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...