Many Assertions - No Support

Hunnius found only justification by faith in
70 years of Lutheran doctrinal writing.
But Boisclair knows better.

David Boisclair has left a new comment on your post "Trying To Understand the UOJ Errors":

As always the tactic here is to accuse the opposition of the same sins that one commits. To accuse us who teach the biblical doctrine of Objective Justification (2 Cor. 5:18-21) with Synergism as this posting implies is the very false doctrine of those who deny Objective Justification. Faith becomes a work that completes Christ's perfect righteousness. Also, the denial of the doctrine of Objective Justification leads one to the Limited Atonement of the Calvinists. The vilifying of those who teach Objective Justification simply tries to undercut their biblical arguments by name calling. That is not the only tactic used. The others are guilt by association as well as setting up straw men. The denial of Objective Justification is heresy and apostasy pure and simple.

---

David Boisclair has left a new comment on your post "Trying To Understand the UOJ Errors":

The problem with the doctrine that is pushed here is that it is purely and simply a confusion of Justification and Sanctification. Justification does not happen within man but outside man while sanctification happens within man. This website equates regeneration with Justification, which is a confusion of Justification and Sanctification. The lie is that we who believe, teach, and confess Objective Justification deny justification by faith, or more precisely justification by grace through faith. When we are accused of that, a straw man has been set up, which is an egregious error of logic.

---

Daryl Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Many Assertions - No Support":

This website is not alone. Apparently the Confessions confuse Justification and Sanctification as well: "However, since the word regeneratio, regeneration, is sometimes employed for the word iustificatio, justification, it is necessary that this word be properly explained, in order that the renewal which follows justification of faith may not be confounded with the justification of faith, but that they may be properly distinguished from one another. For, in the first place, the word regeneratio, that is, regeneration, is used so as to comprise at the same time the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake alone, and the succeeding renewal which the Holy Ghost works in those who are justified by faith. Then, again, it is [sometimes] used pro remissione peccatorum et adoptione in filios Dei, that is, so as to mean only the remission of sins, and that we are adopted as sons of God. And in this latter sense the word is much and often used in the Apology, where it is written: Iustificatio est regeneratio, that is, Justification before God is regeneration." (FCSD III:18,19 Conc. Trigl. p921)

***

GJ - Don't confuse him, Daryl.

More on Wedding Hymns - Ben Wink

Ben Wink has left a new comment on your post "The Fault Does Not Lie in the Stars, But in Us":

When going over what we wanted for our wedding service, my wife and I never gave a second thought to having hymns sung. We understood that this was above all else a worship service with the focus on the Lord and the Means of Grace. We made sure that the hymn stanzas were in the worship bulletin and the hymn numbers were clearly marked if someone wished to follow along in the hymnal instead. We wished to use the wedding service as a testimony to the Christian faith we both shared. We wanted others to know how the Lord would be the foundation of the life and home we would share together. What better way than to use traditional Lutheran hymns to display that?

We didn't force anyone to sing along. If someone was uncomfortable, at the very least they could read the stanzas. Perhaps these comforting Christian words could create an opening for the Holy Spirit. With the numerous weddings I've attended, if you don't know what the soloist is singing, you pay even less attention and you don't even have the words printed in front of you. Just having a soloist by definition guarantees no congregational participation in worship. At least we encouraged our guests in the congregation to participate and could read along.

Hymns have a place in all worship services and are a rich liturgical tradition. To omit hymns being sung by the congregation just for the sake of making people unfamiliar with liturgy comfortable is a sad line of thinking. Why stop there? Omit hymns at all instances where the congregation is made up of guests then. Don't have them at funerals or Easter or even Christmas.

Weddings are a worship service. The Lord is the focus. I don't know what one would be expecting entering a church for a service, but we never gave a second thought to having hymns sung at our wedding.

Some Hymns for Weddings

narrow-minded has left a new comment on your post "Comments on Contemptible Worship - CoWo For Short":

"There is a difference between offending someone through the preaching of law and gospel and making the experience of Lutheran worship unpleasant by forcing someone to experience hymn singing for the first time at a wedding." (Please note the use of the word "experience" twice in this sentence) Please respond, Joel, as to what would be an appropriate time to introduce someone to the "experience" of Lutheran hymnody. Would it be on Friendship Sunday, where we omit the Lord's Supper to avoid causing offense?

"There are wedding songs not found in our hymnal that do a really good job of proclaiming a correct understanding of Christian marriage." Could you provide some examples, Joel, of appropriate wedding hymns not found in a Lutheran hymnal?

Here are some marriage hymns found in my obsolete TLH that will each be posted separately:

"Lord, Who at Cana's Wedding-Feast"
by St. 1, 3, Adelaide Thrupp, 19th century
St. 2, Godfrey Thring, 1823-1903

1. Lord, who at Cana's wedding-feast
Didst as a guest appear,
Thou dearer far than earthly guest,
Voucesafe Thy presence here.
For holy Thou indeed dost prove
The marriage-vow to be,
Proclaiming it a type of love
Between the Church and Thee.

2. This holy vow that man can make,
The golden thread in life,
The bond that none may dare to break,
That bindeth man and wife,
Which, blest by Thee, whate'er betides,
No evil shall destroy,
Through care-worn days each care divides,
And doubles every joy.

3. On those who now before Thee kneel,
O Lord, Thy blessing pour,
That each may wake the other's zeal
To love Thee more and more.
Oh, grant them here in peace to live,
In purity and love,
And, this world leaving, to receive
A crown of life above.

Hymn #620
The Lutheran Hymnal
Text: John 2: 1-11
Author: St. 1, 3, Adelaide Thrupp, 1853
St. 2, Gogfrey Thring, 1882
Composer: Gottfried W. Fink, 1842
Tune: "Bethlehem"

"O Father, All Creating"
by John Ellerton, 1826-1893
1. O Father, all creating,
Whose wisdom, love, and power
First bound two lives together
In Eden's primal hour,
Today to these Thy children
Thine earliest gifts renew,--
A home by Thee made happy,
A love by Thee kept true.

2. O Savior, Guest most bounteous
Of old in Galilee,
Voucesafe today Thy presence
With these who call on Thee.
Their store of earthly gladness
Transform to heavenly wine
And teach them, in the testing,
To know the gift is Thine.

3. O Spirit of the Father,
Breathe on them from above,
So mighty in Thy pureness,
So tender in Thy love,
That, guarded by Thy presence,
From sin and strife kept free,
Their lives may own Thy guidance,
Their hearts be ruled by Thee.

4. Except Thou build it, Father,
The house is built in vain;
Except Thou, Savior, bless it,
The joy will turn to pain.
But naught can break the marriage
Of hearts in Thee made one,
And love Thy Spirit hallows
Is endless love begun. Amen.

---

narrow-minded has left a new comment on your post "Comments on Contemptible Worship - CoWo For Short":

"O Father, All Creating"
by John Ellerton, 1826-1893

1. O Father, all creating,
Whose wisdom, love, and power
First bound two lives together
In Eden's primal hour,
Today to these Thy children
Thine earliest gifts renew,--
A home by Thee made happy,
A love by Thee kept true.

2. O Savior, Guest most bounteous
Of old in Galilee,
Voucesafe today Thy presence
With these who call on Thee.
Their store of earthly gladness
Transform to heavenly wine
And teach them, in the testing,
To know the gift is Thine.

3. O Spirit of the Father,
Breathe on them from above,
So mighty in Thy pureness,
So tender in Thy love,
That, guarded by Thy presence,
From sin and strife kept free,
Their lives may own Thy guidance,
Their hearts be ruled by Thee.

4. Except Thou build it, Father,
The house is built in vain;
Except Thou, Savior, bless it,
The joy will turn to pain.
But naught can break the marriage
Of hearts in Thee made one,
And love Thy Spirit hallows
Is endless love begun. Amen.

Hymn #621
The Lutheran Hymnal
Text: Ps. 127: 1
Author: John Ellerton, 1876
Tune: "Eden"
1st Published in: Sacred Hymns and Tunes
Town: Boston, 1880

---

narrow-minded has left a new comment on your post "Comments on Contemptible Worship - CoWo For Short":

"The Voice that Breathed o'er Eden"
by John Keble, 1792-1866

1. The voice that breathed o'er Eden,
That earliest wedding-day,
The primal marriage blessing,--
It hath not passed away.
Still in the pure espousal
Of Christian man and maid
The Triune God is with us,
The threefold grace is said.

2. Be present, loving Father,
To give away this bride
As Thou gav'st Eve to Adam,
A helpmeet at his side.
Be present, Son of Mary,
To join their loving hands
As Thou didst bind two natures
In Thine eternal bands.

3. Be present, Holiest Spirit,
To bless them as they kneel,
As Thou for Christ, the Bridegroom,
The heavenly Spouse dost seal.
Oh, spread Thy pure wing o'er them,
Let no ill power find place
When onward to Thine altar
Their hallowed path they trace.

4. To cast their crowns before Thee
In humble sacrifice,
Till to the home of gladness
With Christ's own Bride they rise.
To Father, Son, and Spirit,
Eternal One and Three,
As was and is forever,
All praise and glory be.

Hymn #622
The Lutheran Hymnal
Text: Eccl. 4:12
Author: John Keble, 1857, ab., alt.
Tune: "Eden"
1st Published in: Sacred Hymns and Tunes
Town: Boston, 1880

***

GJ - Many hymns are appropriate for a wedding. The graphics were done for some Gerhardt hymns, so I posted them.

Comments on Contemptible Worship - CoWo For Short

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "The Fault Does Not Lie in the Stars, But in Us":

Lutheran clergy apostasy is to blame. In fine Methodist form the WELS, ELS, LCMS etc have placed the focus on Excellence. In a fraudulent feign towards honoring the Word they throw dung at it by following the Church Growth fads of promoting excellence throughout the Divine Service - now called Worship since the focus has been changed from God serving us to us serving God. The Choirs were used in this way by replacing congregational singing with the Choir singing the hymns with the congregation joining on the refrains. Then came the Choir singing the entire hymn - such excellence and at the same time diminishing Uncle Bob's faithful attempt to keep a tune while focusing on the doctrinal content in the words and Word. The apostate clergy's vultures are simply coming home to roost - and to feast upon the carcasses the false doctrine and practice leave behind.

---

Joel has left a new comment on your post "The Fault Does Not Lie in the Stars, But in Us":

Brett, that's as may be. However, have you ever been to a wedding where most of the congregation is silent during a hymn and the few who are trying to sing are mumbling? Not an experience I would want to experience again. In that case, yes, it would be better to have one singer who knows what he/she is doing singing a wedding solo that glorifies God and teaches about marriage than to have a roomful of people who will forever associate this miserable experience with hymn singing.

---

narrow-minded has left a new comment on your post "The Fault Does Not Lie in the Stars, But in Us":

Following this logic, hymns should also not be sung at funerals. A truly orthodox Lutheran wedding or funeral WILL offend many people. Since the CG guys are so big on reaching the lost, why do they shun the opportunity for the "outside world" to hear Law and Gospel in its purity, both in preaching and hymnody? These same CG-types will rebuke us for not being like JW's by knocking on every door in town.

Whether a believer or not (no, not saved 2,000 years ago), every person in that church for a funeral is thinking about him/herself being in that box one day. What better time for Law and Gospel to be preached and sung? At an orthodox Lutheran funeral or wedding, there will be many there who will hear Law and Gospel in its purity for the first time.

Let's leave the generic Methobapticostal funerals and weddings to the Methobapticostals. Is a wedding a bad time to draw the analogy of a man and wife to that of Christ and His Church? Who cares if only three people are singing the hymn or if someone is offended? Save the party tunes for the reception following the wedding service, where everyone knows Kool and the Gang's "Celebration" by heart. I believe Christ himself offended many in His earthly ministry. "You are the Synagogue of Satan," "Your father is the devil," "No one comes to the Father but through me," and "The tax collector went home justified," are some examples that come to mind.

I recall one funeral from years ago that was a suicide. Our Lutheran pastor was adamantly chewed out by several people following the service for not saying the young adult was automatically in Heaven. I don't want to start the debate about what happens to people who commit suicide, but the pastor told those people the young adult was not baptized and never made a confession of faith to him, so he could not state with confidence where the deceased went. I remember him being nearly to the point of exhaustion from the verbal abuse. I believe that's what Jesus meant by bearing one's cross, i.e., being hated by this world. However, in his sermon, he preached the Law in its condemnation and Gospel in its beauty, and I wondered how many people there had heard it for the first time in their lives. He was very clear about how to get to Heaven. It wasn't by just being a good person, and it wasn't about making a decision. That's how the Holy Ghost works, through His Word.

Yes, we sang a few of those old and "non-relevant" Lutheran hymns acapella at the funeral home. As most of the people there were not members of our parish, it probably sounded hokey to some of them. I still remember how beautiful those hymns sounded; and I couldn't carry a tune for a million dollars.

---

narrow-minded has left a new comment on your post "The Fault Does Not Lie in the Stars, But in Us":

See, it's about what kind of "experience" we give the people. 'Nuff said.

---

Joel has left a new comment on your post "The Fault Does Not Lie in the Stars, But in Us":

Narrow Minded,

There is a difference between offending someone through the preaching of law and gospel and making the experience of Lutheran worship unpleasant by forcing someone to experience hymn singing for the first time at a wedding.

There are also more options for solo singing at a wedding than "Celebration." There are wedding songs not found in our hymnal that do a really good job of proclaiming a correct understanding of Christian marriage. I would rather have people attending a wedding hear a song that teaches correct doctrine than having the message completely lost when they tune out during a congregational hymn being attempted at a wedding.

Funerals are a different matter all together (sic). (All: "Funerals are a different matter.") People come to funerals expecting to sing. Of course, that's as long as it's one of the stand by funeral hymns like "Abide with Me," "Amazing Grace," "I'm but a Stranger Here," or "How Great Thou Art." I have tried without much success to convince families that there are better hymns than those to convey the message of Scripture. However, it's tough to get over the "It was sung at Grandpa's funeral" mentality. I'll tell ya, though, there's NOTHING like singing "I Know that My Redeemer Lives" at a funeral! I can ususally (sic) convince a family that that's a good choice if the person's funeral is taking place around Easter.

Why I Will Never Need To Quit Teaching English

Email:

Does Kelly's Tough Stances Help or Hurt Recruiting?
BleacherReport.com

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1676960-do-brian-kelly-and-jimbo-fishers-tough-stances-help-or-hurt-recruiting?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=notre-dame-football

They does hurt - lots.

They fixed the actual web post.

The Fault Does Not Lie in the Stars, But in Us

Joel has left a new comment on your post "Praise Banditry Is a House of Cards Waiting To Fal...":

You asked: "What is wrong with having two or three appropriate hymns during a wedding?"

Answer: It's because NO ONE sings at weddings. The biggest worry that my sainted mother-in-law had about the wedding service that my wife and I had was that we were going to have congregational singing. She thought it wouldn't work. I told her that it would. It did work because we had our wedding on the Sunday of Labor Day weekend and we had a good number of pastors attending the service.

Later on, I found out why she was nervous about congregational singing at a wedding. I encouraged every couple to have congregational singing at their weddings. Occasionally a couple would agree to it and I'd pick a couple of hymns that I considered to be pretty easy to sing and pretty well-known. Whenever the time came for congregational singing, you know what happened? ALMOST COMPLETE SILENCE. It took me way too long to figure out why that is. It's really a no-brainer: A wedding service is the only kind of worship service a good number of people who are sitting there attend. They don't know any hymns.

I've given up on congregational singing at weddings. I do insist, however, that all solo songs must be Christian songs.

***

GJ - Joel Lillo-of-the-Valley, your circuit has done its best to quash Lutheran worship, so you only have yourselves to blame. You are a prime defender of the entertainment seeker service.

The ministers who surrender to popular fads at weddings could be ones who insist on a worship service in a worship facility, instead of a justice of the peace ceremony in a church.

Chess players devalue the pawn at the beginning of the game. Then they give up a knight. Oh well. A bishop. No big deal. I have the queen. The queen is almighty. But later those players are extremely powerful, especially when used in combinations.

Church Growth ejected the Means of Grace in favor of sentimentality and marketing.

Long ago, I shook my head when I visited the Pentecostal church. The stage was filled with band instruments and microphone stands. The women who sang wore beehive hairdos and Lawrence Welk prom dresses. Now I can see the same thing at many SynCon congregations.

Lenski: "Resist the beginnings."

Praise Banditry Allows Congregation To Sing One Verse

quercuscontramalum (http://quercuscontramalum.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Praise Banditry Is a House of Cards Waiting To Fal...":

You mention one of the obvious errors of praize bands: they remove the congregation. I had the occasion to attend a 'blended service' [purity 'blended' with WHAT??] and the congregation sang exactly one refrain of the final hymn.

I'm not exaggerating. Imagine a room full of Lutherans NOT being allowed to sing during a service! The agony!

Instead of a congregation declaring the works of the Lord and proclaiming the Gospel to their neighbor through song, instead of one generation teaching the next using music and word tied together, it was a bar band muddling and pounding over a SATB group overreaching their talent like butter margarine spread over too much toast.

Trying To Understand the UOJ Errors

"From Luther's Small Catechism" is a lie.
This is really from the bottom of the UOJ sermon barrel,
the very bottom.

I had a friendly exchange with a WELS pastor, leading me to go over the reasons why people fall into the error of Universal Objective Justification. The following may be a product of my imagination alone, because no one has explained it, beyond saying, "I drank the Kool-Aid."

The constant drumbeat against faith is one reason that UOJ is tolerated among the SynCon pastors. The fanatical leaders, who are either illiterate or apostate, define faith as a work or the merit of man, yet end up treating faith as a decision - a decision to accept universal salvation (JP Meyer). 

But faith is trust in God's Promises in Christ, excluding all three definitions above. Lack of faith is the foundational sin, as Jesus Himself taught in John 16:8f.

Therefore, a misunderstanding of faith contributes mightily to the UOJ mindset.

A second cause is misunderstanding the Roman Catholic context of Luther's words. The products of today's SynCon seminaries do not understand Roman, Calvinist, or Lutheran doctrine. The reason? - the faculty members are in-bred political hacks, ticket-punchers who know their cush jobs could end in two shakes of a lamb's tail.

So let's review the context. Luther wrote largely for an audience saturated in Medieval Catholicism. Even today, Catholics teach that Jesus died to atone for the sins of the world. But one must parse their doctrinal texts. These sins are forgiven but not paid for. Aha. Repentance consists of acts of contrition and reparation.
Reparation is one of those long Latinate words for repayment. Catholics always add works to faith to earn forgiveness and rejoice in this remission of sins being held back until all accounts are settled in Purgatory, a mini-Hell for the semi-saved.

Luther's words - "Jesus is all forgiveness" - are not an endorsement of UOJ, but an antidote to that papal trick of faith plus works (fides formata). Luther always wrote that there is no forgiveness apart from faith. Either he contradicted himself a few times or the UOJ Storm-Brownies are liars.

Again - "Your sins are already forgiven." Lord's Prayer. Small Catechism - This classic is a textbook for Christian believers of all ages, not an evangelism tract for unbelievers. This phrasing is also appropriate for an age where Protestantism tells us to make a decision for Christ or to complete the transaction (do you part) since God has already done his part. Those who trust in Christ alone for salvation are forgiven all their sins, both great and small, the conquered sins and the persistent sins.

Luther is one of the few who does not imply that there is some requirement apart from faith in Christ. The SynCons include loyalty to Holy Mother Sect, payment of dues, and a quia subscription to the WELS Essay Files, aka, the Holy of Holies. Hyperbole? No. They excommunicate those who teach justification by faith (Kokomo, Rydecki, et al) and promote those who teach Groeschel, Sweet, and Driscoll (Jeske, Glende, Kelm, Valleskey, Werning, Hunter). Missouri and the Little Sect on the Prairie are just as bad.

The Protestant questions:

1. Am I sorry enough?
2. Have I asked Jesus into my heart?
3. Have I surrendered all to Him?
4. Have I suffered enough?
5. Have I paid back my victims?
6. Have I done enough?
7. Have I joined a cell group?
8. Have I spoken in tongues, danced in the Spirit, or fallen off a chair laughing?

are obliterated by Luther's language. He was a great student of the meaning of words, so he paraphrased what the Bible clearly taught, such as using alone with justified by faith alone apart from works.

The reason for alternative wording is the effort by false teachers to insert a wedge into the Biblical text - to make it say something else, something clearly done with the WELS NNIV, where suddenly "all" are justified in Romans 3. Does anyone notice this NNIV is the beloved paraphrase of the Protestant Left?

One example of the wedge is the issue of works. Luther taught consistently that good works follow faith. George Major turned that into good works are a requirement of salvation. Countering that maladroitly, his opponent Amsdorf said good works were injurious to salvation. The Formula of Concord had to repair the damage of two errors.

Paul answered potential errors by raising them in his letters. Should we sin more than grace may abound? Heaven forbid!

But, just as people pixelate the Biblical text, using one phrase--out of context--to prove a point, so false teachers pixelate the Book of Concord. They carefully avoid the Augsburg Confession and the Apology, because both are eloquent expressions of justification by faith alone.

And they land on Luther's estate analogy, which is not in the Book of Concord. How convenient, to avoid the message of Luther, the Book of Concord, and the post-Concord age of orthodoxy to focus on an allegory. Forgiveness of sin is like a man inheriting an estate and not knowing about it. But their favorite analogy is not strong enough bear up under the stress of UOJ deadweight.

Before you say, "Oh! Oh! Oh! I found UOJ in Luther!" ask yourself if the estate has been left to every single person on earth. That is what UOJ teaches. DP Buchholz assured the WELS convention that everyone is already forgiven, saved, period, end of story. He pretends to reject the Babtists, but he sits with the Rick Warren clone at every conference now, Jeff Gunn.

All the WELS/LCMS/ELS favorites are either stealth Babtists (Warren, Stanley, Stetzer) or far out Leftists (Sweet, Jeske).

Cannot Deal with the Efficacy of the Word, the Means of Grace, the Spirit/Word Bond

One test will earn a giant FAIL for all UOJ Enthusiasts.

Can they incorporate the Biblical concepts of the efficacy of the Word, the Means of Grace, and the Spirit/Word bond in their meandering tirades against the Gospel?

This analogy is also in the Book of Concord.

From Extra Nos - Quoting the Fathers

Quoting the BoC Fathers?...That's a no no!

HT:Ichabod.

A few weeks ago, Rev. Paul Rydecki wrote a fine essay entitled  The Forensic Appeal to the Throne of Grace in the Theology of the Lutheran Age of Orthodoxy: A Reflection on Atonement and Its Relationship to Justification

In this well written paper, Rydecki quoted Scripture and from the Concordian Fathers that Atonement and Justification are not one and the same thing. It should be admitted that they are related but that does not mean the two are one identical. Rydecki's paper is filled with the statements of the orthodox Lutheran fathers that showed that from their perspective, atonement and justification are not equivalent concepts where one can be used as a substitute for the other. The action of God in the Atonement is not a simultaneous action that God has Justified the whole world ALREADY right there and then.

Now we have been pointing this difference of concept to universal objective justification (UOJ) adherents for many years. Such a category mistake results in confusion, and lots of it. Let me name one right off the hat...

It makes the Means of Grace, that is right, Baptism, The Word, and the Sacrament (Lord's Supper) merely symbolic and thus Zwinglian. It other words, the Means of Grace does not confer justification when it is used and applied. They thus do not confer the present grace of Justification.

Take the case of Baptism. Here, it becomes a reminder of a Justification that has already occurred before the individual is baptised. It becomes a memorial. The same is true for the Lord's Supper, it becomes a memorial of a Justification that has already occurred. Likewise the Word does not convert but tells you to believe the Justification that has already occurred before you were born, before you could hear. These are all contrary to Scripture, for example, Romans 6:1-4, Psalm 19:7, etc.

What would the famous UOJ promoter, the late C. F. W. Walther might say about the wisdom of quoting the BoC fathers, if he were alive today?

Normal people might consider what Rydecki did a reasonable procedure but Walther would have considered Rydecki a very naughty boy.

Here is what he said when he was being challenged in his doctrine of Election...

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;

In a typical cultic fashion Walther dismissed the words of the BoC fathers assuming that they were wrong, ... because they disagreed with his innovative view.

In cult like fashion, ala Samuel Huber, Walther did not bother to argue what might the said father meant but rather he dismissed their words as something that should not be taken seriously, a none event. That shows you the attitude of Walther towards his critics. Huber did the same, he purported to know more than the Wittenberg Reformers even charging them of Calvinism, the ideology he claimed he eschewed.

When it comes to UOJ, even UOJ famous proponents admit that it could not be found in the BoC. All of the said portions where UOJ is said to appear in the BoC is what might be called pareidolia (Google it).  It is just like finding a rat amongst the rocks in mars or like seeing the Virgin Mary in a tortilla corn chip.

Praise Banditry Is a House of Cards Waiting To Fall Down

rlschultz has left a new comment on your post "The American Spectator : Can Liturgical Music Be S...":

The author makes some very good points. The issue here is more than just the music. First of all, the lack of reverence during these so called worship services can be rather appalling. Everything falls like a house of cards. The church year calendar is abandoned, along with the lectionary. The worship services become thematic, reflecting the latest trends. Typically, the service becomes a self help session. The pastor does not select or approve the music. This is the job for the worship leader.

The use of the "argument ender" is a common tactic used by those who cannot make their case because they have none. As pointed out here on Ichabod, the CG adherents often use the argument ender when they talk about saving souls.

***

GJ - Yes, readers, when the audience walks into the church performance with a soda in one hand and popcorn in the other, a carnival atmosphere is already established. WELS and Missouri are leaders in this blasphemous exercise. As our guest writer observed before, Luther brought the layman back into the worship service, but the entertainment services make him passive once again.

A mod wedding will have secular music performed, but a traditional wedding uses Christian hymns sung by those worshiping with the couple. The new mode weddings have a church setting - very pretty - and no more religious content than a Las Vegas wedding performed by an Elvis.

Basic adult education teaches that participating makes the lesson stick better. What is wrong with having two or three appropriate hymns during a wedding? Doc Martin was going to have "Praise My Soul the King of Heaven" and "O Perfect Love" during his first attempt (British TV). I expect that most couples remember those moments, the words sung, and the reverence of the occasion.

The wedding reception offers plenty of opportunity to play secular music, if the families crave that.

The new mode wedding has become the template for the Lutheran Sunday service - a stage (not a chancel or altar), communion furniture absent, pipe organ removed, praise band crowding the stage. Pipe organs are now so devalued by their owners than a congregation can obtain one for the cost of moving and installing it.
One congregation is out zero dollars for a restored organ worth $100,000.

Oh, but the Boomers want their rinky-tinky praise music. Play on - it is the swan song of Lutherdom. Their children and grandchildren are being taught even less than they were.

The UOJ Enthusiasts Should Read St. Paul's Galatians - or - Luther's Famous Commentary on Galatians

This is Universalism and Enthusiasm,
but Keller did not quote Buchholz.

Daryl Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Does Anyone Have a Print or Digital File of This E...":

Fifty-two pages in and of itself is very telling. St. Paul's defense of the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone in his letter to the Galatians takes up only 4-1/2 pages of my beat up King James Bible, 5-1/2 of my Luther-Bibel.

The paper opens with a denial that UOJ is Universalism. Which am I to believe, the uninspired words of Keller, or the inspired Word of St. Luke (1:77)?

***

GJ - DP Buchholz is very proud of his WELS convention essay, but he refuses to read anything else. He received a free copy of Thy Strong Word but never read it, in spite of his claim that he wanted to talk about justification.

Doug Lindee - Intrepid Lutherans: Impressions from My Visit with ELDoNA at their 2013 Colloquium and Synod – PART I

Douglas Lindee

Intrepid Lutherans: Impressions from My Visit with ELDoNA at their 2013 Colloquium and Synod – PART I:

MONDAY, JUNE 17, 2013

Impressions from My Visit with ELDoNA at their 2013 Colloquium and Synod – PART I

More Sharing ServicesShare|Share on facebookShare on myspaceShare on googleShare on twitter

Well, it's been over a month since my last post, announcing a visit to the 2013 Colloquium and Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA), which was held the last week of April, and promising a report on its proceedings. A lot has happened in the intervening time: business and other travel, an avalanche of business financial issues (nothing big, just a mountain of little things that wouldn't be postponed), computer and network crashes, a severe car accident, critical home maintenance issues, and over the past few weeks, serious illness – enough so that I hadn't been able to even check my email until just recently. But those are just excuses. The fact is, I'm delinquent in making my report.

I'll start by emphasizing the very positive impression I was left with as a result of my observations and experiences and the extended conversations I had with pastors of ELDoNA, and also as a result of the variety of scholarship I was privileged to take in. Over the following four or five days, I will provide a report of my impressions in parts. I hope that you will find it as intriguing as I did.


PART I
A Warmly Welcomed Visitor
A visitor at an intimate gathering, I was nevertheless welcomed from the start and treated that way throughout. Of course, Lutherans are stereotypically friendly. Too friendly, some would say – almost a weird manifestation of eager confidence, I would say. But that's okay. I like that kind of weird. I expect it of Christians – especially confessional Lutherans. It's not a “niceness” in the sense of being cautiously or fearfully inoffensive, but a “niceness” wrought of such assurance in one's Confession as to be totally unthreatened by challenges to it, and to be genuinely motivated to share it for the sake of its inestimable value to others.

In fact, there has only been twice that I was treated otherwise at any Lutheran event, that I can recall. Because they are so odd, those experiences stand out to me. One was a large evangelism event sponsored by the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), that turned out to be little more than a mutual admiration rally, at which my wife and I were treated like leather-clad bikers caught crashing someone else's family reunion. The only conversations we had went something like this: “Who are you? ...Oh. Who's your pastor? Oh yeah, didn't he marry one of the Heutenschleutermacher gals? They're my cousins... They're my wife's cousins, too... (gigglegiggle) Don't worry, we're legal!” (No! I'm not making that up!)

The second was the Lutheran Free Conference in November 2011, at Martin Luther College in New Ulm, MN. Although I was greeted by, and enjoyed delightful conversation with a number of pastors and laymen from the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS), my reception from the half-dozen or so WELS pastors and professors who I recognized, with whom I had established eye-contact in a way that displayed an intention to engage them in conversation, who, therefore, I know recognized me, was quite the opposite: a turning away of the head, or a turning up of the heels as they walked away. One WELS pastor I knew, however, was happy to see me; we had a nice, though brief, conversation – that hallway meeting was definitely a highlight of the conference for me.

So, a warm reception at an intimate gathering of ELDoNA pastors and laymen at their Colloquium and Synod meanssomething, though little more than this: they're friendly Lutherans who are confident enough not to be suspicious of outsiders. In other words, nothing out of the ordinary, no red flags, just what I was expecting from good Lutherans.

More to come, tomorrow...

'via Blog this'

---

ISSUES WITH NIV 2011

LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) recommends against NIV 2011

Jan 9, 2013

The Queen James Bible: The next stage of "interpretive ambiguity"

Dec 14, 2012

How does one interpret language in a post-Modern Age? What about the language of the Bible?

Dec 11, 2012

"Church and Continuity" Conference Review: Rev. Koester on Gender Neutral Translating

Jun 5, 2012

NIV Translation Posts Compiled

Jan 6, 2012

ELS doctrine committee recommends against NIV 2011

Dec 7, 2011

The LORD (no longer) Our Righteousness in NIV 2011

Nov 30, 2011

"Relevance," and Mockery of the Holy Martyrs

Nov 30, 2011

The Gender Gutting of the Bible in NIV 2011

Nov 28, 2011

On "Emasculated Bibles" and being "Objective"

Nov 15, 2011

The Case of the Disappearing "Testament:" Modern Bible Translations and Covenantal Theology

Oct 15, 2011

Thoughts on Gender-Neutral Language in the NIV 2011

Sep 15, 2011

Post-Modernism, Pop-culture, Transcendence, and the Church Militant

Sep 13, 2011

"The saints" are no more

Aug 15, 2011

The NIV 2011 and the Importance of Translation Ideology

Aug 02, 2011

The NNIV, the WELS Translation Evaluation Committee, and the Perspicuity of the Scriptures

July 28, 2011

NIV 2011: A brotherly debate

July 27, 2011

NNIV - the new standard for WELS?

July 15, 2011

Anti-Semitic Sensitivity in the New NIV

December 15, 2010

NIV 2011 comparison with NIV 1984 and TNIV

(links to slowley.com)

---

TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2013

Impressions from My Visit with ELDoNA at their 2013 Colloquium and Synod – PART II

More Sharing ServicesShare|Share on facebookShare on myspaceShare on googleShare on twitter

(Continued from PART I, yesterday.)

PART II
Conscientiously Lutheran Liturgical Worship
A relatively new member of the WELS congregation I attend, who is a recent convert to confessional Lutheranism, told me not long ago, “I never thought that I would enjoy liturgical worship. In fact, two years ago, I would have rejected the notion out of hand as Roman heresy in practice... But... then I tried it. And there is only one word I have had for it since: Heavenly.” Not long after that, he confessed further: “That wasn't from the hymnal we use here, though. Don't tell pastor, but I think it was a Missouri Synod congregation. They are a small rural congregation and have a smaller hymnal, it was red, and used the King James... It was amazing... We always go there when we are in that part of Wisconsin.” He is a former Evangelical, and a very intelligent and thoughtful person whose company I enjoy immensely.

Of course, he was talking about the orders of service contained in the old The Lutheran Hymnal (TLH) published by the Synodical Conference in 1941, a hymnal which is still in wide use among confessional Lutherans, which seems to be the standard among congregations affiliated with ELDoNA (though they don't all use it, nor are they required to), and which was used during Matins, Vespers, and Divine Service (Wednesday Morning) during the Colloquium.

To quote from Rev. Rydecki's Dresden paper, “I am WELS, for now.” This means that, at present, “I am WELS.” Endeavoring to maintain integrity to this fact during the worship services of the Colloquium translated to a posture of non-participant status during these worship services, though I will admit to humming along with the hymns and liturgical music, while singing the words in my head. No, I didn't resent them so much for not being WELS that I also refused to internally participate in manifestly orthodox worship. My outward non-participation was only a testimony of my non-fellowship status – though I highly doubt anyone there noticed or cared. So much for the testimony. However, I will also admit to reciting the Creed aloud, since the TLH used the text “I believe” rather than the “We believe” phraseology contained in the versions printed in the more contemporary WELS hymnal, Christian Worship (CW), and reasoning that, since the phrase, “under God,” can be properly understood I can therefore recite the Pledge of Allegiance alongside heterodox Christians, Muslims, Jews, pagans, agnostics and atheists, as long as I mean to do so as an individual pledge (i.e., I pledge allegiance... under God...) without necessarily meaning to offer it in unity with whatever aberrant significance anyone else may assign to it, then I can also publicly recite an accepted and embraced Ecumenical Creed versed in personal rather than collective terms without the risk of making a false confession or insinuating full agreement in all matters of doctrine and practice with those individuals reciting the same personally versed Creed alongside me. (Yes, legalism often begets long sentences... but most often they're just fun to write.).

All of this preamble to introduce the fact that this was the first time I had observed or in any way experienced a conscientious public execution of any order of service from the TLH, much less the the Divine Service on Wednesday Morning. To quote my friend, “It was heavenly.”

I had been liturgically reared in WELS on its hymnal Christian Worship, which, when executed with the utmost reverence and musical integrity (as I had been introduced to it and often experience it), is sufficient to assist the congregation in their worship by reminding them of who they are, who Christ is, where He is, and what they are doing together in that worship chamber. But it is definitely a comparatively diminished impact. Its contemporary language patterns and pop-folksy key changes alter the ambiance created by the liturgy and hymnody to such a degree that it appreciably reduces the gravity it would otherwise have, reducing its impact to that of the relatively inconsequential vulgar, or common everyday, speech patterns we all use to order a beer at the local bar and grill, ask for assistance at the hardware store, give instructions to our employees, or greet our customers and clients – and this is especiallythe case with the WELS CW Supplement, which for me has never been anything other than a manic ride through levity and fury (in fact, it's so distracting, I now simply refrain from participating when Supplement orders of service are used). That is, the word and tonal patterns employed in contemporary orders of service, coming from the same common stock of words and sounds we hear in everyday life, are not sufficient to assist the worshiper out of the worldly frame of mind in which he has thought, acted and spoken all week, and into a distinctly “other-worldly” and reverential Ecclesiastical frame of mind instead.

The fact is, an important aspect of “worshiping in spirit and Truth,” is endeavoring to function under God's command to be “in the World but not of it;” we are not of the world, but of the Body of Christ, that is, of the Church – this is fundamental, and the visible church simply fails in its aspirations to represent the Church Universal on Earth if it aspires to worldliness in its practice rather than the “other-worldliness” to which it is commanded. And this is recognized among most conscientious Lutherans, I think – if not in these same explicit terms, then at least implicitly. Thus, if the word and tonal patterns employed in contemporary orders of service are not sufficient to appreciably assist the worshiper out of his worldly frame of mind, the task falls entirely upon the shoulders of the liturgist (usually the Pastor), the organist (and/or other musicians), and upon the intellect of the worshiper. That is to say, though the words may be easier for the modern liturgist to say, the overall tasks of the liturgist and organist are made inordinately more difficult, while the worship of the congregation necessarily becomes more cerebral. Often, neither the liturgist, nor the organist nor the worshipers are up to the task, and the congregation becomes increasingly comfortable with the creeping invasion of worldliness into the church's worship practice.

These are the thoughts that began to percolate as I sat through Matins and Vespers on Monday and Tuesday of the 2013 Colloquium and Synod of the ELDoNA, and struck me squarely as I sat through Divine Service on Wednesday. Having now finally sat through the liturgies of the TLH, I can confidently and emphatically say, “No one talks like that any more; no one hears music like that anymore; it is entirely out of place in the world of today.” And this is preciselythe reason we should want to use these older liturgies. Though prior to this I'd understood and defended this fact primarily from the standpoint of reason (also extrapolating from experience with WELS CW), I now have first-hand experience with which to positively assert it.

No one talks that way anymore! – but everyone understands what the words are saying. Moreover, when people, especially Christians, hear the old Elizabethan language patterns, their first thought is not, “Oh, Shakespeare! Bunyan! Milton!” – nobody reads that stuff anymore, nor do they associate these language forms with an era of history, a nation, a queen, or a genre of English literature. Indeed, there are exponentially more readers of the King James Bible in the world today than there are readers of classic literature. On the contrary, when Elizabethan language forms are heard, especially when they are heard by Christians, those forms carry with them a sense of gravity, being immediately associated with the Church and the Teaching and Authority of Scripture as it comes to us from far in the past into the present – the Christian's thoughts are immediately carried away from the cares of this world, and set to dwell upon, and find solace in, the constancy and historicity of his cherished religion. Though Christians no longer use these language forms in the conduct of their everyday affairs, they nevertheless understand them and automatically associate them with the Church, its weighty tasks, and the authority with which Christ has charged her. For the Christian in today's world, Elizabethan language patterns in the context of worship carry the sounds of True and Enduring Religion, immediately grab the attention of the conscientious Christian, and set his mind in order.

As I sat through these TLH liturgies, listening to the distinctive form of language that in our era is exclusively associated with the Church, recognizing the precision and efficiency of Ecclesiastical terms spoken only by the Church, and hearing the unique sounds that only the Church makes, my mind was transported to a place far away from the world outside the walls of that building, to an “other place,” a place where God Himself comes to me with His Gospel and ministers to me, a place where the personal Word of Forgiveness is spoken directly to me by His ambassador, who was by Him given the authority to do so “in His stead and by His command.” That is, my mind was brought to center on the place where I had brought my body – God's Sanctuary – and it was the old liturgy of the TLH, with its old words that no one outside the Church really uses anymore, and with its old musical forms that no one outside the Church really uses anymore, that did most of the work of bringing my mind to that place. It wasn't the perfect execution of the liturgists and musicians, nor was it by exercise of “highly disciplined intellect” – but, almost immediately upon its opening sounds, the old liturgy more thoroughly assisted my worship in a way that more contemporary liturgies, with their vulgar language patterns and pop-folksy tonal progressions are simply unable.

Informal discussion with a few of the ELDoNA pastors left me with several impressions regarding worship practice among them.

1. In every case, there is a palpable respect for the incarnational, sacramental, evangelical, historical liturgical practice of genuine confessional Lutheranism.
2. There was nothing that struck me as “out of balance” about these men with respect to their views regarding the practice of Lutheran liturgical worship. One hears from certain quarters of the internet about these “Gottesdienst types” who supposedly affix “soteriological significance” to the position of the celebrant's fingers on the communion chalice, etc... I perceived none of this while at the Colloquium.
3. While the TLH seems to be the preferred hymnal, not all congregations affiliated with the ELDoNA have moved back to using it yet, though that does seem to be the desire among those pastors whose congregations' move to the TLH is still pending. There was no indication that I could discern that such a move was mandated, but that it was, rather, a voluntary desire.
4. While nearly all of the liturgy was chanted or sung at the Colloquium, not all congregations affiliated with the ELDoNA chant or sing the entire liturgy, nor are they required to. Some do, some don't, as the local circumstances warrant. But in all cases, the aspiration seems to be directed toward a reverent decorum and wholesome catholicity.
5. At one point in time in the recent past, there was an internet rumour circulating that the ELDoNA “leaned pointedly East” in its worship practice. I don't recall the source, but I think it had something to do with the colours and patterns in the chasubles some of them chose to wear. Though I don't recall the source, or all the facts cited by that source, I'd been under that impression ever since. And I know I'm not the only one, as I have been contacted more than a few times in the past year, on Facebook and other IM tools, by people I've never met, expressing the same opinion and wanting to know what I thought about the ELDoNA in this regard. I could only confirm “what I'd heard.” So, while at the Colloquium, I asked. Now I know. The rumour is hogwash. Apparently, the rumour started the year that all of the pastors of the ELDoNA were pictured together having – purely by coincidence – grown heavy beards. This was also about the time that “a couple of Gottesdienst pastors defected East” – so the rumour was that the ELDoNA, with its beards and Gottesdienst connections (and, perhaps, with Eastern rather than Western patterns on their chasubles...), was tinged with Eastern Orthodoxy. Nope. They're not.

Those are some general observations. Overall, with respect to worship practice, I think it is important to conclude this: the ELDoNA are normal Lutherans having respect for and emphasizing historical liturgical Lutheran practice, as our Confessions enjoin us (AC:XXIV:1ff, AP:XXIV:1ff), allowing freedom within that emphasis, while also studiously rejecting the sectarian practices and worldly encroachments of the Church Growth Movement (CGM), or any worship practices which would dilute the public Confession that Lutherans ought to exhibit, if not entirely dispossess them of it (FC:X, SD:X:5ff). While I am always encouraged to find Lutheran pastors and congregations exhibiting these same Confessional characteristics, I was especially encouraged to observe them as defining characteristics of an entire Lutheran church body.

More to come, tomorrow...