Thursday, July 19, 2012

Warren Malach Wrote about Ministry, Confessions, Etc.

Boring - except for all the scandals covered up.


Dear Dr. Jackson: Yes, I was very impressed with your willingness to make your books available through PDFs

Could you direct me to any discussions on your blog about Church & Ministry ("old Missouri" vs. WELS,) about what is apparently being taught at CTSFW about the Office of the Public Ministry (hyper-Euros, "Loehists,") and especially about how "confessional" Lutherans can avoid the charge of "adding tradition to Scripture" with their subscription to the Lutheran Confessions? 

I was wondering if your book CATHOLIC, LUTHERAN, PROTESTANT might deal with the last subject, which is my most recent concern.  I am left wondering at times why "confessional" Lutherans aren't "satisfied" with a "purely Biblical theology" along the lines of the Bible Passages in Small Catechism explanations together with PROOF-TEXTS OF THE CATECHISM, or A L Graebner's OUTLINES OF DOCTRINAL THEOLOGY.

I also wonder why later doctrinal statements, such as the BRIEF STATEMENT, aren't considered just as "confessional" as what is in the BOC, allowing for the fact that what is in the BOC is recognized by most all Lutheran church bodies in the world, while things like the BRIEF STATEMENT are "denominational doctrinal statements."  -- Warren




***

GJ - Warren gave me permission to use his name. He graduated from Concordia, Ft. Wayne, was in the CLC (sic), and is now a member of WELS.

There has been so much made out of WELS versus Missouri on the ministry. Some people think if they find the kernel of truth in Walther, they have their answer. Walther is unique in being a mere college graduate (in rationalism, no less) and yet an expert on everything.


Loehe was a much better person than Walther, but he was also a Pietist. I believe Loehe is now being used as a foil, to advance Romanism in the LCMS. However, Loehe founded Missouri and asked the Perryville kidnappers to join with his group. Missouri returned the favor by trashing Loehe, who founded two seminaries and five foreign missions from his hick church.


There is a big movement in Missouri to ape Rome in every possible way. Dave Scaer is one of the ring-leaders, but he is not alone by any means. 


The Brief Statement does not have the credibility in world Lutheranism that you seem to think, Warren. The 1932 statement is treated as above the Book of Concord and the Bible, but it is really beginning of the end of the Synodical Conference. The Brief Statement accelerated the process of promoting Enthusiasm in the form of UOJ.





The Efficacy of the Word - Schmid Quotes Luther, Chemnitz, Melanchthon, the Book of Concord, Quenstedt....Horrors! Fax Uncle Brug at Once!



The box on the right side is the page number in the printed edition.
My Lutheran resources page is here.

The Schmid Table of Contents is here.
§ 51. The Efficacy of the Word of God.
As the Holy Spirit, through whom alone men are converted, operates only by the Word, this Word must possess the power of producing in man all those effects which are described in the preceding article, On the State of Grace. And this power 501is of such a character that it is always attended with success when no opposition is made to it on the part of man. [5] Hence the Word is endowed with efficacy, i.e., “it has an active, supernatural, and truly divine force or power of producing supernatural effects; in other words, of converting, regenerating, and renewing the minds of men.” Hence the Word of God does not confine itself merely to teaching man externally the way of salvation and showing him the means whereby to attain it. [6] Its power is not to be compared to the convincing force which even an eloquent human discourse possesses; hence its power is not a natural one, such as dwells in every human word, but it is supernatural. [7] This power is inherent in the Word because the Holy Ghost attends it; from the moment that a Word of God is uttered, the Holy Ghost is inseparably and continually connected with it, [8] so that the power and efficacy of the Word is fully identical with that of the Spirit. [9] This is a truly divine efficacy; [10] and, just as we cannot conceive of the Holy Ghost as separate from this efficacy, so neither can we conceive of the Word of God as independent of it. [11] We are not, then, in any way to represent to ourselves the relation of the Word and the Spirit as though the Word were merely the lifeless instrument which the Holy Ghost employed, [12] or as though the Spirit, when He wished to operate through the Word, must always first unite Himself with it, as if He were ordinarily separated from it. [13]
[1] QUEN. (IV, 1): “We have heretofore treated of the grounds of our salvation; we must now consider the means by which we attain to it. The means, properly so called, on the part of God, are the Word and Sacraments, the saving antidotes to our spiritual disease.”
The Word and Sacraments are also designated as means of salvation under the general idea of the Word— as the Sacraments are designated as the Visible Word.
CONF. AUG. (V, 2). FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., XI, 76): “The Father will draw none to Himself without means, but He employs His Word and Sacraments as the ordinary means and instruments.” ART. SMALCALD. (VIII, 3): “We must firmly maintain that God bestows His Spirit and grace on none unless through the Word and by the external Word previously declared, that we may fortify ourselves against the Enthusiasts, who boast they have the Spirit 502before the Word and without it, and therefore judge, bend, and distort the Scriptures, or oral Word, as they please, as Münzer did, and many others at present do, who wish to discriminate very acutely between the Spirit and the letter.” HOLL. (991): “The means of salvation are divinely ordained, by which God graciously offers the salvation acquired by Christ, the Mediator, to all men who have fallen into sin, and bestows and preserves true faith in them, and at last introduces all who embrace the merit of Christ and persevere in it into the kingdom of glory.”
[2] FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., II, 56): “We should not and cannot always judge of the presence, operations, and gifts of the Holy Spirit from our feelings (the manner and time, viz., when they are experienced in the heart); but, inasmuch as these are often cloaked under much infirmity, we should be convinced from the promise that the Word of God preached and heard is assuredly the ministry and instrument of the Spirit, by which He truly and efficaciously operates in our hearts.”
[3] From what was said in the remarks preliminary to the articles on Faith and Justification, it follows that we cannot entirely adhere to the systematic division of the Dogmaticians in this Part IV. They do not treat, namely, of Faith and Works until under this head, and they call Faith also a means of salvation, according to which, therefore, they embrace more than do we under the phrase, means of salvation. This they can do, because they distinguish between “the means of salvation on the part of God, δοτικα, or those offering salvation (the Word and Sacraments), and the means of salvation on our part, ληπτικον, or that apprehending the offered salvation (faith in the merit of Christ).” In this section the Dogmaticians also treat the subject of the last things (death, resurrection of the dead, etc.), inasmuch as they designate these as means in a general sense, or executive and isagogical, that is, means divinely instituted, without the previous occurrence of which God does not accomplish the sentence of glorification, and by the final intervention of which men persevering in the faith are introduced into heaven.”
As we have assigned to the article of faith another place, it also appears better to separate that of the last things from this section, so as to confine ourselves, in it, to the proper and limited conception of the means of grace.
[4] The Word, which, in the article Of the Holy Scriptures, was described as the source of knowledge, is here viewed as a means of grace.
HOLL. (992): “The Word of God is here considered not as the 503source of knowledge, but as the means of practice or action, by whose intervention the sinner is led by God to eternal salvation.”
The Dogmaticians remark, in advance, that by the Word they do not understand the bare external letters of the written Word. QUEN. (I, 169): “We must distinguish between the Word of God as it is materiallyexpressed and exhibited in the written characters, points, letters, and syllables adhering to paper or parchment . . . or also in the sound and the external words formed in the air . . . and formally considered, as the divine conception and sense which we find expressed in these written letters and syllables and in the words of the preached Gospel. In the former sense it is called the Word of God only figuratively (σημαντικως); in the latter, however, κυριως, properly and strictly, it is the Word of God, the wisdom of God, the mind of God, the counsel of God. We ascribe not to the former, but to the latter, divine power and efficacy.”
[Large Catechism] CAT. MAJ., DECAL. (101): “Such is its virtue and power that where it is recalled to mind, or heard and considered with serious attention and interest, it never passes away without fruit, but always engages, retains, and excites the hearer with some new intelligence, delight, and devotion, and purifies his feelings and thoughts. For the words are not putrid or dead, destitute of sap and vigor, but truly living and efficacious.”
The Symbolical Books do not express themselves distinctly on the efficacy of the Word of God. The more fully stated views of the following Dogmaticians, according to which this efficacy or power is supernatural, if not precisely in the language of the Symbolical Books, are still in accordance with the opinions maintained in them.
[5] QUEN. (I, 170): “The innate power and tendency of God’s Word is always to convince men of its truth, unless its operation is hindered and prevented by voluntary self-assertion and contumacy superadded to a natural repugnance.” Hence the Word is to be regarded as producing an effect wherever it is used; but at the same time it depends on the conduct of men whether it has the special effect designed by its author. “The second act is considered either as the ενεργεια and operation or as the effect itself. If it be regarded as the energy and operation, then it always accompanies the Word of God preached, read, or heard, i.e., it always exerts itself when legitimately used, since the Word of God is never inoperative, but always operative. But, if it be considered as the effect itself, this does not always follow, in consequence of the impediment interposed by the subject or on account of the hardness of the hearts upon which it operates. Although, therefore,504the effect of the preached Word is sometimes hindered, yet the efficacy or intrinsic virtue itself cannot be taken away or separated from it. And thus accidentally it may be inefficacious, not from a deficiency of power, but by the exercise of perverseness, which hinders its operation so that its effect is not attained.” . . . Hence the power of the Word is not irresistible, but resistible (171). This efficacy, as belonging to the Word of God, generally, is predicated both of the Law and the Gospel, yet with a distinction.
QUEN. (I, 170): “When we attribute to the Word a divine power and efficacy to produce spiritual effects, we wish not to be understood as speaking of the Gospel only, but also of the Law. For, although the Law does not produce these gracious results directly and per se, i.e., kindle faith in Christ and effect conversion, since this is rather to be ascribed to the Gospel, still the letter is not on this account dead, but is efficacious after its kind: for it killeth, 2 Cor. 3:6; it worketh wrath, Rom. 4:15, etc.
[6] HOLL. (992): “The efficacy of the divine Word is not only objective or significative, like the statue of Mercury, for instance, which points out the path, but does not give power or strength to the traveler to walk in it, but it is effective, because it not only shows the way of salvation, but saves souls.”
[7] QUEN. (I, 170): “The Word works not only by moral suasion, by proposing a lovely object to us, but also by a true, real, divine, and ineffable influence of its gracious power, so that it effectually and truly converts, illuminates, etc., the Holy Spirit operating in, with, and through it; for in this consists the difference between the divine and the human word.”
BR. (123): “(The Holy Scriptures have an active, supernatural force or power) which is to be sought neither in the elegance of their style, nor in the sublimity of their thoughts, nor in the power of their arguments; but it is far superior to every created and finite agency.”
It is a supernatural power in distinction from that which human eloquence possesses. But in another aspect it is also called natural, inasmuch as the Word of God cannot be conceived of without such an efficacy. QUEN. (I, 172): “We say that there is a natural efficacy in the Word of God, because it naturally belongs to it, and its essence and nature are such that it could not be the true Word of God unless it contained within itself that divine power and virtue to convert men, etc., etc.” BR. (124), however, observes: “To avoid ambiguity and disputes, we avoid the use of this term.”
[8] HOLL. (993): “A divine power is communicated to the 505Word by the Holy Spirit joined with it indissolubly.” Hence, there is a native or intrinsic power and efficacy belonging to the Word, deeply inherent in it. The Dogmaticians draw proofs of this, (1) From the qualities which the divine Word ascribes to itself, John 6:63Rom. 1:16Heb. 4:12, 131 Thess. 2:131 Pet. 1:23James 1:21. (2) From the similar supernatural and divine operations which are ascribed to the Word of God and the Holy Spirit, ex. gr., calling, 2 Tim. 2:14; illumination, 2 Pet. 1:19; conversion, Jer. 23:29; regeneration, 1 Pet. 1:23; justification, 2 Cor. 3:9; sanctification, John 17:17. (3) HOLL. (ib.): “The Word of God, as such, cannot be conceived of without the divine virtue, or the Holy Spirit, who is inseparable from His Word. For if the Holy Spirit could be separated from the Word of God, it would not be the Word of God or of the Spirit, but a word of man. Nor is there any other Word of God, which is in God, or with which men of God have been inspired, than that which is given in the Scriptures or is preached or treasured up in the human mind. But, as it cannot be denied that that is the divine will, counsel, mind, and the wisdom of God, so it cannot be destitute of the divine virtue or efficacy.”
[9] QUEN. (I, 183): “We are to assume here not only a certain conjunction or union of distinct actions, or even a unity of aims or effects, but also a unity of energy and operation. For the Holy Spirit does not by Himself do something, and the Word of God by itself something else, in the conversion of men; but they produce the one effect by one and the same action. For such is the peculiar nature of the principal and subordinate causes, intrinsically united together, that they produce an effect by one and the same action. Thus the soul and the eye see by a single action, and not by distinct actions.”
[10] BR. (1124): “Truly that same infinite virtue which is essentially per se and independently in God, and by which He enlightens and converts men, is communicated to the Word, and, although it is communicated to the Word, yet it must be considered as divine.” . . . But it by no means follows from this that there is a commingling of God and the Word in regard to this divine power; hence BR. (128) says: “They frequently and diligently impress it upon us that the same virtue belongs to God and the Scriptures, but not in the same way; for that of God is essential, fundamental, original, and independent, while that of the Scriptures is dependent and participative or derived.” . . . Hence it is said of the Word that it exhibits its power and efficacy οργανικως, or instrumentally . . . . QUEN. (I, 172): “The divine Word is not 506the principal agent in the work of conversion, regeneration, and salvation, but it is only a suitable means or organ which God ordinarily uses in producing spiritual effects, not indeed by necessity or indigence, as if He so bound His efficacy in the conversion of men to His Word that He could not convert men without any means, or by any other means or organ than His Word if He wished, but of His own free will, because thus it pleased Him. 1 Cor. 1:21.”
[11] QUEN. (I, 170): “Whether the Word be read or not, whether it be heard and believed or not, yet the efficacy of its spiritual effects is always intrinsically inherent in it by the divine arrangement and communication, nor does this divine efficacy only come to it when it is used. For the Word of God, as such, cannot even be conceived of apart from the divine virtue and gracious working of the Holy Spirit, because this is inseparable from the Word of God.”
HOLL. (993) uses the following figures: “It possesses and retains its internal power and efficacy even when not used, just as the illuminating power of the sun continues, although, when the shadow of the moon intervenes, no person may see it; and just as an internal efficacy belongs to the seed, although it may not be sown in the field.”
In order to avoid misapprehension, it is expressly observed that the Word does not operate physically (by the contact of an agent, as opium, poison, fire, etc.), but morally (by enlightening the mind, moving the will, etc.); and a distinction is made between the efficacy of the Word considered in the first act and in the second act, or between efficacy and efficiency. When it is said that the Word operates extra usum, when not used, it is only meant that the power is constantly inherent in the Word, just as the power to give light always exists in the sun; so that, when the Word is to produce a certain effect, the power must not first come to it, but that the Word exercises its legitimate influence only where it is properly used.”
QUEN. (I, 171): “The first act is the operating power δυναμις ενεργητικη; the second act is the real operation. The Word does not exhibit its efficacy in the second act unless in the legitimate use of it.”
QUEN. (ib.) (from his Theses against Rathman): “The distinction we make is not unreasonable, between the power, or the first act, and the divine operation, or second act, of the outwardly read or preached Word.Per se, and in itself, it always is a power, or has in itself a power, to move all readers and hearers, hypocrites as 507well as believers and converted persons, which is not a physical power, physically included in the letter, like that of medicine, but a divine power, which is always communicated to the read or preached Word by the Holy Spirit. But this power, although it is always present in the preached Word, yet is not always operative on all.” HOLL. (994) illustrates this by the following example: “The hand of a sleeping man does nothing, yet neither is the power of action bestowed on it in vain, nor is the hand thus inoperative, dead.”
The Lutheran theologians, in general, had reason to illustrate very particularly the doctrine of the operation of the Word of God, in order to oppose the Enthusiasts and Mystics, who held that the Holy Spirit operated rather irrespectively of the Word than through it; and to oppose also the Calvinists, who, led by their doctrine of predestination, would not grant that the Word possessed this power per se, but only in such cases where God chose. Hence the position that the Word also possessed a power extra usum was specially defended against Rathman (1628), who denied it, and who appears to have maintained only an objective efficacy of the Word of God. (QUEN. (I, 174) gives the following opinions of Rathman: “Rathman compares the Word of God to a statue of Mercury, to a picture, to a sign, and even to a channel; namely, to instruments altogether passive and inoperative. He asserts, moreover, that the divine efficacy is external to the Word of God, separable from it at any moment, and merely auxiliary (παραστατικον); that the Holy Spirit with His virtue joins Himself to the Word only in the mind or heart of man, and only then when it is legitimately and savingly used.”) But an efficacy extra usum must necessarily be maintained, if the Word of God is not to be put on a precise level with every human word.
HOLL. (992) thus sums up the doctrine: “The Word of God is the most efficacious means of salvation, for its power and efficacy are not only objective, but also effective; not consisting in moral suasion, but in supernatural operation; not external and coming to it when used by men, but intrinsic in the Word; not accidental, but necessary, by a divinely ordained necessity, and therefore not separable, but perpetual, inherent in the Word itself extra usum, as the first act. This efficacy is truly divine, producing the same effect as the Holy Spirit, who is perpetually united with the Word, which (effect) the Spirit influences together with the Word, by the divine power which belongs to the Holy Spirit originally and independently, but to the divine Word communicatively and dependently, on account of its mysterious, intimate, and individual union with the Spirit.”

The One Percent Can Plagiarize - Just Ask Tim Glende, Paul McCain, and Deputy Doug Engelbrecht


McCain's http://cyberbrethren.com/ has become rather dull lately. He stopped plagiarizing so my detective skills are lying fallow at the moment. He was even linking his plagiarized Roman Catholic material on LutherQuest (sic). That is like Pope Benedict issuing an "apostolic letter" while copying it verbatim from the Book of Concord.

Did he repent and apologize? If so, I missed it.

I will be happy to reprint his apology, if and when it happens. Kintz owes the publishing world an apology too. McCain is listed as working 50 hours a week at Concordia Publishing House and earning a princely salary with more in benefits than many make as a salary. Therefore, McCain represents his employer and church body whenever he steals material from another source and parades it as if he wrote it himself.

Nevertheless, Kintz is worse for tolerating this behavior in a subordinate and doing nothing about it.

Facebook users and bloggers are weary of McCain's nastiness. I can only conclude that he has the blessing of SP Harrison, who makes a great show of his friendship with McCain. Herman Otten knows how precious that friendship and cooperation is - just like Waldo Werning's.

---

Norman Teigen has left a new comment on your post "The One Percent Can Plagiarize - Just Ask Tim Glen...":

Well, GJ, don't hold your breath. I think that people like the Celebrity Lutheran Blogger eventually discover that they can be perceived to be The Public Fool. There is no reasoning with these persons because they are arrogant. Ibsen had a line on this in one of his plays: "Do you think that the things people make fools of themselves about are any less real and true than the things they behave sensibly about? They are more true: they are the only things that are true.". Henrik Ibsen Candida (1898). Act 1. From Augarde, Tony. "The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations". New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. P. 194 (4)

Shock and Scandal - Actually Reading Schmid


Here is some typical nastiness from Tim Glende, whose worship with gay activist Andy Stanley (a crypto-Babtist) is documented by his side-kick Ski:

On his blog www.thegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com, Rev. Gregory Jackson wants everyone to download a copy of Heinrich Schmid’s Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Dr. Jackson promotes this volume as a faithful presentation of Biblical and Lutheran doctrine. But Schmid’s Doctrinal Theology is filled with errors, especially the errors of synergism and intuitu fidei, which were dealt with by confessional Lutherans in the 19th Century.

It has been said that those who don’t learn from the mistakes of history are bound to repeat them. Greg Jackson is too smart not to remember the obvious doctrinal errors of the past. But we still wonder about his intelligence when we view the pictures he posts on his site and the obvious lies and half-truths he continues to repeat.


I am glad he produced that post, because everyone should study the gap that exists between Lutheran doctrine and bigoted, ignorant, self-preening WELS dogma.

Note what his own cited version of Schmid says:


The title page also indicates the nature of the original work. It is not a dogmatic text so much as it is a compilation of theological statements drawn from the writings of fourteen prominent Lutheran theologians who lived during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. These quotations are employed to support and clarify the Christian faith after the pattern of presentation developed in the early Lutheran tradition.


In their own preface the translators point out that, “The aim of the compiler was of a purely historical character . . . not to afford a summary of absolutely final definitions of Lutheran Theology, but to exhibit the teaching that had been current up to the time of Rationalism.” Notwithstanding the present emphasis on “back to Luther,” the great systematizers who followed him will remain important. A frank recognition of their limitations does not weaken respect for their contribution. It is this respect, and the fact that so small a part of the voluminous writings of these theologians is available in English, which underlies the decision to reissue this volume.


I am trying to discover what crime has been committed in collecting Lutheran resources for people to use, posted on this blog or linked on one convenient page. That is quite a contrast with someone who preaches Groeschel, copies Stanley, and lies about it.

First of all, Tim's comments raise the issue of whether he has ever opened that book or studied it. The first page states that Schmid collected the quotations to be a library of statements from Lutheran theologians before the Age of Rationalism. There was no guarantee that all the statements harmonize. It is a collection, not a Book of Concord. The fact remains, there is nothing like it in publishing. Ever since Robert Preus died we have no one who is familiar with all the Lutheran orthodox writers and active in writing original works. Repristination Press has done a good job of providing everyone with books never before translated into English.

But so-called conservative Lutherans do not have another Robert Preus today because they have put their millions into creating C. Peter Wagner clones, Craig Groeschel copies, and Andy Stanley minions. The yield is impressive - like a field of ragweed blowing in the wind, scattering noxious seed in every direction. Weeds grow best in fertile soil, so these synod-supported false teachers have produced with promiscuous abundance.

Tim graduated from a unaccredited seminary famous for its empty library. Students party through their years there and tell the gullible how hard their "graduate school" is. Tim's citations are absurdly dishonest. Who said each statement? Why is that cut off? Perhaps Tim barely knows any of the authors cited. The section of the book is called "The Benevolence of God Toward Fallen Man." That sound really evil, doesn't it? Tim's quotations, probably provided by Uncle John Brug or someone else who has opened a book, are from Schmid's introductory remarks.

A genuine student of theology--not the pious fraud of Freedom, Wisconsin--would list his objections to the quotations in a serious review of the book. That would require some mental labor. His post is an example of poisoning the well, the knee-jerk reaction of the Wisconsin Sect when their false doctrine is exposed.

The idea is to make readers gasp, "Oh, Schmid. Ichabod has linked Schmid on his blog. He must be evil. Tim makes that very clear and he has an uncle who teaches at The Sausage Factory. Tim must know because He. Studied. Greek."

Five seconds later, no one remembers anything about Schmid but they are sure this blog must be evil because the evil Schmid has been linked in an evil way, to promote some kind of false doctrine. 

They do not know that Northwestern Publishing House has published Schmid's History of Pietism! I doubt whether Tim knows it, owns it, or cares to crack the binding.

Here is the link, out in the open, for Mequon graduates. They are rather slow at finding links embedded in the text. It's that little hand that apppears. Never mind. Here it is.


Will the odious translator be excommunicated? I actually know the NPH title list, which includes my own work. That translator - gasp - also provided us with Timotheus Verinus, the great orthodox Lutheran work written against the Pietists. I see a pattern here. Where is my Find him! Excommunicate him! rubber stamp? Ah yes, right at my fingertips.

Joe Krohn suggested this and sent the boot graphic to me.
Schmid's collection--so despised by Glenda--consists of quotations from the Book of Concord, Chemnitz, Gerhard, Baier (used by Walther), Calov (Bach's fave), Quenstedt (Robert Preus fave), Selnecker (Concordist), and a few others.

The book is arranged by doctrinal topic (locus). Schmid was a favorite among WELS and ALC pastors. I got my first copy from the Mequon book sale.


Recirculating the Lutheran Books

I have preserved over 3,000 quotations on Megatron, the legendary database,
but Ski and Glende have preserved the sermons and doctrine of Stanley and Groeschel.
Each according to his gifts.


Yesterday seemed good for hauling books to the post office. The temperature was over 100 when I carried them in.

It was great fun. One family is getting a Lutheran library, since I have Luther on the computer. I have many books that are valuable for the people who appreciate Lutheran doctrine, so I was able to share them. When I was done with the biggest box, for this family, I still had about five more books for a later shipment.

Many good Lutheran works are available for very little through Amazon and Alibris. I keep getting them here and there, including my own books. I just got a Schmid for reading in the car (not while driving). More on that later.

I developed a good collection on Walther and that history, so one researcher has those books.

One layman has copies of the English-only Triglotta coming to him.

There are books that only a few would appreciate and use. They went to another person, whose name I forgot.

I used to take empty boxes to the Trinity Seminary library sale in Columbus. I collected the best books before the apostates filed out of chapel. Later I was restricted to last in line, but I still got the best books. Who wants German Lutheran books? Not those yahoos. Mequon students were startled that I read German. My response was, "You don't? So how do you study theology?" The librarian at the time said, "My point exactly."

Everyone in WELS knew I had free books for the price of postage. Some visited the basement of the parsonage and picked out whatever they wanted. I received boxes of books from various donors and gave away about 30 boxes of books, including entire collections on certain topics: gardening, poetry, etc.

A library should circulate rather than be a mausoleum. As I told Patsy Leppien (What's Going On Among the Lutherans?) - "Writers read all the time, and readers end up writing." Patsy read all the time about how Lutherans fell apart. She wrote her book while I was writing Liberalism, Its Cause and Cure.

Opponents of sound doctrine make the study of theology fascinating. We should appreciate them, thank them, and pelt them with dog manure as we drive them out of town - following the Book of Concord, Luther at his best.

When picking up sermons for their homiletics class....


The American Spectator : Forked Tongue at the State Department.
Just Pretend It Never Happened - Works for Missouri, WELS, ELS, CLC (sic), LCR

The American Spectator : Forked Tongue at the State Department:


Demmink also is alleged to have raped several young boys while visiting Turkey. Two of these Turkish victims through their Dutch attorney, Adele van der Plas, have brought their charges to criminal court, but have been stymied by Demmink's allies. The boys are now left only with the option of seeking civil damages against their alleged rapist. Van de Plas said, "We cannot allow Demmink's offenses to be quietly hidden away. We must demand his public accountability in a court of law." Another of Demmink's male victims, a young Dutch citizen, has now stepped forward publicly to join the other accusers against Demmink for child molestation and rape.
For years, Demmink has enjoyed the protection of fellow bureaucrats and politicians. His reputation for abusing boys is known and has been reported by a number of Dutch media outlets, to no avail. It seems the Dutch power elite are determined to provide Demmink protection.


'via Blog this'

***

GJ - Darwin Schauer? The Pennsylvania case? Missouri does not remember.

Tabor? Just? Zerbe? Stolzenburg involved with LCMS, WELS and ELS? Nope.

Rev. Harrison - Tear Down That Idol!






Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel has left a new comment on your post "Just Like Bishop Stephan, STD - The Founder of the...":



Ichabod -

It is inconceivable that C.F. Walther was not privy to what was going on. How could he not know of Stephan's grievous sins?

As Penn State is considering taking down Paterno's statue, perhaps, some statutes of the LCMS second founder need to be considered for dismantling as well......

Nathan M. Bickel

www.thechristianmessage.org
www.moralmatters.org


---

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel has left a new comment on your post "Rev. Harrison - Tear Down That Idol!":

Ichabod - You have outdone yourself!

What a magnificent photo of the whitened Walther! I wonder how many gallons of solution, it has taken (over the years) to maintain his pure appearance.

Do you know if visitors to this graven image are required to wash their feet in LCMS holy water before venturing in on this festal concrete and stone garden? And, who pays for all that holy water? Does LCMS receive an annual grant from Thrivent?

Nathan M. Bickel

www.thechristianmessage.org

www.moralmatters.org

---

bruce-church (http://bruce-church.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Rev. Harrison - Tear Down That Idol!":

Stephan is similar to Joseph Smith, and Walther to Brigham Young. Smith is the scandalous founder of the LDS who moved that sect around the US, and the less scandalous Brigham Young moved the sect to Utah where it stayed, and spread out from there. The mega-scandalous Stephan founded the LCMS and brought it to America and SE Missouri. Then the less scandalous Walther moved it to St. Louis where it headquartered and spread out from there.

***

GJ - Your analogy limps. Dr. Church. Bringem' Young had 30+ wives, expanding upon the example of Joseph Smith, who had quite a few of his own. Young thought the day consisted of 8 hours of work, 8 hours of sleep, 8 hours of fun.

Phoenix has the densest population of Mormons outside of Salt Lake City. There were many plural marriages - perhaps 10,000 of them in the metropolis. I had some classes where most of the students were Mormons, and some where the entire class deeply resented the Mormon influence in local business.

I learned a lot.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Just Like Bishop Stephan, STD - The Founder of the Missiouri Synod - And His Mistress

Traveling together without benefit of marriage?
What do you think you are - Missouri Synod?


http://www.biblebelievers.com/SDA/SDA4.html


AN ACTUAL WITNESS
Mrs. Lucinda Bodge Burdick published the following in an 1874 issue of The World's CrisisMrs. Burdick had become well acquainted with Ellen Harmon and James White when the three of them stayed together several times in 1845 at the home of Josiah Little (Burdick's uncle) in South Windham, Maine:
"At the time of my first acquaintance with them (James White and Ellen Harmon) in early 1845 they were in a wild fanaticism, - used to sit on the floor instead of chairs, and creep around the floor like little children. They were NOT MARRIED BUT TRAVELING TOGETHER. Considerable scandal was created by the intimacy of this man and woman, but the "talk" gradually subsided after their marriage in 1846."

Stephan left his wife in Europe, but traveled and lived with his mistress
on that holy mission to bring his message to America.



Another Clue about WELS Dogma - Wauwatosa.
In Essence, Rejecting the Creeds and Luther - In Favor of Their Own Authority

August Pieper, Wauwatosan, UOJist,
split WELS and called the victims divisive.
That sounds familiar.


http://essentiallylutheran.blogspot.com/2007/01/wauwatosa-theology.html

With Forde as my main course and Capon for desert (sic), I like the writings of the Wauwatosa Theologians as vegetable side dishes. Not necessarily tasty or easy to chew, but highly nutritious.

They taught in the fledgling Wisconsin Synod seminary in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin in the early part of the 20th century (roughly 1900 - 1930). Their names were J.P. Koehler (pictured), August Pieper and John Schaller. Highly gifted, and perhaps a bit outspoken (Koehler was kicked out in 1929), their spirit and devotion to Scripture is now looked on as representing the golden age of the WELS.

What made them unique within conservative Lutheranism was their antipathy toward blind dogmatism based on the work of prior theologians (repristinating), openness to being taught by Scriptural authority and renewed emphasis on Biblical exegesis. In the words of Pieper:

 … we submit to no man, be his name Luther or Walther, Chemnitz or Hoenecke, Gerhard or Stoeckhardt, so long as we have clear Scripture on our side. . . . We esteem the fathers highly, far higher than ourselves as far more learned and more devout than we are. Therefore, we want to use them, particularly Luther, as guides to Scripture, and to test their doctrines a hundred times before we reject them. But authorities equal to Scripture or opposed to Scripture they may never become for us, or we shall be practicing idolatry. . "

They saw that the conservative synods of the Lutheran church were falling victim to the same error that Luther denounced - putting the authority of the church fathers above that of Scripture. Pieper called this authority-theology.

"We renounce this authority-theology anew. It causes so much damage to the church. It is unfaithfulness to the Lord; slavery to men; it brings errors with it. But it also makes the mind narrow and the heart small. . . . Dogmatic training perhaps makes one orthodox, but it also easily makes one orthodoxist, intolerant, quarrelsome, hateful, and easily causes division in the church.
. .
Scripture is at once narrow and broad. The study of it makes the heart narrow to actual false doctrine and heresies, but broad toward various human expressions and presentations. It does not accuse of false doctrine unnecessarily; it teaches us to bear and suffer in love the mistakes of the weak. It keeps the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. Therefore we want to entirely do away with this dogmatic authority-theology, and to sink ourselves ever deeper into Scripture and to promote it above all else. We know that in doing so we will best serve the church.”

- August Pieper (1913), Quoted by Mark Braun in The Wauwatosa Gospel (2002). p 25.

The Wauwatosa theologians proved that it is possible to keep dogmatics in its proper place without sacrificing it to skepticism or liberalism. In so doing, they brought fresh clarity to the Gospel which, to ears dulled by dry dogma, sounds somewhat radical.

Seventh Day Adventist History - Parallels with WELS - Including UOJ

William Miller predicted the end of the world, twice,
so his group was called the Millerites, then the Seventh Day Adventists.


The Adventists gave Kellogg the Left Foot of Fellowship.
His sanitarium was in Battle Creek, which became the cereal capital of America.



Ellen White is known as a crackpot, liar, and serial plagiarist.
She would do well in LCMS publishing today.

This is a fun book to read through. One of my Facebook friends suggested it. He was an Adventist and is now a Lutheran. One part of my family started out as Adventists. Two were bishops in the Battle Creek area, according to family stories. Aunt Lilly wrote that they moved to Iowa and became Evangelicals because they could not be hog farmers and Adventists.

Those who deny the Means of Grace--all the UOJ fanatics--should read what happens when people disregard this Biblical teaching. As Luther promised, all kinds of foul errors rush in to fill the void.

Sound familiar? -


It is this view of justification and sanctification that is to a large degree responsible for robbing God’s people of the assurance of salvation and driving them out of the church. Tell me, who wants to remain in a church that offers no real peace with God and is constantly putting you on a guilt trip?
This confused idea of salvation is what led E. G. White to correct the pastors at Battle Creek in 1890. I quoted her statement to them when we studied the Objective and Subjective salvation. Here is the essence of what she said:

“The danger has been presented to me again and again of entertaining, as a people, false ideas of justification by faith. I have been shown for years that Satan would work in a special manner to confuse the mind on this point.... I have been shown that many have been kept from the faith because of the mixed, confused ideas of salvation, because the ministers have worked in a wrong manner to reach hearts. The point that has been urged upon my mind for years is the imputed righteousness of Christ.” (FW, 18).

And this, from Brett Meyer's research -

http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2010/11/seventh-day-adventists-agree-with.html

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

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


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

---

Analysis of the Doctrine of
Universal "Legal" Justification


Larry J. Kane
Introduction

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

I. Examination of Key Scriptural Texts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verse 18 reads as follows:

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

This verse is construed by the 1888 MSC as teaching a universal legal justification on two grounds. For one, the structure of the verse is viewed as a perfect parallel: The judgment which came upon all men by Adam's sin is matched by the free gift which came upon all men unto justification of life through Christ's righteousness. As there is no exception with the former, so there can be no exception with the latter.[11] Second, that the gift unto justification is free is viewed by Waggoner as "evidence that there is no exception to its application.[12]
In beginning an analysis of Romans 5, one first must recognize that it is a continuation of the theme introduced in the third chapter, that is, righteousness by faith. As discussed above concerning Romans 3:23-24, the only justification presented in the third chapter is that which is accessed by faith in Christ and His sacrificial death. So begins the fifth chapter: "Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." 





***

GJ - The Adventist parallel with UOJ comes from the excessive plagiarism of Ellen White, their main theologian and prophetess. Her visions borrowed constantly from books previous published by Evangelicals and other authors. She was a mosaic plagiarist, like the author of the Manchurian Candidate. Instead of simply borrowing whole hog from one author, she put together her dogma from a whole collection of books, including Milton's Paradise Lost.

The archives of the Ellen White estate have tried to keep the truth from coming out. Does that sound like the Concordia Hysterical Institute? Anyone who questions the sanctity of CFW Walther is met with hysterical name-calling. The last thing Missouri wants is the factual history coming out.