Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Ah, To Be Loved by the Synod Is To Be Hated by God



KJV Galatians 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.


I was discussing the synodical death-grip with a few people today. The denominations today are failures and completely out of touch with their own congregations. That alienation does not matter, because they have their endowments and foundations. More importantly, they know how to grab power and stay in control. 

Recently I saw a photo of McCain, Wilken, and Harrison posing with a fourth person. They were much younger and fitter in those days. The faded photo indicates they were working on skimming the Schwan money together, long ago. Starting Logia? I am not sure. Does it matter?

Back then, the SynCons were always rejoicing that they got the largest single charitable gift in those days. The synods never admitted the price paid by Mrs. Schwan so Marvin would feel compelled to fund so many indulgences. So much like Stephan and Walther - never let a case of adultery go to waste.

Most of the "mission" money is nothing more that salary, benefits, and luxuries for the political few. Like the politicians in DC, the synodical parasites know little about real work, so they gravitate to positions where they can avoid labor while inventing ways to write proposals and spend money. 

Embraced by the tiger, most clergy and laity are afraid to let go. They might feel the raking claws and reeking breath of the predatory synod. In an era where the Means of Grace are rejected as boring and irrelevant (unlike rock music), the synods show no forgiveness when the wisdom of the wizards is opposed.

But why be afraid? God is far more powerful than any synod.


KJV Psalm 37:25 I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.

http://www.normaboecklerart.com



Now - A Word from a Pariah Who Trusted in the Efficacy of the Word in Consecrating the Elements of Holy Communion.
All the SynCons Know that the Hand Effects the Real Presence

The Word of God consecrates? How could that be?


John Gore has left a new comment on your post "WELS - Your Diaprax Is Showing. Translation Evalua...":

I graduated from the WELS Sem in 1985, just as Church Growth was taking over. This--and the loss of whatever deep thinkers the Synod had in the next decade or so--has completely debilitated the WELS at the top levels. I can't say much about the rank and file since none of them converse with me any longer (I was kicked out in 1997 and so am a pariah) but I'm sure there are still good men there who suffer at such news as this. 


I don't know what the solution is. Joining the ELS is more of the same, and the LCMS has its own problems to deal with. We are in the last days and there is a most definite dark age approaching, where ignorance and superstition will reign, as it did in the Middle Ages, and for the same reasons as well, the rejection of God's truth for human teachings. God be merciful to us sinners.

***

GJ - I knew John Gore before he was expelled from WELS for teaching what the Book of Concord confesses - the Real Presence.

The SynCons fell into this odd dogma of the elements remaining bread and wine until they were received by the communicant, making the bodies of communicants efficacious in consecration. And that dogma necesarily denied the efficacy of the Word. That was bad enough, but consecration by the Word became anathema to the SynCons, a sin worthy of excommunication.

The Pietism of WELS, Missouri, and the Little Sect on the Prairie led to Receptionism (which Gore opposed), Church Growth (which I opposed), and UOJ (which the Kokomo families and Pastor Paul Rydecki opposed).

The common denominator is lack of trust in the Word of God, separating the work of the Holy Spirit from the Word. The neo-Enthusiasts are hailed as the great leaders of the SynCons today.


Even the peacock is speechless.


Rutschow expelled the Mother Church of the Synodical Conference from WELS - how appropriate.
Meanwhile, Mark and Avoid Jeske straddles the synods as their medial spokes-idiot.

Bishop Martin Stephan and the Synodical Conference Today

Thomas Cole, Dream of Arcadia


narrow-minded has left a new comment on your post "Spinning the Bishop Stephan Story - Missouri Mytho...": 

Thanks for the review. Since I am in the middle of reading "Zion," I have noticed some similarities to the present-day SynCon:

1. Wave the BOC and brag to everyone about how "Confessional" you are, yet practice Pietism (while condemning Rationalism, as if one is worse than the other).

2. If someone has the audacity to disagree with you, make him fall prostrate in front of you and profusely apologize before possibly granting him absolution.

3. Whine and snivel about how persecuted you are in order to avoid getting in trouble - or to advance your agenda.

4. Mismanage the money so you live like a king and enjoy luxuries. Meanwhile, your peons can get by with virtually nothing.

Since I am only partially through "Zion," I am amazed that the "late night walks" didn't raise many suspicions. Like today's SynCon, sexual sin is covered up, but the truth eventually surfaces.

Another thing I learned was that the polity was to be episcopal. In today's SynCon, the SP's and DP's can get outright hierarchical if you oppose their agenda. On the other hand, Congregational Polity and adiaphora are reserved for true errors in doctrine and practice. 


***

GJ - The graphic above, from Zion on the Mississippi, explains in a few words how the Stephan enterprise worked then and how the SynCons manage today.

WELS and Missouri deal with crimes committed by church workers today by covering up for the criminals and destroying the evidence. Severe doctrinal error is defined by them as denying the pusillanimous Universalism of world salvation without faith or criticizing the Barthian seminary--Fuller--that gathers them together in Church Growthiness. 

Mr. Wauwatosa, Brett Meyer, and Paul Rydecki Comment on Luther


Three Volumes of Wauwatosa!


One of those blog-for-about-a-week blogs and then quit. <<<---Mequon graduates. That is an embedded link for the Wauwatose Gospel of Universal Salvation. Click on it.






Peter Prange, Mr. Wauwatosa said...
How are the words of the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 4:9,10 to be understood? "This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe."

It seems to me that St Paul is making a distinction here between believers and unbelievers, but that it would be proper to say on the basis of this passage that, objectively speaking, Jesus is the Savior of unbelievers, that the Father's wrath over against all sin has been appeased by the perfect, once for all, sacrifice of Jesus. Jesus is "especially" the Savior of those who believe, because they will actually benefit from his saving work. But, objectively speaking, Jesus is also the Savior of those who do not believe, right?

Also, isn't the basis of an unbeliever's ultimate judgment the fact that he stubbornly refused to believe something that was objectively true? (Mt 23:37) If something is not really true until I believe it, how can I be condemned for not believing it? I can't be held accountable - can I? - because it wasn't true/real, since I never believed it. (I hope that makes sense).

Help me understand what I'm missing.
Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...
Pete, those are good questions.

First, the question about 1 Tim. 4:9. “…the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.” Melanchthon and Chemnitz (in their respective Loci) both conclude that God is the Savior of all men in the sense of divine Preservation, that is, with respect to the earthly gifts He gives to all men such as sunshine, rain, harvests, etc., while He is the spiritual Savior of believers in Christ.

Gerhard cites several other Fathers who share this understanding, such as Ambrose and Jerome. He cites Theophylact who explains this verse as a parallel to 1 Tim. 2:4, “God wants all men to be saved.” Gerhard’s personal understanding is that “God is the Savior of all on account of the universal acquisition of salvation obtained through Christ, and because of the universal mercy of God who seriously desires the salvation of all; but He is especially the Savior of believers on account of both the acquisition and the application of salvation.”

I am happy with any of these interpretations, though I favor Gerhard. I am more than willing to speak of Christ having obtained or acquired salvation for all, just as I am willing to say that Christ obtained or acquired righteousness for all, or that Christ has acquired eternal life for all. But not all have been made alive, not all have been declared righteous, and not all have been saved, because that includes the application of the benefit.
But I am equally persuaded by Luther’s interpretation of John 1, which would apply just as well to this passage:

He says “it enlightens all people who come into this world”; this is without a doubt said of all human beings who are born. St. Augustine says one must interpret the passage to mean that no man is enlightened except by this light, in the same way that one customarily says of a teacher in a city, where there is no other teacher, that this teacher teaches everyone in the city, i.e., there is no teacher in this city except this one. He alone has all the pupils. Saying this does not mean that he is teaching all the people in the city, but merely that there is only one teacher in the city and that nobody is taught by another person.

Thus here, too, the evangelist did not intend that John or any other human being or any creature should be the light, but that there is only one light which illumines all men and that not a single human being could come upon the earth who could be illumined by anybody else. I do not know how to disagree with this interpretation; for in the same manner also St. Paul writes in Romans 5[:18]: “As through one man’s sin condemnation has come over all men, so through one man’s righteousness justification has come over all men.” Yet not all men are justified through Christ, nevertheless he is the man through whom all justification comes. It is the same here. Even if not all men are illumined, yet this is the light from which alone all illumination comes. (AE:52:71)


Continued…
Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...
…Continued

When you say “the Father's wrath over against all sin has been appeased by the perfect, once for all, sacrifice of Jesus,” that is true wherever Christ is. But where Christ is not, there the Father’s wrath abides (John 3:36). Or as Luther says, To the extent that Christ rules by His grace in the hearts of the faithful, there is no sin or death or curse. But where Christ is not known, there these things remain. (AE:26:282), or This does not mean that there is no sin in us, as the sophists have taught when they said that we must go on doing good until we are no longer conscious of any sin; but sin is always present, and the godly feel it. But it is ignored and hidden in the sight of God, because Christ the Mediator stands between; because we take hold of Him by faith, all our sins are sins no longer. But where Christ and faith are not present, here there is no forgiveness of sins or hiding of sins. On the contrary, here there is the sheer imputation and condemnation of sins. (AE:26:133).

You asked, “isn't the basis of an unbeliever's ultimate judgment the fact that he stubbornly refused to believe something that was objectively true?”

Well, yes, but what is it he is supposed to believe? That all people, including he, have already been justified, or that Christ has already saved him? Not at all, but that “whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved.” He is to believe a promise. He is to believe in the objective reality that is Christ Jesus and the satisfaction He made for sin and the righteousness that He offers in the Word of the Gospel.

But no, the thing promised does not already have to have happened in order for someone to believe a promise. One does not have to believe he has already been justified in order to be justified. In the same way, Abraham believed God and it was credited to him for righteousness. He believed a promise. The promise is objective. Again, “whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,” (or any number of promises). God makes a promise of justification to all who believe (Rom. 3:22,26). In the same way, the Ten Lepers did not need to believe that they were already healed before they came to Jesus for healing. They came trusting in His Word, His power, and His will to heal them. Christ Himself was the object of their faith, and Jesus said to the one who returned, “Your faith has saved you.” 
Brett Meyer said...
Just wanted to add an observation regarding this statement, "If something is not really true until I believe it, how can I be condemned for not believing it? I can't be held accountable - can I? - because it wasn't true/real, since I never believed it. (I hope that makes sense)."

This is a dilemma caused by the doctrine of Objective Justification establishing a false object of faith. UOJ teaches that the object of faith, the only thing that can create faith, is that the individual has already been declared by the omnipotent God to be justified: forgiven all sin, guiltless, righteous and worthy of eternal life.

But the true object of the Holy Spirit's faith is Christ, and Him crucified for each individual's sins. The promise is that by believing in Christ the individual will die to sin, die to the Law, be raised again to live under God's grace being Spiritually minded, receive Christ's righteousness for the forgiveness of all sins and eternal salvation. But mark this - the object of the faith of Holy Scripture is Christ. It is not sins already forgiven.

John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

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

Mark 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Clearly these are but a few of the Word's of God which declare the object of faith is Christ and not the forgiveness of sins.

Understanding this critical part of Christ's Gospel eliminates any need for the terms Objective and Subjective. Especially in light of the fact that the work of the Holy Spirit graciously working Godly contrition over sin and faith in Christ alone for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life is equally as Objective as Christ's atonement for the world's sins in that it is all a work of God without any contribution from man. There has never been a need or reason for differentiating between Objective and Subjective when faithfully confessing God's Word.

I hope this helps clarify these critical issues.
Brett Meyer said...
Providing examples that the doctrine of Universal Objective Justification teaches a false object of faith which is contrary to the object of the Holy Spirit's faith. Compare these quotes to God's Word quoted above:

District President Jon Buchholz
“But the concept of an entirely Christocentric, completed forgiveness for all people that exists before faith and as the object of saving faith is found even in the writings of the ancient church fathers.” Page 11

Kurt Marquart being approvingly quoted by Pastor Jon Buchholz
“Absolution is prior to, and creates faith, not vice versa.” Page 32

Marquart
“On the one hand forgiveness is the result of faith, and thus comes after faith, and on the other hand it is the object of faith and therefore goes before faith.” Page 34

Buchholz
“It is very clear here that forgiveness, in the form of the absolution, exists before and independently of faith, and creates or gives birth to it. Forgiveness or absolution (that is, the Gospel itself) creates faith; faith merely receives or accepts forgiveness. Absolution can exist without faith (although its benefits of course go to waste unless faith receives them), but faith cannot exist without absolution.107” Page 35
http://azcadistrict.com/sites/default/files/papers/Buchholz_2012-10.pdf

Jon Buchholz
“The general justification accomplished in God’s great exchange at the cross provides the object for justifying faith which personally grasps the objective truth.” Page 6
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BuchholzJustification1.pdf
Peter Prange said...
Thanks, Paul, for your kind attention to my question and comment.

Much as I appreciate what "the fathers" had to say about 1 Timothy 4:9,10, I'm more interested in what our Savior says through the inspired pen of the Apostle. I have a hard time understanding how most of the commentators you quoted could argue that Paul's words are analogous to Jesus' words in Matthew 5:45, that Jesus is the "Savior of all men" only with respect to their material well-being. There is absolutely nothing in those words or within the context of those words to suggest that the Apostle Paul was calling Jesus "the Savior of all men," only with respect to divine providence. Is that the message for which Paul and Timothy were "laboring and striving," that Jesus provides for your earthly needs, whether you believe in him or not? No, they were laboring and striving to proclaim the eternal salvation that is found in Christ Jesus alone, whether you believe it or not. They were called to proclaim, "Jesus is your only Savior" (whether you believe it or not, though I wouldn't suggest that you NOT believe it). I agree with you that Gerhard's understanding is the best of those of whom you quoted. The others, in my estimation, can be kindly disregarded.

As for John 3:36, I understand those words to be saying that the reason for the Father's wrath is NOT that Jesus' work of salvation for all people is somehow incomplete ("It is finished."), and I know that you yourself clearly assert that Jesus has made atonement for the sins of all people. The reason for the wrath described inJohn 3:36 is that an unbeliever "rejects the Son," who is, in fact, the Savior of all men. In other words, they will not be saved, even though, for all intents and purposes, salvation was theirs in Jesus. That reality highlights just how sad and stubborn unbelief is (and that God's eternal judgment is so many ways self-inflicted), as Jesus himself expresses in Matthew 23:37.

In the end, I think it's real important that we define our terms when controversy arises, otherwise we are very likely to talk past one another. It is also beneficial, I believe, to heed the advice of Prof. Joh. Ph. Koehler: "This must be observed above all in controversy. Fairness demands that we seek to understand our opponent, not as his words can or must be understood, but as he wants them to be understood. That provides first the right basis for the same understanding of the terms, without which an agreement is impossible from the outset" ("The Analogy of Faith," The Wauwatosa Theology, Vol. 1, p. 263).

I'm signing off, as I don't think I have much more to add to this discussion.
Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...
I'm more interested in what our Savior says through the inspired pen of the Apostle.

Come on, Pete. Let's not pretend that Chemnitz and Melanchthon weren't interested in what their Savior had to say. We're not talking about reprobates here. Perhaps they were simply relying on the analogy of faith, which makes it clear that God has not already "saved" all men, since most men remain condemned in Satan's kingdom and will never be "saved" at all--which isn't God's fault, but it's still the reality.

The work of "salvation," as defined by Scripture, is "finished" when the Holy Spirit brings people into the kingdom of Christ. The Holy Spirit has a vital role in God's plan of salvation. Father, Son and Spirit.

Christ's completed work was the earning or meriting or acquiring of the gift of salvation. He was not finished "saving" people at Calvary. To say that salvation was "finished" at Calvary is, at best, imprecise. That's why the Scriptures rightly say that "Baptism now saves you."

You can't say that the wrath of John 3:36 is only for "rejecting" the Son. You can't reject something that has never been presented to you, and children when they are conceived and born, like all who have never even heard the Gospel, cannot be said to "reject" the Son about whom they have never heard. Nevertheless, the Scriptures say that they are born in sin and are children of wrath until they are converted. Surely you are not saying that people are born with a righteous status before God until they hear the Gospel and reject it?

The simpler answer is that they are born as sinners, condemned because they have no righteousness with which to be justified. Since they do not know Christ, they do not trust in Christ and so do not receive His righteousness, which comes only by faith. Therefore, they remain under wrath and were never justified in the first place.
Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...
Brett, you highlighted a major sticking point in this whole discussion.

You quoted DP Buchholz as saying, "The general justification accomplished in God’s great exchange at the cross provides the object for justifying faith which personally grasps the objective truth."

First of all, history is finally revealing the truth that the Lutheran Church, from its very beginning absolutely rejected the notion of a "general justification." Hunnius has made than abundantly clear.

The second point has to do with "God's great exchange." There is a critical difference here between the two sides. The UOJ side teaches that God's great exchange was "finished" or completed 2,000 years ago.

But that is not what Luther taught about the "blessed exchange" (as he called it). More importantly, it is not what the Scriptures teach.

The Scriptures teach (2 Cor. 5:21) that God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

UOJ proponents read (or at least treat) this verse as saying that "all people were in Christ when He died on the cross and all people became the righteousness of God at that moment." In other words, the sins of all were charged to Christ, and His righteousness, in turn, was imputed to all people.

(Buchholz tries to run away from the term "imputed" here because the imputation of Christ's righteousness is so clearly tied to faith alone. But one cannot have the justification of sinners apart from the imputation of righteousness.)

The Scriptures teach that the sins of all were charged to Christ and He suffered for them all on the cross. But the other part of the "exchange," where His righteousness is imputed to sinners, was not completed 2,000 years ago, but only takes place as the Holy Spirit brings people to faith in Christ. His righteousness is only credited or imputed to believers, although He suffered for the sins of all.

The dangerous teaching of UOJ creates a fictional "completed exchange" at the cross and makes it the object of faith, so that, unless you believe that you, together with all people, were justified before you were born, you have no saving faith. I know that sounds extreme, but I have heard it put just that way from some of the more vehement supporters of UOJ.
Peter Prange said...
Dear Paul:

I also know that you know how the Ohio and Iowa men armed themselves with so-called "Analogy of Faith" in the early 20th century in order to ignore what the clear Scriptures say about the doctrine of election. My only point is that we should have our discussion on the basis of what the inspired writer has to say. Just because Paul's words in 1 Timothy 4:9,10 don't square with your fixed formula/sytem (or someone else's, for that matter), you're not allowed to dismiss clear words of Scripture by means of the so-called "Analogy of Faith." VDMA.

Grace and peace,
Peter
Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...
Peter, that's a red herring. If you really want to stick with what the inspired writer says in 1 Tim. 4:9-10, then you will leave it at "Savior of all men" and let it refer to who the living God is, rather than interpret it to mean "the One who has already objectively saved all men and declared them righteous in His sight." I daresay, such an interpretation comes neither from the inspired text nor from the analogy of faith, but from the Analogy of UOJ.
Anonymous said...
Peter said:

"In the end, I think it's real important that we define our terms when controversy arises."

I also think that's vitally important especially in this debate.

The Book of Concord defines Justification as taking place "by grace alone, through faith alone, through the Word alone" (Solid Declaration III:25 et al.).

Today we have a new definition - or new way of parsing the definition - of Justification that does not include faith or the Word (i.e. "Objective Justification"). Hasn't this new definition been what causes confusion and contributes to faulty ways of explaining how a person is saved (righteous saints in hell, etc.)?

What was inadequate with the "old way" of defining Justification that we needed to come up with a "new and improved version." If it's because there is confusion about the role of faith in a person's salvation, how about re-affirming the definition and role of faith - as the Book of Concord does adequately.

These theologians have a definition of Justification that seem to be at odds with each other. Who's right? Who's wrong? Can there be a compromise position?:

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/02/chemnitz-on-judicial-or-forensic.html

+ Pr. Jim Schulz

Warning WELS - Kurtzahn Is Death on Pancakes,
But Adultery and Incest Are Adiaphora

WELS Call Report.



Kurtzahn, Rev Stephen C    St John - Frontenac MN               01/06/2013
         Dual Parish with Immanuel, Rural Lake City

WELS - Your Diaprax Is Showing.
Translation Evaluation Committee report | Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)



Translation Evaluation Committee report | Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS):


WELS' Translation Evaluation Committee has completed its report for delegates to the 2013 synod convention. In the report, the committee outlines two options that it sees for deciding which Bible translation to use in WELS publications going forward.
In "Option 1," WELS adopts NIV 2011 for use in materials produced by Northwestern Publishing House (NPH). In "Option 2," WELS does not adopt a single Bible version for use in its publications at this time, and NPH uses whichever version of these three (ESV, HCSB, NIV 2011) seems best for the passage cited and the publication in which the biblical text will appear ("eclectic approach").
WELS' Translation Evaluation Committee was created in 2010 when news was received that the NIV 84, the official translation currently used in WELS publications, was being phased out and replaced with what is often referred to as NIV 2011. The committee consists of Rev. Paul Wendland, president of Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary; Rev. John Braun, vice president of publishing at Northwestern Publishing House; Rev. Kenneth Cherney Jr., professor at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary; Rev. Thomas Nass, professor at Martin Luther College; and Rev. Joel Petermann, president of Michigan Lutheran Seminary.
Over the past three years, the Translation Evaluation Committee has thoroughly researched the NIV 2011 along with other versions, notably the English Standard Version (ESV) and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). In 2012, the committee coordinated a review of these three translations in which the entire Bible was divided into 34 sections. Three WELS pastors were assigned to review each section in each translation, totaling 102 reviewers. Each reviewer noted the strongest and weakest passages in each translation, along with each translation’s appropriateness of English style and its overall acceptability for WELS as a publication translation.
The results of the review confirmed the committee’s conclusions that each translation has strengths and weaknesses. The majority of reviewers preferred the NIV 2011, with 86 percent of the reviewers rating the NIV 2011 higher than the ESV in overall acceptability for their section and 70 percent rating the NIV 2011 higher than the HCSB. In all of the 34 sections, at least one reviewer rated NIV 2011 the best.
As the Translation Evaluation Committee notes in its report to the 2013 synod in convention, “From the ‘Review of the 102,’ our own findings, and literally hundreds of conversations in which we have participated in various forums around our synod, two options have emerged, given as Option 1 and Option 2. Each has advantages and disadvantages, but the Translation Evaluation Committee sees either as entirely defensible and viable. Our recommendation is that the synod would discuss the matter thoroughly in the coming months, and then choose either Option 1 or Option 2 at the synod convention.”
The committee outlines advantages and disadvantages to each option in its convention report. Paul Wendland, chairman of the committee, emphasizes, “As a committee we are convinced that all the precious truths of our faith are clearly taught in all the translations we have considered. They have all been translated by people who have a high view of Scripture and who see the Bible’s message centering in Christ.”
Examples to support the committee’s conclusions—as well as many other documents created by the Translation Evaluation Committee to keep WELS members informed on the translation discussion—can be found at www.wels.net/translation.
The committee’s work is isolated to choosing a translation for use in WELS publications. The synod does not mandate which translation congregations or members should use.
View an optimized online version of the report to the 2013 synod in convention.
Why not?


'via Blog this'

***

GJ - See ChurchMouse and RogueLutheran posts on diaprax.

Moo, the NNIV salesman from Wheaton College,
is the WELS expert on the NNIV's superiority.

http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2013/02/wels-your-diaprax-is-showing.html


Yup. NIV2011 or else!

Even if they do vote for option 2, do we really expect to see anyone who gets published in official synod propaganda to admit that the NIV2011 is inferior to the ESV or HCSB by using either of those translations? 


Why limit it to just those 3 options? Why not add the KJV in? We used it for decades, or is the KJV now heresy, since it is clear on justification by faith alone?

So yeah, the translation of this report from WELS-speak to normal
English is:

"Vote for the NIV2011 now, or vote for option 2 and we'll continue complaining about how bad the ESV and HCSB are compared to the NIV2011 until the next synod convention, where, since all articles and materials will have been published with the NIV2011, we'll bring this vote thing up again. And don't you dare think about using something other than these three!"





Ecclesia Augustana: The Third Sacrament

"I confess! I confess!" -
Confessional WELS staffer during a plea bargain with his pricey lawyer.


Ecclesia Augustana: The Third Sacrament:


Tuesday, February 5, 2013


The Third Sacrament

No, this is not a “gotcha” post. It’s not a trick question. While many pastors teach that there are only two sacraments, the Lutheran Confessions do not limit the number of sacraments in any such way. In point of fact, the Symbols allow for variance when it comes to determining how many or few sacraments there are. As the Apology of the Augsburg Confession tells us:
We hold that it should be maintained that the matters and ceremonies instituted in the Scriptures, whatever the number, be not neglected. Neither do we believe it to be of any consequence, though, for the purpose of teaching, different people reckon differently, provided they still preserve aright the matters handed down in Scripture. Neither have the ancients reckoned in the same manner (XIII:2).
While this statement does not condemn numbering only two sacraments, it does suggest that the number itself is not as important as preserving the doctrines, rites, and ceremonies of Scripture that the word “sacrament” can represent. Moreover, the implication can be drawn that one should not judge or condemn his brother for teaching that there are more than two sacraments. The poignancy of this implication is made even more apparent when one considers that the Apology goes on to illustrate no less than three rites that should properly be called “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.
The Apology also discusses other rites which may or may not be properly be called “sacraments,” but for now I want to stick to the list at hand. For most people, reading this excerpt for the first time comes as a bit of a shock. Most of us grew up being taught varying interpretations of what a sacrament is; for example, in Confirmation class I was taught that the necessary qualifications for a rite to be considered a sacrament include “institution by Christ” and a “visible element.” The Apology doesn’t get as technical. All that is required per this definition is 1) the command of God and 2) the promise of grace. Within these parameters, Melanchthon identifies three rites which should be unequivocally granted the title of “sacrament:” Holy Baptism, the Holy Supper, and the Sacrament of Repentance.

That last one is perhaps the most shocking part about the excerpt. The Sacrament of Repentance? Like, Confession? Like, Private Confession? Isn’t that something that only the Papists do? Quite to the contrary. In fact, the Small Catechism outlines an entire form of Confession. And if that weren’t enough, the Blessed Reformer calls Repentance the “third Sacrament” in his Large Catechism:
And here you see that Baptism, both in its power and signification, comprehends also the third Sacrament, which has been called repentance, as it is really nothing else than Baptism. For what else is repentance but an earnest attack upon the old man [that his lusts be restrained] and entering upon a new life? Therefore, if you live in repentance, you walk in Baptism, which not only signifies such a new life, but also produces, begins, and exercises it. For therein are given grace, the Spirit, and power to suppress the old man, so that the new man may come forth and become strong” (VI:74-76).
In this context, some pastors follow Luther in claiming that Repentance is nothing more than an extension of Baptism, thus validating their two-Sacrament model. As long as the Sacrament of Repentance is maintained, not applying the actual title of “sacrament” to it isn’t inherently wrong (though a subscription to the Lutheran Symbols should be accompanied by an adoption of the terminology employed therein). That being said, is the Sacrament of Repentance actually being maintained? We certainly have public confession and absolution in a form adapted from the Preparatory Rite before the Mass. Is that the Sacrament of Repentance? That is a good question, and one that I don’t have the time or certainty to answer (I’d really like to hear opinions in the comments though!). What I do know, however, is that the Augustana unequivocally states in Article XI:
Of Confession they teach that Private Absolution ought to be retained in the churches, although in confession an enumeration of all sins is not necessary. For it is impossible according to the Psalm: Who can understand his errors? Ps. 19:12.
While the Lutheran Church rightly objected to the Papistic burdening of consciences with an enumeration of every single fault in the confessional, the practice of Private Confession and Absolution was never abolished; to the contrary, Lutherans confess that it “ought to be retained in the churches.” Therefore, if the rite is not observed or retained, it would seem to me that we are not only neglecting the Third Sacrament, but we are also operating under a hypocritical subscription to the Augsburg Confession.

Now I’m not here to point fingers. I’ll admit it: I’ve never made use of Private Confession (because it’s never been offered). This is a horrible burden on my conscience; I feel guilty for not having made use of something that I confess to maintain. What an irony: that which the Lutheran Reformation intended to restore to its place as a gift of forgiveness has for me become a reminder of guilt once again. The Papists would be proud.

I think it is abhorrent that modern Lutherans have abandoned the Sacrament of Repentance in such an unified way. Whether or not the penitential rite before the Divine Service is sacramental is really superfluous to the point. Private Confession and Absolution is simply different. I mean, it would be like saying, since Repentance is nothing but Baptism, therefore being Baptized is “good enough.” By this logic, we don’t even need public confession and absolution either, much less private! You can see the foolishness of such lines of reasoning. Each of the Means of Grace provide us with forgiveness, life, and salvation in different ways and in different contexts. Belittling or overlooking one because we have another is abominable.

With the season of Lent approaching, it’s a good time for us to take some time to study and consider the Third Sacrament with greater devotion. Perhaps we can talk to our pastors about the absence of Private Confession and Absolution in our circles. Even if our individual parishes are not ready to officially reinstate this wholly orthodox and Lutheran practice, perhaps our pastors can provide it to our households on a case-by-case basis. There is no easy answer, but one thing’s for certain: something has to change, because the way things are now is simply not Lutheran.

2 comments:

  1. >>Perhaps we can talk to our pastors about the absence of Private Confession and Absolution in our circles. Even if our individual parishes are not ready to officially reinstate this wholly orthodox and Lutheran practice, perhaps our pastors can provide it to our households on a case-by-case basis. << Been there, tried that more than once. The answer is always a resounding 'no'.

    It's not just my pastor who feels this way; no other pastor in my community offers it. I'd have to travel 10 hours east or 13 hours west to find a pastor who offers private confession and then there's no guarantee he'd be willing to hear my confession, since I am not a member of his parish.

    I was able to receive Private Absolution twice through the place where I volunteered; to be able to hear of God's forgiveness through Christ 1:1 brought me peace and comfort I'd never had before. Confessing my sins out loud was one of the hardest things I've ever done, but when the pastor stood up and pronounced the words of absolution, a huge burden was lifted off of my shoulders. The peace it brought was amazing.

    Sadly that pastor has since left and his replacement has tossed the practice by the wayside. I've discovered that to have never had the opportunity to go to Confession and wish one could is a hard thing; to have had opportunity to confess one's sins and receive the benefits of Private Absolution and then to have it ripped away is even worse.

    To any pastors who may be reading this-any suggestions, given my pastor has given a clear thumbs down and no other pastors in my area offer Private Confession? I know and trust that the words of corporate absolution are as valid as if Christ Himself spoke them, but there is something so very different and so very sweet about being to hear those words one to one, face to face, eliminating the "If he only knew..." and "God can't mean me" thoughts that can go through one's mind when they're one of 10, 30, 100+ people being absolved all at the same time.


'via Blog this'