Thursday, May 30, 2013

Dr. Lito Cruz Points Out a Problem



LPC has left a new comment on your post "Dr. Lito Cruz on Pastor Rydecki's Essay":

But according to C. F. Dubya Walther, Rydecki is mistaken in taking seriously the teachings of the Lutheran Fathers.

The principal means by which our opponents endeavor to support their doctrine, consists in continually quoting passages from the private writings of the fathers of our Church, published subsequent to the _Formula of Concord_. But whenever a controversy arises concerning the question, whether a doctrine is Lutheran, we must not ask: "What does this or that 'father' of the Lutheran Church teach in his private writings?" for he also may have fallen into error;

Did Walther know how to exegete the Greek NT?

I doubt that.

LPC

His first kidnapping caper began in Europe
when he and his brother grabbed their niece and nephew
for a one-way trip to America, where both died rather young.

***

GJ - Dr. Cruz, you brought up an important insight about Walther the theological pope.

First, I will list the false assumptions about Walther and corrections in blue:

He was an orthodox Lutheran. He never was. He was trained in rationalism and sought refuge in Pietism, following one domineering guru and then Martin Stephan when the first guru moved away and died. His Easter absolution UOJ came directly from the Pietist Stephan, and the same bilge was taught at Halle, where Stephan studied.

He was a skilled theologian - he studied Luther! Long ago, everyone studied Luther. Walther only had a four-year degree from a rationalistic school when he became a pastor. He was never an exegete. Instead he stated propositions and simply quoted or listed Biblical passages as proof that he was correct. He also quoted himself to prove his assertions.

He got rid of that adulterous false teacher Stephan! Walther was the bishop's pimp and enforcer until the cult experienced, in America, a break-out of syphilis among the groupies around the bishop. Walther took the opportunity to rob the bishop of a fortune in gold, books, and land - forcing Stephan at gunpoint to Illinois. Before that time, the founding clergy looked the other way while Stephan lived with his main girlfriend, dallied with others, and abandoned his wife and children in Europe.

An obscure Lutheran pointed out in a booklet that Walther was never a Biblical theologian. Readers will notice that the Walther template continued with his hand-picked disciple F. Pieper. The Brief Confession of 1932 has absurd thetical statements followed by a list of proofs. The proofs contradict the claims, but no one in LCMS in 1932 noticed? Later, the UOJ crowd turned that debacle into the Ruling Norm - over and above all sources, including the Scriptures.

1932 Brief Confession, on Justification

Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25; that therefore not for the sake of their good works, but without the works of the Law, by grace, for Christ's sake, He justifies, accounts as righteous, all those who that is, believe, accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ's sake their sins are forgiven.

Someone can read this over quickly and miss the UOJ, but the main assertion is Universalism - backed by this? Let's read the entire sentence carefully, not just a phrase used as a motto and assassin's creed.

KJV Romans 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus 
our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

And yet, the flat-lining UOJ advocates still insist that the entire world has been declared forgiven because He. Was. Raised. For. Our. Justification! Thus the Synodical Conference was taught to reject the Scriptures, Luther, and the entire period of Lutheran Orthodoxy to parrot the ravings of Halle Pietism (while denouncing Pietism and calling themselves orthodox). No wonder the Syncons are obsessive liars - it begins with justification.

The more I studied this with others, the more we came to realize that the Walther-Stephan error was only one opinion, and not the dominant opinion in the Synodical Conference. The universal experience of Pietism tended to unite the UOJ Hive, but the influence of the Means of Grace was not absent. UOJ did not start to win until 1932, and Lutherdom quickly fell apart after that.

Rambach was not just a Halle Pietist -
he was a leader at Halle University.

From Victory of the Snack Bar to Christ the Rock


http://vimeo.com/67186543

here ...the promo for "No Ordinary King" the church band of Christ the Rock in Round Rock, TX. The worship director...who had a brief stint at Victory thankfully left and took the position at CTR. He shared this promo video for NOK...with an appeal to "book NOK now!! Just see if you can get through this without puking.

http://vimeo.com/67186543

Dr. Evil Gets Sarcastic about WELS United in Doctrine and Practice


No Wonder Walther Fought with Loehe



The Lutheran church knows that the Lord gives his Holy Spirit only through his Word and sacraments, and therefore it recognizes no other effective means than Word and sacrament... The church has various activities ... even though the means through which it performs them and encourages all good things are the same -- Word, sacrament, the holy office of the ministry.

Wilhelm Loehe, Three Books on the Church

---

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel has left a new comment on your post "No Wonder Walther Fought with Loehe":

Ichabod -

Pastor Wilhelm Loehe is one of my spiritual forebears. I thank the good and gracious Lord for the heritage he left upon America with his Frankenmuth, Michigan venture. He was of confessional and missionary stock, something that C.F. Walther was sorely lacking.

Nathan M. Bickel
www.thechristianmessage.org
www.moralmatters.org 

***

GJ - The Walther groupies simply hate Loehe - that says a lot.

Narrow-Minded Wonders about the Wisdom of Schroeder's Remarks on the Translation To Be Used


narrow-minded has left a new comment on your post "Mark Schroeder on the Bible Translation":

"We have an opportunity to give a gift to the church.Just as Luther’s translation opened the Scriptures
to the masses, and just as the King James Version communicated the Word to English speakers for
centuries, so we have an opportunity not so much to solve an immediate problem, but to give a lasting gift to the church that will serve God’s people for a generation or more."

The KJV is unusable today for what reason?

***

GJ - WELS has taught loathing of the KJV for decades. The sect drove out several pastors who said the KJV was better than the NIV, even though WELS used to brag about using the KJV.

Once "dynamic translation" is accepted--a license for creative paraphrasing--anything goes.

---

California:
Your response to "Narrow Minded's" question, "Why not KJV" for WELS is well taken when you wrote that WELS has taught loathing of KJV for decades.   It was in the 1970's when the NIV wasn't  yet the "either or" translation.  The early stages of the dialectic started the process to discredit the KJV in favor of any other translation of one's choice.   Just so it wasn't KJV, for that had to go before a replacement could be arranged.   As early as mid 1970's a WELS pastor was suspended when he defended the KJV and refused to go along with the obfuscation of a cafeteria of translations.

Pastor Richard Shekner served a congregation near Chicago, and the congregation followed him out of WELS as one of the first to do so over the issue of KJV and contemporary translations available at the time.

---

From Facebook:


Benjamin Tomczak · 13 followers
5 hours ago · 

  • 6 people like this.
  • Brian Westgate Why do I have a feeling Herman Otten's gonna spin this story to once again tell the world we should use the Beck Bible.
  • Aaron Odya Lol. I liked pres' thoughts and responses to the objections raised to making a translation/revising one.
    5 hours ago via mobile · Like
  • Noah Bater Intriguing that El Presidente completely disagrees with the TEC and TFC........good for him.
    5 hours ago · Like · 7
  • Brian Westgate I know too many Anglicans . . . when I see "TEC" I think "The Episcopal Church!"
    5 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Bryan Lidtke I like his thought about what message it would send if we adopted the NIV11. If others don't like it, it sure makes us look like we are the ones who aren't confessional and hold God's Word.
    5 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Noah Bater I wouldn't mind looking into the possibility of purchasing and redoing Beck's edition. Although that would probably put CN out of print, cuz HO would have nothing else to write about....
    4 hours ago · Like · 2
  • Joel Kluender I agree with President Schroeder and have been concerned about unity in our fellowship as well. May the Lord of the Church bless us with wisdom and unity at synod convention!
    4 hours ago · Like · 2
  • Mark L. Bannan This put a big smile on my face. Thank you President Schroeder for thinking this through and expounding on it so eloquently. I will print this out and add it to the 300 or so pages of information I already have in my binder on the Bible Translation issue.
    3 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Benjamin Tomczak Let's just remember Pres. Schroeder's emphasis on Pres. Wendland's emphasis on charity and understanding as we talk about translations and translation philosophy with our brothers in Christ, brothers in ministry, and brothers in confessional fellowship. To agree with, or disagree with the TEC or the TFC, doesn't automatically make one a heretic.
    3 hours ago · Like · 3
  • Mark L. Bannan Benjamin, that is something we certainly should do. And I will endeavor to do so.
  • Brian Westgate Noah, Herman will still be able to talk about how he should be put on the LCMS roster, and that we need a 21st century book of concord, and that LCMS should adopt the Beck Bible, and then he'll make it all look like it's all based on his not being on the roster, and then somebody will show up in a bad light for no reason, and then . . .
  • Andy Mueller I thought it was an unfortunate decision to air his opinions. He could cause division by doing so, for example by giving the feel of pulling rank. At least one comment above shows that. I love President Schroeder. Just disagree that this was necessary or wise.
    2 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
  • Bryan Lidtke I think it's great that he gave his opinion. I could care less if it causes divisions since there's already lots of it in our synod. I like a president who speaks his mind.
    44 minutes ago via mobile · Like · 2
  • Joe Jewell At the top of p.3 President Schroeder makes, almost verbatim, the same point (re: other confessional and conservative church bodies' universally negative evaluations of NIV2011) that a TEC member literally shouted me down for making in front of a group of pastors, teachers, and laymen from my district last fall. I was declared to be "misleading" the group. I wonder if President Schroeder would have received the same treatment?

    I am glad that he has spoken now, but I think he waited too long to do so. In an organization as deferential as the WELS, those of us who have seen things differently than the TEC have been way out on a limb for a long time now.
    23 minutes ago · Edited · Like · 1
  • Joe Jewell [With apologies for the cross-post for those reading this on Johnold J. Strey's wall as well.]

    I agree with Pres. Schroeder that NIV2011 ought to be rejected, but I am not so sure that I think a new translation is the wisest course. While he is correct that no consensus has emerged around another translation, that is largely because there has been no available time or space for that debate and discussion to take place. From the beginning, the TEC interpreted their task as evaluating the NIV2011, which then morphed after the 2011 Synod Convention into building consensus around the NIV2011. Virtually all discussion in the WELS has been either pro- or anti-NIV2011, with the alternate translations (if they're mentioned at all) considered only through the lens of comparison with NIV2011.

    If NIV2011 were taken off the table (and I certainly pray that the Convention does so), only then could a consensus even plausibly coalesce around an existing translation option (and options like the NKJV, Beck, and NASB that have been successfully used by our confessional brethren ought to be put back in the discussion, too). We may still reach the conclusion that pursuing our own translation is the correct way forward. But as of now, the focus on the NIV2011 hasn't left enough oxygen in the room to even have that discussion.
    7 minutes ago · Like · 1
---
  • Noah Bater He's being a leader Andy. That's what a President should be. If every othermember of the synod has this right, shouldn't he? I highly doubt that anyone else in the synod has been asked for his particular thoughts as much as he has the last year. What would it look like ifhe just shrugged his shoulders? How would it look if you, as the pastor, did that to your congregation when they asked for your thoughts on a weighty issue in your parish? It was absolutely necessary AND wise. Regardless if you agree with them or not. He couldn't have said it any more evangelically. And his goal of avoiding division came through loud and clear.
    29 minutes ago · Like · 3
  • Peter Snyder I know that President Schroeder withheld his opinion for quite some time in order NOT to sway thoughts on this, and I know that he thought carefully about it before finally weighing in. I believe it was for the sake of unity that he said what he did.
  • Bryan Lidtke I think all this "unity in doctrine and practice" is not correct. We are not united in doctrine and practice. It's obvious if you just look in my district, the Northern Wisconsin District. If we were united in practice, we wouldn't have people like me who completely disagree with the churches who use only Contemporary Worship. I also don't think all WELS pastors agree with the doctrine of Craig Groeschel...
  • 3 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Joel Kluender We do not need to be united in practice where the particular practice is an adiaphoron. We must be united in practice where it is clearly a matter of confession and doctrine. Not all contemporary worship is theologically lacking. Much of it is lacking, but much of it is excellent as well. The key is having theologically sound music that points to Christ, whether the style is contemporary or older. The unity that we must care about is unity in doctrine and where there are chinks in that armor, there we must take a clear stand on the Word of God. And where unity is lacking, we pray for it and work toward it under the gracious hand of our Lord.
  • Bryan Lidtke Examples of good contemporary worship? I have yet to see one. Contemporary worship songs, praise songs, are directed towards our feelings. They are uplifting so we can "accept Jesus." This is obviously false doctrine, so why do we want to worship like we agree with it? Why would we worship like those who believe the Lord's Supper is just a representation, not actually Christ's body and blood? Doctrine and practice are linked, correct? On the subject of doctrine, we do not all have the same doctrinal beliefs. There are pastors that just copy sermons from Reformed/Baptist pastors. We are not all in agreement with that, are we?
  • Bryan Lidtke Here's a good article on the problems with contemporary worship.http://ecclesiaaugustana.blogspot.com/2012/11/orthodox-variety-trumps-sectarian.html

    ecclesiaaugustana.blogspot.com
    "Haec fere summa est doctrinae apud nos, in qua cerni potest nihil inesse, quod ...See More
  • Tim Niedfeldt Here is some awesome WELS contemporary. ( I would advise not watching this on a full stomach) http://vimeo.com/67186543

    vimeo.com
    Vimeo is the home for high-quality videos and the people who love them.
  • Bryan Lidtke Notice how they don't call themselves Lutheran...
  • Timothy H. Buelow Our sister church in Sweden, the LBK, produced the Svenska Folkbibeln translation. LBK has ca. 300 members. Prof. Ingemar Furberg was the NT editor. Dr. Seth Erlandsson was the OT editor. Sv. Folkbibeln is the #2 selling translation in Sweden. #1 was paid for by the Swedish government and a free copy was mailed to every family in Sweden for free. Pretty stiff competition. Every time someone in WELS says "We can't do this" I can't keep the word "wimp" from running through my head. Not only CAN it be done, it HAS been done - in our time! Kudos to Pres. Schroeder for daring to take a good stand.
  • Timothy H. Buelow @Noah Bater, the Beck translation has been offered to WELS to use as a base for revision for FREE by Reu Beck, who is a WELS member. In addition, $250,000 has been pledged to be used as seed money for translation work, if only we will take up the work.
    13 minutes ago · Like · 1
  • Joel Kluender You have a different definition of contemporary music, if you have yet to see an example of "good" contemporary music. You equate contemporary music with music that is all me-centered feelings, all directed toward decision theology, etc. Those things are matters of theology, I agree. But music style - selection of instruments, selections of key and setting, tempo and other things that clearly are adiaphoron do not make music unacceptable by definition.
  • Wade Johnston Good on him! I think he waited to let the process take its course and spoke at a wise time. I love him as a brother and so I take his words and actions in the kindest possible way. And should someone take his words with added emphasis, we did call him to be the president of our synod.
    12 minutes ago · Like · 1
  • Bryan Lidtke Sure. I don't want a praise band, but different settings and tempos, etc., are fine.

---

  • Paul Rydecki When the WELS repents of its condemnation of Christ and His Gospel of justification by faith alone, then maybe I'll believe it can produce a dependable translation. Until then, no chance in the world.
    8 hours ago · Like · 5
  • Tim Niedfeldt The problem isn't in the music (although most of it is crap) It's in the desire to be contemporary, to appeal to the current age with worship that apes the evangelicals and strives to "soften" church and lure in some suckers and church shoppers. We get all post modern, and inevitably the message will change, the law gospel balance gets lost and it turns into a gospel only and then a sanctification only service. it's about being cozy and friendly and having good coffee and any notion of church goes out the window. A social club is more like it...with coffee cake. 

    It is a slippery slope and the WELS will slide down it. I dare one contemporary WELS church defend that it has maintained better doctrine, theology, and stuck fervently to the Lutheran church, the confessions, and even the Bible. Turning the service into a seeker/outreach tool is wrong. It is pastors and people too lazy to relate the gospel in their vocations and an attitude of " lets just put on a good show and feel good about each other and more people will come and get a few good sound bites out of it." You could have a contemporary service play a contemporary version of " A Mighty Fortress" 4 times during a service but I can tell you that church is slip slip sliding away..
    8 hours ago · Like · 4
  • Joel Kluender I agree that a "praise band" as it typically manifests itself in many churches leads to the focus on the musicians rather than on Christ. Having said that, I have seen bands accompany worship in a way that does not detract from the gospel. It can be done. the question to ask - who is at the center of the worship service? If the answer is "Christ and Christ alone" we have done our job. If it is "the musician," then we have not. I've said my piece here... I respect opinions on the other side, just disagree. I do think we can agree that our worship MUST be centered on Christ and his gospel.
  • Wade Johnston And that is how you hijack a thread.
    8 hours ago · Like · 3
  • Tim Niedfeldt I bet Ben's computer is blowing up
  • Roger Phillip Drews @Brian: Beck's translation leaves very much to be desired. It makes very little difference what Herman Otten thinks or opines.

---


Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel has left a new comment on your post "Narrow-Minded Wonders about the Wisdom of Schroede...":

Ichabod -

Someone sent me an official WELS online posting from Synodical President Schroeder. I have yet to read it. I thought that he was of the disposition to stay out of the opinion fray and look to the holy grail decision of the WELS synodical convention on this translation issue.

If President Schroeder didn't want to influence the TEC; then why does he give an opinion before the convention? I'll have to read his opinion in earnest. It seems to me that he is attempting to be all things to everyone while riding the fence.

Please correct me if I am interpreting this action wrongly. Am I connecting some dots?

Nathan M. Bickel
www.thechristianmessage.org
www.moralmatters.org