public Ministry of the Word in order to create fellowship with the WELS, what are they not capable of, or willing to do, to merge with the LCMS (or Rome).

The (W)ELS willingness to challenge Christ's doctrine was quite evident with ELS President John Moldstad's response to the issue of women's suffrage in the church at the Emmaus Conference. Pres. Moldstad stated that although women are currently not allowed to vote in the congregations there may be ways to change the governance of churches that would then allow them to actively participate in the decisions. All that's left to say is, "Welcome to the LCMS".

***

GJ - More later. For the moment, admire the graphic and dwell on the words.

---

AC V has left a new comment on your post "Closed Communion Means Holy Communion within the C...":

Dwelling on these words "when that is the very point in which most of all we differ;"

Don't have the context in front of me, but considering the confessional battles taking place in Schmauk's day, was he referring to union efforts between Real Presence Lutherans and Representative Presence "Protestants"? That's a far cry from an exceptional case of a WELS pastor communing a confessional Lutheran who happens to belong to a Lutheran synod with which the WELS is not in fellowship.

***

GJ - I am back. I was thinking about the Mark Schroeder anecdote during my absence. I find it a bit condescending to hear examples of WELS pastors actually communing LCMS laity, because every WELS pastoral story begins with how truly awful Missouri is - compared to the glories of the Wisconsin Sect. WELS leaders like to prove how dumb and uneducated the Missouri pastors are, leaving me to wonder, "Dumber than Fox Valley?" Or Missouri has no doctrinal discipline. Again I wonder, "Unlike WELS?"

Holy Communion is a pastoral and congregational act, just the opposite of distributing Quarter Pounders at McDonalds. There is no Constitutional right to commune at another parish. People in the same sect should generally stick to their own congregation. I recall a couple of women who visited a WELS congregation with a traditional pastor, a friend of mine. They spent the Bible study hour arguing against the WELS position on women usurping authority, which made sense - they were usurping authority and trying to teach men, including the pastor leading the class. They were from St. Paul German Village, Columbus, which was not a member of WELS at that time. The pastor of the church they visited refused to commune them because of their disavowal of Biblical and practice. They went away in a terrible huff, and the circuit pastor (also their pastor) was very sympathetic about their noble cause.

The presumption of open communion, semi-open communion, demi-semi open communion, and close communion comes from its advocates. I recall a woman who visited during the Greek Orthodox Church tour and expected to be communed, without being Greek Orthodox. She was quite insistent, but the priest said, "You need to take classes and join the congregation." She wanted to bypass the fuss and bother.

In ancient days, Holy Communion was offered only to communicants. The visitors were ushered out and the doors were locked. That is closed communion.

I am not going to look up the exact wording of Mark Schroeder's anecdote and decide upon it. The three sects are collapsing toward each other, based on a common mockery of justification by faith, a mutual embrace of Maggot Church (Emergent Church) blasphemies.

Missouri, WELS, and the Little Sect on the Prairie commune with Leonard Sweet, various Roman Catholic dignitaries (some straight, some not so), Craig Groeschel, Bill Hybels, Mark Driscoll, Ed Stetzer, Andy Stanley, and many more. These "conservative Lutherans" invite these clowns to teach them the Word of God. These "conservative Lutherans" promote their books, paying money to their odious schools of nonsense. These "conservative Lutherans" have no problem with their own pastors giving sermons verbatim from the apostates mentioned above.

Is communion between WELS and Missouri actually the issue? That is like asking whether one should put down the lid in the head when the Titanic is already half-sunk.

The three sects should be honest and espouse the open communion they already practice with all denominations. The ELS is known for communing ELCA members. Jay Webber advocated it, because "it is easier when relatives visit." The Wisconsin Sect missions people have mandated Don't Ask, Don't Tell communion practices for decades, so they have done the same thing.

Denying people Holy Communion because of their doctrinal affiliation is the best way to get them to change. The Word of God offends or converts, hardens or enlightens. I could give many examples, but the blind will only become blinder if I do.

Friday, May 13, 2011

Imagine a Doctrinal Pussycat Writing a Public Letter of Support


TERMINATED - Posted on Light from Light

Linda Sasieta
Dear Rick, my dear brother in Christ,
As mentioned above in so many ways, there is nothing externally that can separate you from Christ. A paper from an erring pastor, supported by yes-man voters who either blindly follow this pastor due to weakness/absence of spine, unwillingness to follow the example of the eager Bereans and research what he says, or are possibly some new members brought in by social gospel and have NO idea what the truth really is, is something for which he and his followers will answer to Jesus. The guilt is not yours to carry. These present sufferings you are experiencing are not worth comparing to the glory that will be revealed in you.

This church has put you as an outcast, but you have more support than you know. There are many inside WELS and obviously outside WELS that support you; the blessed communion of saints supports you. You are never alone, despite the words and actions of these weak people. You have a great example in our beloved Martin Luther who wore the same shoes. He wasn’t looking to start something new, but wanted to help his church to see the light (sounds a lot like you). God used Him to guide His Church through bad times.

The WELS IS in bad times. Most of the members don’t even know it; the same could be said for the pastors too. Of course some are aware, but I am so TIRED of things being hidden from the view of the whole church. So many of us are hanging on to the blogs and websites of those who are taking bold stands just as you have done. Thank you Rick for YOUR bold stand, not based on your ideas, but those that God tells us in His Holy Word! 

I wish the people who are in positions to do something, and know that they can and SHOULD do something but have not been in the past, find a voice and a spine and start standing for the truth. Enough of the “loving manner” talks and move things along! Specifically I am speaking of the Synod President who has talked the talk, and does have support if he finds his voice to speak up. Silence and weak positions are not what is needed. By doing this a silent approval is being given to the false doctrine that is among us.

All the above comments are correct. I especially agree with Douglas Lindee and Joe Sarnowski. This may have been meant as evil towards you, but God can and will work it for your good.

One thing is true already. You are now free to talk about all the things of which they tried to bind you from saying. You are not subject to their “manmade” rules, but God’s rules. Your words and talents may better serve our Lord from “outside” the so-called church, as from “inside” from where this falseness originates.
What has changed for you? You received a paper from an erring church body. Not being lighthearted about your situation, but you could possibly put that next to your confirmation certificate because it is a witness to the bold stand you have taken to try to communicate with your church about their persistent error and the stand you have taken for our Lord.

May God continue to bless you as you persevere in your walk with Him. He loves you and is always for you, no matter what happens in this world.

Blogger Is Restoring Deleted Posts, They Claim



From deep inside HAL:

Blogger is back

What a frustrating day. We’re very sorry that you’ve been unable to publish to Blogger for the past 20.5 hours. We’re nearly back to normal — you can publish again, and in the coming hours posts and comments that were temporarily removed should be restored. Thank you for your patience while we fix this situation. We use Blogger for our own blogs, so we’ve also felt your pain.

Did I Break Google Blogger?


I finished a post on WELS Doctrinal Pussycat Englebrecht. His opposition to Lutheran doctrine and his support of plagiarizing false doctrine should eliminate him from the ministry altogether.

I kept trying to post it. After several tries, Google Blogger broke down completely and all posting stopped. It was a global scandal, falling on Friday the 13th, the very day Jacques De Molay was executed by the evil King of France.

The trouble with people trying to deal with Glende and Ski is that it gives Englebrecht more opportunities to obstruct, duck, prevaricate, cavil, threaten, and get even.

The real problem is DP Enabler.

Based on SP Schroeder's presentation at the Emmaus Conference, Englebrecht has broken all ties with the sect they both claim to love so dearly.

It would be better if they loved orthodox Lutheran doctrine.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

LutherQuest (sic) Dogpile - Experience the Love



Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "F. Pieper versus Calov and the Book of Concord":

I had the same experience on Luther Quest (sic). I brought up a question about UOJ which initiated and susstained what might be described as an LQ Dog Pile.

http://www.lutherquest.org/discus40/messages/69842/68185.html?1200691900

***

GJ - LQ devotes itself to attacking Luther's doctrine. They are so dense that they cannot even spot Robert Preus' repudiation of UOJ.

Calov, The Book of Concord, The Scriptures - All Are in Harmony about Justification by Faith.
All Are Opposed to Enthusiasm





Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "F. Pieper versus Calov and the Book of Concord":

71] "but we maintain this, that properly and truly, by faith itself, we are for Christ's sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God. And because "to be justified" means that out of unjust men just men are made, or born again, it means also that they are pronounced or accounted just. For Scripture speaks in both ways. [The term "to be justified" is used in two ways: to denote, being converted or regenerated; again, being accounted righteous. Accordingly we wish first to show this, that faith alone makes of an unjust, a just man, i.e., receives remission of sins". http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php

29. You cannot extricate yourself from unbelief, nor can the Law do it for you. All your works in intended fulfilment of the Law must remain works of the Law and powerless to justify in the sight of God, who regards as just only believing children.

37. Note, Paul everywhere teaches justification, not by works, but solely by faith; and not as a process, but instantaneous. The testament includes in itself everything--justification, salvation, the inheritance and great blessing. Through faith it is instantaneously enjoyed, not in part, but all. Truly is it plain, then, that faith alone affords such blessings of God, justification and salvation-- immediately and not in process as must be the case with works

74. But what is the process whereby Christ gives us such a spirit and redeems us from under the Law? The work is effected solely by faith. He who believes that Christ came to redeem us, and that he has accomplished it, is really redeemed. As he believes, so is it with him. Faith carries with it the child-making spirit. The apostle here explains by saying that Christ has redeemed us from under the Law that we might receive the adoption of sons. As before stated, all must be effected through faith. Now we have discussed the five points of the verse.
http://www.trinitylutheranms.org/MartinLuther/MLSermons/Galatians4_1_7.html

By the BOC confession above (71) the false gospel of UOJ is destroyed and shown as being false and contrary to Christ and His Righteousness. The doctrinal statements of the ELS, WELS and LCMS all declare the entire unbelieving world righteous in Christ, before and without faith. The BOC states, "by faith itself, we are for Christ's sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God." Luther's confession is also clear on Justification and Righteousness by faith alone, "God, who regards as just only believing children."

AC V Declares Debate on Justification Closed -
The Fat Lady Has Sung



AC V has left a new comment on your post "Calov on Justification by Faith Alone - Prolific G...":

BA-ZING! Case closed. Game over. The fat lady sang.

Calov on Justification by Faith Alone.
Prolific Genius of the Post-Concord Theologians



Although Christ has acquired for us the remission of sins, justification, and sonship, God just the same does not justify us prior to our faith. Nor do we become God's children in Christ in such a way that justification in the mind of God takes place before we believe.[1]



[1] Apodixis Articulorum Fidei, Lueneburg, 1684. Cited with approval in Robert D. Preus, Justification and Rome, St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press 1997, p. 131n.       
                                                                                                       

***

GJ - See this excellent essay on Calov, by Timoth Schmeling, quoted in part below.

ABRAHAM CALOV (1612-1686): SAINTED DOCTOR AND DEFENDER OF THE CHURCH
Timothy R. Schmeling

It has been said that Johann Gerhard (1582-1637) was third in the series of Lutheranism’s most preeminent theologians and after him there was no fourth (Fischer. The Life of Johann Gerhard. 98-99). First and second place naturally belong to Martin Luther (1483-1546) and Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586) respectively. If one were to speak of a fourth in this distinguished list, the position would no doubt have been assigned to Abraham Calov.

Abraham Calov ranks not only as one of the greatest theologians in Lutheranism, but also as one of the greatest teachers in Christendom. He was a man of exceptional learning and scholastic tendencies. At the same time, he was a man of deep piety and practicality. Very few were impartial in their assessment of Abraham Calov. He was a very polarizing individual. His opponents feared him, but his adherents loved him.

The legacy of Abraham Calov has been tarnished over time. Prior to the recent renaissance, sparked by the rediscovery of missing portions of the Codex Epistolarum theologicarum (his collected letters), Calov research had depicted him as the prototype of a controversialist and a preacher of an unattainable doctrinal orthodoxy. This questionable caricature can be explained by a number of factors. First of all there has been a strong bias against Lutheran Orthodoxy even within Lutheranism. Gotthold Lessing (1729-1781) writes, “Many people want to be Christians, but certainly not Wittenberg Lutheran Christians; certainly not Christians of Calov’s grace” (Lessing. Gesammelte Werke. 170).

In his revisionist History of Lutheranism, Eric Gritsch [GJ - Jim Heiser buddy] denounces the doctrines of verbal inspiration and fellowship as taught by Calov and finally writes him off as Ultraconservative (Gritsch. A History of Lutheranism. 135). Second, the chief nineteenth century biographer of Abraham Calov was a mediating theologian named August Tholuck (1799-1877). This Prussian Union historian [GJ - Halle University, Hoenecke mentor] had more in common with Calov’s syncretistic arch-nemesis than with Calov. Third, there is very little primary source material available on Calov and much of it may not have survived the war or is possibly buried somewhere in the Bibliotheca Gdanska PAN (formerly Stadtsbibliothek Danzig). Finally Calov’s research is a difficult task due to the linguistic, cultural, and intellectual barriers that divide us from this critical juncture in Lutheran history. In spite of these facts, it is the purpose of this paper to help familiarize Lutheranism with one of its lost teachers.

F. Pieper versus Calov and the Book of Concord



LPC has left a new comment on your post "Robert Preus - Justification by Faith, Part I":

Pr Greg,

Firstly thank you for this Sunday's sermon, it was such a blessing. If only the critics of Ichabod would also take time to listen to your sermons, they would know of a different Greg Jackson.

People should compare what Calov said with the LC-MS Brief Statement 1932 Article 17 (authored by F. Pieper?)

Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ,.

They should see how different this article is from the statement made by Calov.

LPC

***

GJ - What irritates me most is the UOJ Stormtroopers using Calov and Gerhard to advance their cult. Neither theologian is well known or read by clergy. One might as well claim the ancient Egyptian oracle as an ally, saying "She was 100% UOJ."

The Scripture citations for the Brief Statement declaration are utterly deceitful, but I have always found UOJ followers to be dishonest. I find it shocking that this Pieper statement was accepted by people reading Gausewitz and the old Missouri catechism. That suggests that teaching the efficacy of the Word in the Means of Grace was supplanted by teaching worship of the synod.

The personal attacks only mean that I have pulled the rug out from under their Enthusiasm. The most significant response is the unspoken "You do not exist and therefore I do not need to acknowledge anything you have written." I only wish they would acknowledge Luther and the Book of Concord. I do not mind enraging them if they have to run to the Confessions to support their dubious claims.

I went a few rounds with people on LutherQuest (sic). They were consistently dishonest. For instance, one would quote the Book of Concord and exult - "UOJ!" I would cite the same passage with the next sentence where justification by faith was clearly taught. They were citing atonement passages as UOJ proof.

Rolf Preus was a curious example. He asked for the justification chapter in Thy Strong Word while I was working on it. He wrote back that he agreed. When TSW was barely finished, he told the LQ denizens that he had already read the book (640 pages) and denounced it. That was before sending PDFs or downloading them through Lulu, which I was not yet using.

I responded to Rolf, pointing out the facts (no one had the book) and quoting his email. His pals immediately buried my comment with a ton of theirs. That happened often. A friend of mine said, "Why bother with that skunk patch?" so I quit.

Of course, not one of them can grasp what Robert Preus wrote in Justification and Rome.

---

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "F. Pieper versus Calov and the Book of Concord":

I had the same experience on Luther Quest (sic). I brought up a question about UOJ which initiated and sustained what might be described as an LQ Dog Pile.

http://www.lutherquest.org/discus40/messages/69842/68185.html?1200691900

Robert Preus - Justification by Faith, Part I





Dr. Robert Preus is known for advocating UOJ in the 1980s, when Concordia Seminary in Ft. Wayne was also deep into Church Growth Enthusiasm.[1] In his last book, edited after his death by his sons Daniel and Rolf, his clear stance against UOJ is obvious.

When does the imputation of Christ’s righteousness take place? It did not take place when Christ, by doing and suffering, finished the work of atonement and reconciled the world to God. Then and there, when the sins of the world were imputed to Him and He took them, Christ became our righteousness and procured for us remission of sin, justification, and eternal life. “By thus making satisfaction He procured and merited (acquisivit et promeruit) for each and every man remission of all sins, exemption from all punishments of sin, grace and peace with God, eternal righteousness and salvation.”[2]
But the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the sinner takes place when the Holy Spirit brings him to faith through Baptism and the Word of the Gospel. Our sins were imputed to Christ at His suffering and death, imputed objectively after He, by His active and passive obedience, fulfilled and procured all righteousness for us. But the imputation of His righteousness to us takes place when we are brought to faith.[3] 

Quenstedt says, It is not the same thing to say, “Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us” and to say “Christ is our righteousness.” For the imputation did not take place when Christ became our righteousness. The righteousness of Christ is the effect of His office. The imputation is the application of the effect of His office. The one, however, does not do away with the other.  Christ is our righteousness effectively when He justifies us. His righteousness is ours objectively because our faith rests in Him. His righteousness is ours formally in that His righteousness is imputed to us.[4]

Preus quoted this statement from Calov with approval, which is worth repeating -

Although Christ has acquired for us the remission of sins, justification, and sonship, God just the same does not justify us prior to our faith. Nor do we become God's children in Christ in such a way that justification in the mind of God takes place before we believe.[5]

I understand these two passages to be a repudiation of UOJ and an apology for all the harm done in the name of that fad.


[1] "In an initial burst of enthusiasm reflecting Preus's concern for missions, the Fort Wayne faculty had petitioned the 1977 convention of the Missouri Synod to have each of its subdivisions or districts ‘make a thorough study of the Church Growth materials.’ What is more, the districts were to be urged to ‘organize, equip, and place into action all of the Church Growth principles as needed in the evangelization of our nation and the world under the norms of the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.’ By the time of the 1986 synodical convention, however, the same faculty, while appreciating the ‘valuable lessons of common sense’ to be learned from Church Growth, asked that ‘the Synod warn against the Arminian and charismatic nature of the church-growth movement.’ Kurt E. Marquart, "Robert D. Preus," Handbook of Evangelical Theologians, ed., Walter A. Elwell, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995, pp. 353-65. Reprinted in Christian News, 6-26-95, p. 21.                                               
[2] R. Preus footnote: Systema, Par. II, Cap.3, Memb. 2 S. 1, Th. 44 (II, 363). Cf. Abraham Calov, Apodixis Articulorum Fidei (Lueneburg, 1684), 249: “Although Christ has acquired for us the remission of sins, justification, and sonship, God just the same does not justify us prior to our faith. Nor do we become God’s children in Christ in such a way that justification in the mind of God takes place before we believe.” Justification and Rome, footnote 74, p. 131.
[3] Robert D. Preus Justification and Rome, St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press 1997, p. 72.
[4] Systema, Par. III, Cap. 8, S. 2, q. 5, Observatio 19 (II, 787). R. Preus footnote #76, Justification and Rome, p. 132.
[5] Apodixis Articulorum Fidei, Lueneburg, 1684. Cited in Robert D. Preus, Justification and Rome, St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press 1997, p. 131n.           





                                                                                                   


Robert Preus - Justification by Faith, Part II

Robert Preus - Justification by Faith, Part IIII

Robert Preus - Justification by Faith, Part IV

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Melanchthon - On the Sacraments





"If we call Sacraments rites which have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to decide what are properly Sacraments...Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. For when we are baptized, when we eat the Lord's body, when we are absolved, our hearts must be firmly assured that God truly forgives us for Christ's sake. And God, at the same time, by the Word and by the rite, moves hearts to believe and conceive faith, just as Paul says, Romans 10:17: 'Faith cometh by hearing.' But just as the Word enters the ear in order to strike our heart, so the rite itself strikes the eye, in order to move the heart. The effect of the Word and of the rite is the same..." [Luther, Babylonian Captivity, 3 sacraments] Apology Augsburg Confession, XIII,#3. Number/Use Sacraments. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 309. Tappert, p. 211. Heiser, p. 94.

Religious Freedom and Suing Their Jackboots Off


grumpy has left a new comment on your post "Tim Glende's Shirt and Facebook Pose Say It All. W...":

Scott,

I disagree strongly with your statement that Rick should sue the congregation. Perhaps you simply meant that as a joke.

In our society where freedom of religion is protected (at least for now, sometimes, well you get the idea), I believe that such an action, although it may be seen as cruel and unjust, is still within the rights of a church body to do so.

On the other hand, I believe that Rick has the right to speak and write about the actions that were taken against him by his church. As long as what he says is truthful and non-slanderous of course that is protected by free speech.

It's kind of like when I tell Dr. Jackson that no preps or colleges are closing and then give him a "BA-ZING-OO"...

Grumps

***

GJ - State law varies. Minnesota lets denominations get away with all kinds of abuse. That is why ELCA is incorporated there. The exception in Minnesota is kicking a member out. Use a pastor like a foot-rag and toss him out, violating the call contract. No problem. But kick a member out and he has the right to sue and be compensated.

I think a situation like this demands legal advice, even though Rick is an attorney himself. The great thing about a lawyer is that he removes 99% of the stress. Having a lawyer means being able to say, "I already discussed this with my attorney." That statement has removed many obstacles, saved thousands of dollars, and proved once again that the Law creates contrition.

They say that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. There is nothing unChristian about having an attorney be a spokesman in this kind of situation. One shady agency tried for several years to nail me for a $10,000 car loan taken out by a man with a different name, social security number, and race. I paid a lawyer $100 to phone this dude and say, "You could face credit libel charges, etc etc." Justice rolled down like a river. I could have sued and won, but I was assured that collecting from a guy like that was another matter.

All the clergy have a conflict of interest. Intrepid pastors have been told they will be kicked out if they step out of line - a threat never heard by Jeske, Kelm, Glende, or Ski, I am sure.

I am quite certain that WELS is sued on a regular basis and counter-sues, as they did when Team Gurgle looted the MilCraft Estate and the widow wanted the promised money. What does the Bible say about robbing widows and orphans? All in a day's work with WELS. That is why they promoted Gurgle from incompetent DP to incompetent SP. WELS did not give back the money willingly, but the court forced them to fork over $1 million. WELS actually went to court to keep the widow from getting the money due her. Try not to smirk when WELS talks about not suing a fellow-Christian. Under Gurgle, who now works for Kudu Don Patterson:
  1. The MilCraft Estate was ruined.
  2. They refused to pay the widow.
  3. WELS went to court to keep from paying the widow.
  4. WELS wasted a ton of money paying a lawyer to fight this widow in court.
  5. WELS had to pay the million in cash anyway, on top of legal expenses.
  6. Yes, that is Patterson's kind of guy, SP Gurgle.

But I agree with Grumpy about not bothering to sue WELS. Make them sweat, beg for mercy. Apologize? That would be a miracle.

Grumpy's dare is open-ended, so I get to say "Bah-zing" when the next school closes, or when Mary Lou College moves to Watertown and Milwaukee, a plan already seriously discussed.
4 preps, 2 colleges, 1 sausage factory = 7 schools.
3 preps, 2 colleges, 1 sausage factory = 6 schools.
2 preps, 1 college, 1 sausage factory = 4 schools.
The next number is either 3 or 2.

Melanchthon - Ordination as a Sacrament


"But if ordination be understood as applying to the ministry of the Word, we are not unwilling to call ordination a sacrament. For the ministry of the Word has God's command and glorious promises. Romans 1:16 The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Likewise, Isaiah 55:11: So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of My mouth; it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please...And it is of advantage, so far as can be done, to adorn the ministry of the Word with every kind of praise against fanatical men, who dream that the Holy Ghost is given not through the Word, but because of certain preparations of their own...." Apology Augsburg Confession, XIII. #11. Number/Use Sacraments, Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 311. Tappert, p. 212. Heiser, p. 95. Romans 1:16; Isaiah 55:11.

Melanchthon - Adorn the Ministry of the Word



"And it is of advantage, so far as can be done, to adorn the ministry of the Word with every kind of praise against fanatical men, who dream that the Holy Ghost is given not through the Word, but because of certain preparations of their own, if they sit unoccupied and silent in obscure places, waiting for illumination, as the Enthusiasts formerly taught, and the Anabaptists now teach." Apology Augsburg Confession, XIII. #13. The Sacraments. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 311. Tappert, p. 213. Heiser, p. 95.

Emmaus Question and Answer


AC V has left a new comment on your post "Emmaus Photograph":

Harrison: "Why are you guys so obsessed with whether or not you can pray with your non-WELS grandmother at a Thanksgiving dinner?"

Jackson (voice from the www.): "Because WELS is an anti-Lutheran abusive sect."

Responses to the Defenestration of Rick Techlin


Jimmy James has left a new comment on your post "Tim Glende's Shirt and Facebook Pose Say It All. W...":

Dear Rick:

Irony of ironies, our family chose NOT to join the fellowship of WELS because they were not practicing what they preached as far as fellowship/unity!

We told them that as long as they were involved in the Lutheran version of the "Knights of Columbus" lodge (that being "Thrivent for Lutherans") we could not, in Biblical good conscious, be in unity with WELS because we knew being in a brotherhood fellowship with Thrivent (as WELS was) was complicit with sin.

There are other smaller Lutheran conferences you can look into, Rick. WELS may have just saved your soul!

---

AC V has left a new comment on your post "Tim Glende's Shirt and Facebook Pose Say It All. W...":

Intrepids said on February 6, 2011:

"This layman has gone above and beyond what is necessary to follow the Scriptural procedures. All the editors at Intrepid Lutheran stand behind him one hundred percent."

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2011/02/why-i-no-longer-attend-my-wels-church.html

Does this mean St. Peter has declared Intrepid Lutherans out of fellowship with itself and WELS?

Who will stand? Who will fall? Who will care?....

***

GJ - Was Al Just excommunicated for murdering his wife and lying about it? No, WELS clergy are still claiming he was innocent.

Was Tabor excommunicated for aiding and abetting his mistress in the murder of his wife? No, he moved to Escanaba to a new parish call.

Was DP Ed Werner excommunicated for decades of abusing girls in his congregation? No, he was arranging for adoption of babies, born to young girls in his congregation, from the state hoosegow.

Was Vicar Scott Zerbe excommunicated for having an affair with a minor girl at Fred Adrian's church? I do not think so.

---

bruce-church (http://bruce-church.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Responses to the Defenestration of Rick Techlin":

That's the WELS for you. If someone writes a letter and says that if the WELS church doesn't give even an inch, I'll probably have to find another church, that's just waving a red flag in front of a bull. Immediately they'll say that person declared himself out of fellowship with the WELS. Then after the person has left, they'll say that so and so has left only because he couldn't get his way.

Ironically, after a while they might have second thoughts about doing what was contentious, and end it, but they'll say they changed course only for financial or legal reasons, not because it was wrong, wrongheaded, or sinful. So they'll never give the disfellowshipped person a call asking him to come back, saying "we've changed."

So if The CORE closed operations tomorrow, they'd say it was only because of financial reasons or some such, but Rick Techlin will never be invited back.

Dangerous

Read all about it.



The most dangerous place for a baby in America is his mother's womb.
The most dangerous place for a Lutheran is in the Wisconsin Sect.



Tim Glende's Shirt and Facebook Pose Say It All.
Write a Letter!
See How an Abusive Sect Responds





On April 11, 2011, the voters of St. Peter congregation met, and voted to terminate my fellowship with St. Peter Church and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS).  I was not aware of this meeting, no members of my family were present, and I was not afforded any opportunity to defend myself.

Out of the blue and without any warning right before Holy Week of 2011, I received a certified letter informing me that my membership in St. Peter and the WELS was terminated.  (April 12, 2011 letter from St. Peter Church).  That certified letter said:
April 12, 2011
Dear Fredrick (Rick) Techlin Jr.,
In your letter titled “Letter to WELS 2011″ dated January 20, 2011 and published on your blog a few days later, you made the following statements:
“However, during our attempts to resolve the doctrinal differences reiterated by that letter, it became apparent that I disagree doctrinally not only with Pastor Glende and my Church Council, but also District President Engelbrecht, and other leaders in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS).”  (page 1)
“I do disagree with my pastors and Church Council over doctrine.”  (page 11)
“My doctrinal differences with my congregation have been known by me for well over two years.”  (page 29)
“Should I continue in fellowship with synod leaders who counsel laymen not to pray with other non-WELS Christians, but then defend WELS pastors who plagiarize the sermons of our theological enemies?  The answer is no.  I should not continue in fellowship with the theological blackguards of the WELS…’  (page 31)
Rick, by your own words you have declared that you are no longer in fellowship with St. Peter Ev. Lutheran Church and the doctrine of the WELS.  On the basis of your published statements, St. Peter’s Board of Elders and Church Council recommended to the Voter’s Assembly that your membership in our congregation be terminated.  At the Voter’s Meeting of St. Peter Ev. Lutheran Church on April 11th, 2011, this recommendation was acted upon and unanimously approved.  In carrying out this action, St. Peter is simply acknowledging what you have already declared to be true in your “Letter to WELS 2011″.  This action is in keeping with St. Peter’s Constitution, Article V, Section 5 – Termination of Fellowship.
We commend you to your own spiritual care and will continue to keep you in our prayers.
Sincerely,
St. Peter Ev. Lutheran Church Voters, Board of Elders, & Church Council
According to St. Peter Church’s certified letter, “by your own words you have declared that you are no longer in fellowship with … the doctrine of the WELS” and that “St. Peter is simply acknowledging what you have already declared to be true in your ‘Letter to WELS 2011′.”  However, my 2011 letter to the WELS also said:
… if I am wrong about the doctrine, then how am I supposed to be corrected if I cannot attend any meetings where these issues are being discussed?  …
Therefore, I am sending this letter to the WELS Conference of Presidents (COP) in the hope that maybe I do not have to leave the WELS over doctrine.  These are important issues, and if I am wrong, then I should be properly instructed so that I can be convinced by God’s Word…  My strongest desire is not to leave the WELS, rather I more strongly desire that these doctrinal conflicts would be resolved with unanimous agreement.  To that end, there needs to be discussion, and that is one of the primary purposes of these letters…
1.  Is it the WELS doctrine that Christians can choose to believe God’s Word?
2.  Is it the WELS doctrine that from our perspective God needs our service?
3.  Is it the WELS doctrine that the sin of plagiarism is not a sin?  …
If the WELS Conference of Presidents answers ‘yes’ to any of these questions, please have some kind person explain the doctrine to me in a way that I can understand.  If I am wrong, then I will be wrong.  I have no personal stake in being infallible, and neither should any other Christian.  Further it is not my desire to leave the WELS without serious effort to at least understand these positions, even if I am unable to agree.
I cannot simply choose to believe that which I actually believe is false.  I must be shown the truth in the light of plain reason or the Scriptures.  This points to the fifth consequence of post conversion Decision Theology:  There has been very little (virtually no) effort put into showing me the ‘light.’  I have been simply expected to choose to believe the St. Peter & The CORE doctrine.  And if praise songs, popcorn, and big screen TVs are not enough positive motivation, then other negative motivators are applied.  The goal is not to reveal the light of truth, but to motivate a choice…
(See also “WELS Northern Wisconsin District Doctrinal Issues“).  The entire letter dated January 20, 2011 is basically a description of my efforts to discuss doctrine, and the total rebuffing of those efforts.  This final act of terminating fellowship means that I am no longer a member of the WELS or of any visible Christian church.
St. Peter Church terminated my fellowship with the WELS under Article V, Section 5 of St. Peter Church’s Constitution.  That section deals with Christians who are not accused of any willful sin (and thus can still go to heaven), but are still nonetheless guilty of false doctrine, and therefore must be excluded from the fellowship of the orthodox.  It states:
Termination of Fellowship
A.  Members who persist in an error that in itself does not make the presence of saving faith impossible and who otherwise are not under church discipline (cf Article V Section 2D and Section 3) may be excluded from the fellowship of the congregation
1.  after they have been evangelically admonished by their fellow Christians in the spirit of Matthew 18:15-16; and
2.  when their adherence to error becomes public and a matter of divisiveness (Titus 3:10) and thus an offense and obstacle to the truth of God’s Word (Romans 16:17-18).
B.  This action shall not be used for removing inactive members as a substitute for the loving act of excommunication when impenitence is clearly evident.
C.  Members thus excluded from fellowship shall lose all rights in the congregation and in its property.
That section of the Constitution cites Titus 3:10 and Romans 16:17-18.  There Paul says: “A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition reject” (KJV).  Also:
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.  [KJV.  Emphasis added].
The Scriptures cited by the St. Peter Church constitution contain the phrase: “mark … and avoid.”  This means that St. Peter Church has marked me as a persistent errorist and a teacher of false doctrine that all WELS congregations and members should avoid.

St. Peter Church says I declared myself out of WELS fellowship.  That is false.  If I thought the WELS doctrine was wrong, and I believed that I could not be convinced of that doctrine, then I would gladly leave.  I would not need to be without warning kicked out right before Easter.

In terminating my fellowship, St. Peter Church cited only my letter to the WELS dated January 20, 2011.  That letter also references another letter dated November 1, 2009.  Here are links to both letters:
People can judge for themselves whether there is false doctrine in those letters.  I believe those letters accurately represent the doctrine of the Scriptures as interpreted by the Lutheran Confessions and as subscribed to by the WELS.
·
After the January 20, 2011 letter, the only meeting I had with the pastors of St. Peter Congregation was on March 25, 2011.  The five concerned area WELS pastors had been trying to meet with the pastors of St. Peter & The CORE for over a year.  However, the pastors of St. Peter refused to meet without the District Presidium, and the District Presidium refused to meet together with all the pastors.  Finally, as a courtesy to the Synod President, the Northern Wisconsin District Presidium scheduled a meeting for March 25, 2011.  The five concerned pastors were also able to secure an invitation for Tony Kubek Jr. and me.  (See the post: “An Update“).

The Northern Wisconsin District Presidium continues to maintain that these public matters cannot be handled in a brotherly way if we publicly discuss them.  However, St. Peter Church has publicly terminated my fellowship with the WELS, therefore, I should be able to at least say that the conclusion of this meeting was not: that I should leave the WELS.
No agreement was reached on any issue, nonetheless, I did not leave this meeting thinking that my fellowship with the WELS was about to be terminated.  District President Engelbrecht encouraged everyone to keep our discussions private and to be willing to engage in further meetings.  Nonetheless, two weeks later, St. Peter Church publicly terminated my fellowship in the WELS as a persistent errorist.
·
In their certified letter, St. Peter Church concluded: “We commend you to your own spiritual care …”  I have done my best to resolve these matters Scripturally by attempting to discuss them.  However, the leadership of St. Peter Church has been steadfastly adamant that there is absolutely nothing wrong at St. Peter Church, and therefore these matters will not be discussed in any way in which my concerns would be given any legitimate consideration.  By their words and deeds the leadership of St. Peter Church has officially declared that we are not walking together, we do not have the same doctrine, and we do not belong in the same synod.  Their persistence has forced me to agree, that we do not belong in the same synod.

I have appealed this wrongful termination of my WELS fellowship to the Appeals Board of the Northern Wisconsin District.  That is as high as a layman can appeal.  (WELS Constitution § 8.50(e)).  If I lose this appeal and no other WELS congregation steps in to intervene, then my days in the WELS will be over.  But at least I would know where the Northern Wisconsin District officially stands on doctrine.
Win or lose, the spiritual battle belongs to the Lord.  (Ephesians 6:12).
Kyrie eleison.
·

Holy Week

It is unfortunate that the leadership of St. Peter Church in Freedom, WI chose to take these actions without warning right before Holy Week.  As a result, I did not have time to find a place to receive the Lord’s Supper on Maundy Thursday in an orderly fashion.  This was the first year since my confirmation that I was not able to receive the physical essence of our faith (the Lord’s body and blood) on Maundy Thursday.  After hearing all the pleas to “take, and eat,” I felt like just watching the Lord’s Supper was hardening my heart, so I did not attend Good Friday or Easter Divine Services.
A number of faithful WELS pastors graciously promised to commune me if I came forward, but I decided that it would be best to refrain.  The last thing I wanted to do was give District President Engelbrecht a technical excuse to discipline faithful pastors for communing non-WELS members.  (Open communion is a serious infraction of the ordained ministry).  Nor did I wish to spark a confrontation or a confessional crisis between two WELS congregations during Holy Week.

On Maundy Thursday, I received a second letter from St. Peter Church saying that if I disagree with my termination of WELS fellowship, then my only option was to write a letter to District President Engelbrecht.  Anything else would be disorderly.  (April 18, 2011 letter from St. Peter Church).

On Good Friday afternoon, I wandered around for awhile looking for a church to attend, but then gave up.  I stopped at another Christian church in Freedom, WI in the hope that I could touch the water to just physically remind myself that I am baptized, but their baptismal font in the entrance was dry.

On Saturday, April 30, 2011, I wrote a letter to District President Engelbrecht announcing my appeal, and dropped it in the mail.  In that letter, I also asked him to give me written permission to commune at any WELS church pending my appeal.

---


Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...
For those who are following Rick's situation, he has just posted an update. http://vdma.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/terminated-from-wels-fellowship/
Mr. Douglas Lindee said...
I stated above: "It seems ridiculous that in an “apolitical” institution, such our Synod, “lobbying” for one’s position en masse seems to garner the most attention and respect from leadership – and the greater the numbers, the greater the attention and respect, while the fewer the numbers, the greater the risk, even to one's continuation in fellowship. In principle, this should not necessarily be the case, but observation over time has shown this to be true." How many laymen in the NWD have come to Mr. Techlin's aid? How many are going to now? By my recollection of this ongoing issue, based on its public documentation, representatives of his congregation, including his pastor, refused his overtures to meet and discuss these issues, requiring escalation to the District President. This meeting finally occurred, as Rev. Lidtke stated above, but "did little to bring the two sides closer to a real agreement on the issues before us." Following the meeting, still without meeting to discuss any issues directly with Mr Techlin, his congregation terminated his fellowship. In my post, 'non rockaboatus' is an organizational disease, posted yesterday, I quoted Dr. Walter Martin as he provided analysis of similar events and movements in other church bodies: "But how do you see the... professor of theology? How do you get him in a place where you can find out what his theology really is? The moment you question him, he reverts to orthodox terminology, and then if you press him for the definitions of his terminology, he claims that you're being suspicious, bigoted and unloving. The average layman is defenseless! He's got to take what comes from behind the pulpit and recommended by his church authority because the moment he opens his mouth, he's accused of being divisive in the church, unloving, and disturbing the fellowship of the faith!" Are we seeing the same practices played out here in Freedom, WI? We'll need to watch closely, and as Dr. Martin advised, start asking questions! -- beginning with our own fellow laymen and church councils, our pastors, Circuit Pastors, etc.
Daniel Baker said...
This is unacceptable in the highest degree. As I said on Rick's blog, so I say here: Anathema to the leadership and voting members of St. Peter's, Freedom.

More on Appleton from the Intrepids



LutherRocks said...
I am deeply disturbed by the comments of the sponsors of this forum. Initially Mathew 6:24 came into focus...but as the ensuing comments came in...there is just an utter lack of faith in the Means of Grace. I am appalled and astounded. I truly believe that the problem of all of this is rooted in the doctrine of justification...that doctrine by which the church stands or falls. I will be blogging about this soon enough from my corner of WELS as experienced through the portal of Holy Word Austin, Texas...May the Lord have mercy. Joe Krohn
Daniel Baker said...
The 'worship' methods illustrated by a number of the above commentators are "unLutheran" for a number of reasons, most obviously because they directly contradict the sentiments and prescriptions of the foundational confessions of the Lutheran Church: "At the outset we must again make the preliminary statement that we do not abolish the Mass, but religiously maintain and defend it. For among us masses are celebrated every Lord's Day and on the other festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved. And the usual public ceremonies are observed, the series of lessons, of prayers, vestments, and other like things" (Ap:XII:1). This in and of itself would not make these 'worship' methods non-Christian or sinful, however - only "unLutheran" (or, more appropriately, different than the Churches of the Augsburg Confession). Unfortunately, and perhaps in a graver sense, these 'worship' methods are dangerous and apostatic because of their origins. Although Article X of the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord - referenced by Mr. Lund above - was written with the papists in mind, the same principles can be applied to the radical Evangelical and Reformed sects that are arguably more threatening to the Church in America today. Although Mr. Lund declined to bore us with long blocks of text quoted from the Solid Declaration, in light of the recent discussion I find certain portions worth noting, namely: "When under the title and pretext of external adiaphora such things are proposed as are in principle contrary to God's Word (although painted another color), these are not to be regarded as adiaphora, in which one is free to act as he will, but must be avoided as things prohibited by God. In like manner, too, such ceremonies should not be reckoned among the genuine free adiaphora, or matters of indifference, as make a show or feign the appearance, as though our religion and that of the Papists were not far apart, thus to avoid persecution, or as though the latter were not at least highly offensive to us; or when such ceremonies are designed for the purpose, and required and received in this sense, as though by and through them both contrary religions were reconciled and became one body; or when a reentering into the Papacy and a departure from the pure doctrine of the Gospel and true religion should occur or gradually follow therefrom [when there is danger lest we seem to have reentered the Papacy, and to have departed, or to be on the point of departing gradually, from the pure doctrine of the Gospel]. For in this case what Paul writes, 2 Cor. 6:14-17, shall and must obtain: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what communion hath light with darkness? Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord. Likewise, when there are useless, foolish displays, that are profitable neither for good order nor Christian discipline, nor evangelical propriety in the Church, these also are not genuine adiaphora, or matters of indifference" (FC:SD:X:5-7). Copying the practices of the erroneous sects around us (which, as I have personally experienced, Pastor Ski does not only in 'worship' practices but also in use of graphics, bulletin content, and sermon outlines) is not only a violation of the principle of being unequally yoked, but such practices as popcorn munching during prayers are also "useless, foolish displays" that are not in the best interests of the "evangelical propriety" of the Church, as condemned above. I hope this begins to clarify why abandoning the historic, traditional, and Christ-centered tradition of the catholic Church is not only "unLutheran," but why it is also dangerous and unbiblical.


They love Stetzer in WELS because he cannot spell or edit!
Hooked on Phonics worked for me.