The Second Sunday after Christmas.

The Second Sunday after Christmas

Pastor Gregory L. Jackson

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/bethany-lutheran-worship

Bethany Lutheran Church, 10 AM Central Time

The Hymn # 131           The Star Proclaims                4:89

The Confession of Sins
The Absolution
The Introit p. 16
The Gloria Patri
The Kyrie p. 17
The Gloria in Excelsis
The Salutation and Collect p. 19
The Epistle and Gradual       

The Gospel              

Glory be to Thee, O Lord!
Praise be to Thee, O Christ!
The Nicene Creed p. 22
The Sermon Hymn # 305:1-5                   Soul Adorn Thyself                4:23

 Planned from Eternity for Us

The Hymn #305:6-9               Soul Adorn Thyself             

The Preface p. 24
The Sanctus p. 26
The Lord's Prayer p. 27
The Words of Institution
The Agnus Dei p. 28
The Nunc Dimittis p. 29
The Benediction p. 31
The Hymn #657            Beautiful Savior                                       4:24      

Ephesians 1:3-16

King James Version (KJV)

³ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

⁴ According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

⁵ Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

⁶ To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

⁷ In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

⁸ Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

⁹ Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

¹⁰ That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

¹¹ In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

¹² That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

¹³ In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

¹⁴ Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

¹⁵ Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,

¹⁶ Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;

Planned from Eternity for Us

 

Matthew 2:13-23 (King James Version)

¹³ And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

¹⁴ When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:

¹⁵ And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

¹⁶ Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying,

¹⁸ In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

¹⁹ But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,

²⁰ Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.

²¹ And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.

²² But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:

²³ And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

The Wise Men and the Star

We have a curious reversal about science. Today we have vast sums of money spent on exploration and astronomy, but few people know anything about the night skies above them. One reason is our lighting wiping out the star-scape, and we need them less for navigation and weather predictions.

When I had a large telescope, I looked forward to the nights when I could use it and share the views with friends. I got to know the weather and get a feel for what would happen. The moon tended to wipe out the best views, and nights with the full moon were the clearest of them all. After a full moon, we usually had days of rain in Michigan.

When the skies are blackened by a lack of artificial light, and night vision is keen, everything in the sky is known and significant. When Jesus was born people were quite observant of the sky and everything happened. The Chinese wrote down their observations.

The people who mocked the Star of Bethlehem (common when I was growing up) showed how little they knew about the sky. During the time Jesus was born, two or three events took place that are considered the Star of Bethlehem. The Chinese recorded them and astronomers can reproduce them for SRO audiences during the Christmas season at the planetarium. We saw this done in Chicago.

Planetary conjunctions are very exciting, because their wandering (Greek name for planet) in the night sky draws them together every so often. I was going to a clergy event with Chris when the night sky featured all the bright planets in conjunction. I said, “Look, that will never happen again for 1100 years.” A Harvard PhD lady pastor said, “My boyfriend loved astronomy. That was boring, so I dumped him.” In fact, I was the only pastor who noticed the night sky. Oh – we are so scientific today.

http://www.observadores-cometas.com/Star_of_Bethlehem/English/Possible.htm

Since the night sky was the Internet, television, radio and newspapers combined, consider how the entire world viewed those celestial events. According to one theory, the conjunction of planets made it clear that the king was being replaced. Everyone knew something was going to happen. Add to that electric atmosphere, star-gazers from East, traveling a long distance and asking about this king and savior.

Kings are always jealous of their power. If they are not brutal, they are quickly replaced. Everyone knew something was about to happen, and the Scriptures said it would. Once the throne passed from the House of David, the Savior would come. Herod was not a Jew. He fulfilled that prophecy. The Wise Men placed even more emphasis upon the change by asking the king about the star.

We can easily imagine that fear, confusion, and hope were all mixed together at the same time. Herod responded with the slaughter of the innocents. The wise men had to leave town quietly. Joseph, Mary, and Jesus escaped to Egypt.

As Luther observed, the appearance of the Star shows that God ordered His Creation so that the birth of the Savior would be a world event. In many different ways, for Jews and Gentiles alike, His future ministry was announced in the clearest possible ways.

This upsets rationalists, who loved to mock the Star of Bethlehem as a fable, a myth that was invented to make the birth of Jesus more charming. When the reality of the Star is grasped, and people flock to demonstrations of its truth, the rationalists seethe that planetariums are making money from the faith of their patrons.

This is the balance between faith and reason. The Enthusiasts betray their mental laziness by mocking study, as if brainless faith is better because it is based on emotions alone. But emotions are as volatile as the weather.

Knowing and appreciating what God has done in history is one way to guard against our volatile emotions. Gerhardt was a sensitive man and experienced more loss in his lifetime than six men – loss of career, loss of his wife and all his children (except one). He was exceptional in his learning and yet he was faithful to Biblical, Lutheran doctrine – not a crafty schemer using his brains to look for job security.

We can experience his inner thoughts in studying his hymns. “How dearly God must love you” – in looking at the circumstances of the Nativity.

The Star of Bethlehem

Possible Explanations of the Star of Bethlehem

 http://www.observadores-cometas.com/Star_of_Bethlehem/English/Possible.htm

The are many possible explanations of the Star of Bethlehem which have received wide support over the years. The most widely accepted are variations on comets, novae and conjunctions, although a new candidate, which has to be taken seriously, is the idea of a planetary occultation. What are these candidates and what are their strengths and weaknesses in each case?

Planetary conjunctions

The idea that a planetary conjunction might have been the Star of Bethlehem is usually credited, erroneously, to Johannes Kepler. In fact, the planetary conjunction theory only dates back to the middle of the 19^th Century. Kepler only pointed out that a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn had occurred near the time of the Nativity whilst himself favouring the nova/supernova hypothesis. A planetary conjunction is when two (or more) planets approach each other in the sky, one passing due south of the other. Conjunctions can be quite spectacular and last for several nights although a really compact conjunction lasts for just a few hours.

It was in 1968 when Roger Sinnott wrote a highly influential article in Sky and Telescope pointing to the June 17^th 2 BC conjunction of Venus and Jupiter as having been particularly spectacular from Babylon that this theory took off. Sinnott’s work is still one of the finest ever carried out in this field and all the more laudable for having been done from planetary tables, without the assistance of a computer. Sinnottinvestigated conjunctions over a wide range of dates from 12 BC to 7 AD finding more than 200 conjunctions of the major planets. He also found no less than 20 compact groupings of three or four planets, of which only 4 would have been observable. After carefully filtering the events, Sinnott concluded that the 2 BC conjunction, in Leo, would have fitted the bill.

On June 17^th 2 BC, as seen from Babylon, Venus and Jupiter would have set 3 hours after sunset, with the two planets too close together to separate by eye, having closed considerably in the time since sunset. In fact, we now know that the disk of Venus actually passed in front of Jupiter, occulting it partially.

The problem with conjunction though is that they are too common. When the Magi have been waiting several hundred years for the birth of the Messiah, they would have seen all kinds of occultations and it is hard to believe that a single occultation, however spectacular, could have been the Star of Bethlehem, quite apart from the fact that this one happened several years too late.

A Triple Conjunction

Any pair of superior planets (that is, planets outside the Earth’s orbit) can give rise to a triple conjunction whereby, instead of a single pass, the planets meet and separate three times over a period of a few months. The more exterior a pair of planets are, the more frequent are triple conjunctions relative to normal conjunctions, although the more infrequently a conjunction of any kind will occur.

Jupiter and Saturn will enter conjunction about every 20 years. During the last millennium BC, however, no less than 7 triple conjunctions also took place – one every 140 years, on average – although the interval varied from 40 years (as between 861 and 821 BC and again between 563 and 523 BC) to 377 years (as between 523 BC and 146 BC). Over the millennium there were 43 “normal” conjunctions between the two planets and 7 “triple” conjunctions.

In December 1603 Johannes Kepler observed a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn (a normal one), followed by a massing of Jupiter, Saturn and Mars, when all three planets were close together in the sky. He calculated that a similar set of circumstances would have occurred in 7 BC. In fact, the 7 BC conjunction was a triple conjunction, although Jupiter and Saturn were never much less than a degree apart.

In 1976 David Hughes popularised this triple conjunction and suggested that it might explain the Star of Bethlehem, particularly as it happened in the constellation of Pisces, a constellation associated with the Jews. Sceptics point out that a far more spectacular triple conjunction (although in the constellation of Cancer) happened in 146/145 BC. Similarly, triple conjunctions were seen in Pisces in 861/860 BC and in 981/980 BC, during both of which the separation of Jupiter and Saturn was less than in 7 BC. Another important point is that the 7 BC triple conjunction was observed from Babylon, as was the massing of Jupiter, Saturn and Mars which followed, but the Babylonian records give no sign that they found the phenomenon of any special interest.

An occultation

A recent and interesting suggestion is that the Star of Bethlehem might have been an occultation. At first sight this seems unpromising. Between 20 BC and 1 AD the Moon passed in front of (occulted) the four main planets (Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) 170 times. In other words, it is hardly a rare event. However, when we calculate which of them would have been visible from Babylon in a dark sky, the number reduces in to just 5 over the 20 years – somewhat better, although still hardly a rare event.

Recently, however, Michael Molnar of Rutgars University has drawn attention to an occultation of Jupiter by the Moon in 6 BC. This took place in the constellation of Aries and was similar to a later occultation of Venus which may be referred to in a coin known as the Antioch coin. This coin shows a Ram (Aries?), the Moon and a bright star, and what appears to be the track of a planet.

Molnar suggests that the 6 BC occultation was the Star of Bethlehem because of its astrological associations, Aries being the ruling star sign of Judea and Jupiter symbolising a king, with the occultation – the reappearance of the planet from behind the Moon – symbolising a royal birth.

I am sceptical because the March 17^th 6 BC occultation took place very close to the Sun and just after sunset. It is hard to believe that it would have been observable with the Sun just 3 degrees below the horizon and Jupiter 5 degrees above it. This theory though has been very well received by many astronomers and popular writers and may be more than just an interesting anecdote in the story of the Star of Bethlehem.

Comet(s)

A theory which has been popular for many years is that the Star of Bethlehem was a comet. There is no doubt that a bright comet is a very spectacular event and would be an impressive “star”, but scrutiny of the Chinese and Babylonian chronicles reveals no evidence of a bright comet. There is an event observed in 5 BC which may be an account of a comet, but there is no description of classical elements in Chinese reports such as the tail and the comet’s movement which make it doubtful that this was a comet. Similarly, the Chinese reports imply that the object was stationary – most uncometary in an object seen for two and a half months.

Such doubts do not stop many “stars” from being depicted as comets – this practice is particularly widespread in Spain where stylised comets which show a large star with a flowing curved tail (thus getting the best of both worlds), adorn Christmas trees and buildings everywhere.

Nova

If the object seen by the Chinese in 5 BC was not a comet, then it can only have been a nova (we know, from the lack of a radio source and a visible remnant that it was not a supernova, despite its long duration of visibility). The position (southern Aquila) is consistent with having been a nova, although a little further south of the plane of the Milky Way than is normal.

The date of its apparition (March 5 BC), coinciding with the best guess as to the date of the birth of Jesus, its position in the sky (in the east at dawn) and long duration of visibility (more than 70 days), make this a very plausible Star of Bethlehem. Again though, we would have to ask the question “why this nova?” given that the Magi must surely have observed dozens of novae over the centuries that the spent watching the sky. It is a little hard to see what would have made this event particularly significant to the Magi – apart from the fact that its date coincides, as far as we can guess, with the date of the Nativity.

Warren Has Spoken

I suggest Luther's sermon on the stoning of Stephen
to get straight on justification by faith.

Dear Pastor Jackson: The title you put to the posting in your Ichabod blog of my emails to Pastor Spencer is incorrect, and the reason for the error isn't hard to realize: You judge other people by your own moral standards, assuming the worst of other people's motives because of your own.

I contacted you in 2012 as a new member of the WELS for the same reason for which I contacted Pastor Spencer and Intrepid Lutherans: for more information about what I had read online.  I stopped contacting you for the same reason for which I stopped trying to post in the Intrepid Lutherans forum: I disagreed with what I was reading, and because of your/their failure to respond/post my messages, because neither of you can accept dissent from your own positions.

That said, I consider it a badge of honor to be criticized in your blog along with others who accept the Bible's teaching of the doctrine of Objective Justification.  For my correct spelling you can thank my teachers.  --Warren Malach

***

GJ - Warren got a free ride for his opinions on this blog, but he was hardly the babe in the woods he pretended to be.

Like many other Iagos, he will tossed away by DP Buchholz when he is no longer useful.

Rot at the WELS Seminary - The Sausage Factory. You Are WELScome To Agree or To Apologize

WELS never voted on the NNIV itself,
but approved all translations and paraphrases.

On the Late Intrepid Lutherans:

Pastor Spencer -

May the Lord bless you richly as you continue to serve Him as a faithful shepherd.

You article and comments here spoke true. I could not agree more, WELS has set a path that barring the Lord's intervention will lead it away from Confessional Lutheranism. Only my own opinion - but the rot is set in at Seminary and all who pass through her gates will take on the rot, excepting only those few spared by the Grace of God. I always thought of this forum as a healthy place for discussion. (Hopefully the Organization will continue - all be it with a changed focus.) Unfortunately as time has gone by the discussion has become less and less and more one-sided. Now this is not through any lack of IL's wish to engage in fruitful debate but basically no one with a different opinion being willing to engage in debate. Sad as this appeared to be the last best hope for our Synod's future as a Confessional Lutheran Church body, but it appears one side is not into discussion or dialogue.

Let us all continue as God gives us the means to be faithful Berean's.

Lee Liermann

JANUARY 3, 2014 AT 1:03 PM

Many Have Simply Given Up on the Synodical Conference

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2014/01/going-but-not-forgetting.html#comment-form

JANUARY 2, 2014 AT 6:21 PM

Les Baker said...

As l read these comments and reflect on their rationale l am dismayed at the excuses. The fact is the WELS no longer follows God's Word. There is no rationale that can excuse following false doctrine!

I joined a WELSchurch almost 20 years ago after careful search and study of different denominational doctrines. The WELS was as close as l could find to what scripture taught. As a father of young preschool age children l was elated to bring my family to worship and raise them as WELS christians because there they would grow in God's Word.

lt is for the same reason that l will shortly be talking to my pastor, also my friend, to tell him l am leaving his church and will shortly join ELDoNA. All my friends are WELS. My wife and two of my sons will remain WELS. My heart is broken. At times l cry out to our Triune God asking why he let this happen to my family. Once united in faith, now divided.

So, people can keep their rationalizations about family and friend contacts. The truth is unless God, and that includes His Truth, come first you worship an idol. I speak from experience. My family has been my idol and only recently have l realized and placed them second to God. This has left me psychologically bruised and scared. Yet, God must come first or we worship the Golden Calf all over again.

JANUARY 3, 2014 AT 5:18 AM

***

GJ - Intrepid Emeritus Steven Spencer observed that WELS is incredibly stupid about most things, except for controlling people. They accomplish that superbly - through unity by hazing, abuse, and clan behavior. Like a school of fish, a WELS clan will swim in one direction together and change directions and move another direction, according to some unseen and unheard signal.

Mequon classmates always defend one another, unless the signal has gone out that someone is now a leper. He will not know he is a leper until some time has passed.

New lepers beg to be let back into the Mequon clan. One way they do this is by gushing in public about the great conference they just attended - how wonderful, Lutheran, confessional, and spiritual it was.

One FB friend from WELS just got a promotion out of the parish. He left a message on my wall - "Stop slandering WELS!" Why did he do this, since we have no personal contact throughout the year? Answer - As a FB friend he is immediately suspect as a potential leaker or secret Ichabod supporter.

I am old school.
When I was young, The Bridge was a bridge.

Warren Malach Pretended To Ask Questions about Justification on Ichabod - So He Could Launch into His UOJ Venom. Warren Is DP Buchholz' Iago, But At Least He Can Spell Public Correctly

"Don't miss my sex education lectures, based on UOJ and Craig Groeschel.
Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?"

From: "Warren Malach" <brucknerfan1951@msn.com>
Date: Jan 2, 2014 7:43 PM
Subject: RE: Your IL statement
To: "tlcsvaz@orthodoxlutheran.info" <tlcsvaz@orthodoxlutheran.info>
Cc:

Dear Pastor Spencer: 

After reading your further posts in the Intrepid Lutherans forum today, I am left shaking my head in total amazement.  You are in a state of total denial about the reasons for which the forum has lost support within the WELS.  The forum allows Pastor Rydecki to attack the public doctrine of the WELS regarding the doctrine of Objective Justification, the forum admits that it has lost support within the WELS, and you completely ignore the doctrinal "elephant in the living room" as a reason for the decline in support for the forum.  Can you prove that IL's decline in support PRIOR to the forum's use by Pastor Rydecki to attack the public doctrine of the WELS was equal to or greater than that experienced by the forum AFTER Pastor Rydecki began using the forum to attack the public doctrine of the WELS?  If so, then be my guest.

Allow me to use myself as a case in point.  You will recall that my first reaction to the IL forum as a new member of the WELS was very positive.  I contacted you privately for more information about the problems in the synod in order to become a better-informed member of the WELS.  Then the forum began posting attacks by Pastor Rydecki upon the public doctrine of the WELS.  You are quite aware of how I reacted to this use of the forum, especially considering the fact that Pastor Rydecki had the use of his own blog and his own congregation's website to make his public attacks.  Why was the IL forum permitting itself to be used in this fashion?  Because Pastor Rydecki was an officer of the forum and a personal friend of yours?  You claimed that you wanted an "open discussion" of things in the forum, yet the forum does NOT permit such an "open discussion" because all responses are "moderated" by the officers of the forum.  You even posted one of my responses after I complained about the lack of "open discussion" when another officer refused to post it.  Finally I quit trying to post in the forum, when I came to realize that the forum had become "anti-WELS" in its doctrinal position.

Why won't you discuss in your IL posts the use of the forum by Pastor Rydecki to attack the public doctrine of the WELS?  Why won't you tell IL readers where you yourself stand on the doctrine of Objective Justification?  It is known that President Buchholz has spoken to you about this subject, just as it is known that you intended to resign from Intrepid Lutherans a year ago but changed your mind.  Until you deal with the reality of the consequences of the use of the IL forum for attacks upon the public doctrine of the WELS, you remain in a state of denial about the reasons for the decline of support for the forum within the WELS.  --Warren

---

From: brucknerfan1951@msn.com
To: tlcsvaz@orthodoxlutheran.info
Subject: Your IL statement
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 11:41:10 -0800

Dear Pastor Spencer: I just noticed your statement posted in the Intrepid Lutherans forum.  In that I never heard back from you after you promised to respond to me after your vacation last fall, I take this opportunity to react to your public statement.

Of course, I commend your decision to resign from the offices which you held with that organization, plans for which you had announced to me a year ago.  Would that you had done so then, and spared yourself your "legacy" of the past year!

I deeply regret your apparent inability to understand that support for the Intrepid Lutherans forum within the WELS was adversely affected by the forum's decision to be used by Pastor Rydecki for his denial of Objective Justification.  Instead of asking Pastor Rydecki to confine his rejection of Objective Justification to his own personal website and/or that of his congregation, Intrepid Lutherans chose to permit him to use the forum to attack the public doctrine of the WELS.  You yourself told me that you did not agree with his rejection of the public doctrine of the WELS in this matter, but you and the other officers of the forum obviously decided to permit his use of the forum to do so, even after his expulsion from the synod.  That decision turned Intrepid Lutherans into an "anti-WELS" forum.  When you as an officer of the Intrepid Lutherans forum agree to the forum publishing attacks upon the public doctrine of your own synod, you have publicly taken a position AGAINST the public doctrine your own synod. 

I read with interest your remarks about how you believed that you had been falsely accused of being a "legalist" because of your defense of the historic liturgy in the forum.  I find it very hard to understand how you can dismiss such accusations when you spent so much of your time in the forum attacking others' freedom in Christ regarding a matter of adiaphora.  If one insists upon one specific form of adiaphora and attacks the use of other forms, upon what basis can you deny the accusation of being a "legalist"?  Did you follow Matt. 18 in your criticisms of the pastors and congregations using other forms of worship?  Please forgive me if I don't remember you having mentioned that you did so, either in your personal communications with me or in your posts in the forum.

You quoted Scripture in your statement; I will share a Scriptural passage with you: Gal. 6:7: "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked.  A man reaps with he sows."  As an officer of the Intrepid Lutherans forum, you must take responsibility for having "sown" within the WELS attacks upon its public doctrine--in spite of your private claims to not dissent from that doctrine--as well as attacks upon the freedom in Christ of fellow members of the WELS regarding a matter of adiaphora.  What has been "reaped" by the forum as a consequence of these decisions and actions?  The public admission by the Intrepid Lutherans forum of loss of support for the forum by WELS members within the context of an announcement which made specific reference to a vile, anti-Christian personal blog as a source for information for forum readers, no activity within the forum for over month, and then your notice of resignation. 

Support as on officer of the Intrepid Lutherans forum for attacks upon the public doctrine of the WELS and personal attacks upon the Christian liberty of your brothers and sisters in Christ within the WELS regarding matters of adiaphora are, unfortunately, your "legacy" as an officer of and participant in that forum.  As a tool for discussion and constructive criticism of issues within the WELS, Intrepid Lutherans could have served a wholesome purpose, but it chose not to do so, and its current and former officers must take direct responsibility for how that forum "failed."  --Warren Malach

***

GJ - Some facts are in order. Steve Spencer is a long-term friend of mine and often serves as my social secretary. Scaredy-cat WELS leaders used to ask him if they could contact me. SP Mark Schroeder went through him so he could get a hearing from me. DP Jon-Boy Buchholz did the same. I am not their spin-doctor, so they gave up on that project.

The misnamed Intrepids began because Mark Schroeder said he was being out-organized by the Jeske gang. The idea was to get a group together to support Olde WELS. I was asked to nominate WELS people who used their brains. I was also asked how they might work. I suggested a group blog, which was adopted. I refused to participate beyond that point because I already knew everything would be blamed on me - and it was.

The organizers began calling me "W" because I was blamed for every fault in the universe. I had nothing to do with their meetings or decisions. If they did research, they did it on their own, starting with key links I generously provided to everyone on this blog.

I did not even know who the key people were. I simply suggested that people I knew (from them writing to me) contact Spencer.

Steve and I worked on the Orthodox Lutheran Forum together. He got beat up for that, and he was also beat up for IL. All he had to do was publish something that made sense and the Jeske zombies went after him hammer and tong.

Those who realize the apostasy of WELS, their abuse of members--especially women and children--and their constant deceitfulness decided not see it through. When they made progress on the foundational doctrine, justification by faith, Spencer waved the white flag. I noticed that the entire group published less together than I publish alone, but (sigh) it was too much work unless more people kicked in. I offered to help on Tuesdays (an old movie joke).

In truth, the Intrepids hit the fatal third rail when they touched upon the Chief Article, the Master and Prince, the one which judges all other doctrine - Justification By Faith Alone - not Universal Absolution without Faith.

Walther's dogma is not the Chief Article of Christianity. Halle University taught Pietism, not Lutheran doctrine. Walther got his peculiar ideas from the sex cult leader of the Saxons, Bishop Martin Stephan, STD, trained at Halle but never qualified to be a pastor. He did not even have a bachelor's degree. Walther only had a rationalistic bachelor's degree - not enough to teach religion at a community college today. But Walther sure knew how to kidnap, organize a mob, steal land and gold. He was a man of rare talents, who did his best to have the early history of the Synodical Conference forgotten.

The LCMS, WELS, CLC, and micro-minis get their authority from perpetuating the myth of the infallible Walther - judge of all matters, theological and civil. Human slavery - yes! Universal forgiveness without faith - of course!

In the Synodical Conference today, one is either in the bathtub or out of the bathtub. There is no foot-bath. The micro-minis pursue the same obsession, endlessly marking who should be shunned for some offense, like criticizing their precious Church Growth. That control is what keeps the shards of the Synodical Conference together. Entire clans will shun the person who has been added to the list, but being on the list opens up new vistas.

The #2 sled dog was so sad when the lead-dog died, but his entire world-view changed from that time on. The rapidly shrinking SynCons prefer the comfort of following - no I will not say it - instead of leading.

Steve Spencer has tried twice to get through to WELS, first through the Orthodox Lutheran Forum. I remember one pastor volunteering his efforts, then bailing out. Everyone ran away like little girls because the Jeske mob had organized hissy-fits every time an issue came out.

This time Mark Schroeder (a  classmate of Spencer's) clearly sided with the UOJ hive, and that hive also happens to be the Mark Jeske coven. The DPs organized hit squads to get rid of the Intrepid Lutheran signers, but they never did that with Jeske's many organizations.

Mark Schroeder even flew to Green Bay to save Ski's job and cut a deal with The CORE, according to DP Doug's public letter (spelling carefully checked). Is Ski now being replaced or not? My best researcher is so disgusted with the lying and corruption in WELS that my best source is now off-line, so to speak. The rest have been threatened into silence.

This all goes together - abuse of members and pastors, false doctrine, deception, etc. Nothing good comes from a junk tree. Gardeners tear junk trees out of the ground. The tree must be good, and faith makes that tree good, according to Jesus and Luther.

PS - Tolkien wrote:

“Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens.”

Gimli in The Two Towers.  

http://escapetoreality.org/2010/09/02/top-12-j-r-r-tolkien-quotes/

Just When I Thought Paul McCain Had Given Up Plagiarism

This is supposed to clinch McCain's argument for Universal Absolution without Faith - UOJ.
But it really shows the nonsense spouted by Ed Preuss before he joined the Church of Rome.
Unlike the Missourians, he had the guts to follow his false doctrine where it led,
rather than mislead Lutherans about Biblical doctrine.

I thought my barrage of posts and Facebook messages (often to his overpaid, dense CPH boss Bruce Kintz) would lead McCain to repentance.

But no - I gasped in amazement as I read recent posts with hints of the sources. They were not very clear but at least they indicated McCain's borrowing. "HT HCM"? Is that APA? How does this guy earn a quarter million a year in salary and benefits by cheating all the time?

McCain cannot write and cannot edit, so he spends his time on his main occupation, serving as Harrison's hatchet-man and promoter. Those who defend Harrison should look at his scurvy associates. Not one is a Lutheran.

My detective skills were challenged to find another home-run case of plagiarism, and it did not take long. I need four cups of coffee just to plow through the ads and copied material. And there it was.

St. Stephen's Day - December 26th - plagiarized by Paul McCain from The Catholic Encyclopedia.

First clue - a saint.

Second clue - a long, detailed article.

Third clue - unusual language.

Fourth clue - at the end, HT (for hat tip) and the source is hidden in the link. NewAdvent.org is a papal propaganda site, which includes The Catholic Encyclopedia.

Giving the source at the end of the post would be appropriate only if the entire article used The Catholic Encyclopedia as background information, without copying the content. Even then, an APA citation names the source instead of calling it "source."

But a quick copy and paste from McCain's "work" shows it is indeed verbatim from The Catholic Encyclopedia. It is also dishonest to hide the true source by only naming the main link - New Advent - instead of the actual work, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

The servants of the Antichrist have even provided the correct citation material at the bottom of their article. Why not copy and paste that, O Thou Great Editor and Publisher?

APA citation. Souvay, C. (1912). St. Stephen. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved January 1, 2014 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14286b.htm

MLA citation. Souvay, Charles. "St. Stephen." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 1 Jan. 2014<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14286b.htm>.

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Bonnie A. Brooks.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is feedback732 at newadvent.org. (To help fight spam, this address might change occasionally.) Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.

***

GJ - Worst of all, McCain and his fellowship of felons are always promoting themselves as Confessional Lutherans, even as Orthodox Lutherans. Herman Otten and Mark Schroeder agree with McCain about UOJ. I know that is guilt by association, but they are all guilty of the same offense.

Here is the irony. The material stolen from the Roman Catholics could have been Luther's sermon for St. Stephen's day. The Luther sermon is public domain from the Lenker set of sermons. I have set it up in a decent format with illustrations, although some typos from the original website (ad-spamming) are still there from scanning the books instead of copying them. Still, any master editor and chief blogger could handle a few typos - but not Paul McCain. When Harrison's buddy had a choice on what to copy for St. Stephen's Day, he chose papal propaganda rather than Luther's sermon.

But why? The Luther sermon destroys all the arguments about UOJ with an emphasis upon faith. Give me a minute. I will be back with the sermon and some highlighted sections. Note - I am not pretending that I wrote it and posting thank-yous for all my writing. A copy and paste only takes a minute.

I'm back. Here it is.

Luther's Sermon for St. Stephen's Day, Epistle lesson, Lenker edition.

ST. STEPHEN’S EPISTLE TEXT

TEXT: ACTS 6:8-14, AND ACTS 7:54-60. 8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, wrought great wonders and signs among the people. 9 But there arose certain of them that were of the synagogue called the synagogue of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen. 10 And they were not able to withstand the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke. 11 Then they suborned men, who said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God. 12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and seized him, and brought him into the council,13 and set up false witnesses, who said, This man ceaseth not to speak words against this holy place, and the law: 14 for we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered unto us. 54 Now when they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,56 and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. 57 But they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and rushed upon him with one accord; 58 and they cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon the Lord, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. 60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.

And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

STEPHEN’S EXAMPLE OF FAITH.

1. It is necessary to the understanding of this epistle lesson to introduce something of what is omitted and to present in connection with the narrative the things which gave rise to it. The dispute arose from Stephen’s assertion that whatsoever proceeds not from faith does not profit, and that men cannot serve God by the erection of churches, or by works independent of faith in Jesus Christ. Faith alone renders us godly; faith alone builds the temple of God — the believing hearts. The Jews opposed the doctrine of faith, adducing the law of Moses and the temple at Jerusalem. For the Bible makes frequent mention of Jerusalem as God’s chosen city, toward which his eyes are always directed, a city called the house of God. Such argument they presumed to be conclusive.

2. Stephen, however, opposes them by citing Isaiah 66:1-2: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: what manner of house will ye build unto me? and what place shall be my rest? For all these things hath my hand made, and so all these things came to be, saith Jehovah.” This statement is clear and forcible beyond gainsaying. It shows God does not dwell in houses made with hands, for the essential elements of these are, in the first place, of his own creating and belong to him. Further, if heaven nor earth can contain him — and he here asserts that heaven is not his house but his throne, and the earth not his habitation but his footstool — how can he be expected to dwell in a house made by men? Solomon speaks to the same purpose in 1 Kings 8:27, referring to the house he has himself built.

3. Defeated by the power of this passage from Isaiah, and similar citations they could not gainsay, the Jews proceeded to misconstrue Stephen’s words, making out that he declared Jesus would destroy the temple and change the customs of Moses. Yet Stephen had no intention of giving such impression. He simply asserted that we are saved not by the Law or the temple, but by faith in Jesus Christ; and that having faith we may rightly observe the Law, whether there be temple or not. Stephen’s purpose was merely to remove the Jews’ false confidence in their own works and in the temple.

4. Similar to them, the Papists of today, when they hear it claimed that works are not effectual and that faith in Christ must precede and must be of sole efficacy, cry out that good works are prohibited, and God’s commandments blasphemed. Were Stephen a preacher of today he might not, it is true, be stoned, but he would be burned, or dismembered with tongs, by the enraged Papists.

5. Stephen replies to the false accusation of the Jews. Beginning with Abraham, he goes on through the Scriptures, showing how, previous to the time of Solomon who built a house for God, neither Abraham nor any other of the patriarchs ever built a house for his service, but they were not for that reason the less regarded of God. Then Stephen adds the quotation from Isaiah. He says: “But Solomon built him a house. Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in houses made with hands; as saith the prophet, The heaven is my throne, and the earth the footstool of my feet: what manner of house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

Did not my hand make all these things?”

6. After these words he rebukes them, saying: “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? and they killed them that showed before of the coming of the Righteous One; of whom ye have now become betrayers and murderers; ye who received the law as it was ordained by angels, and kept it not.”

7. Now follows the latter part of our lesson, beginning, “Now when they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.” Evidently, then, the dispute was in regard to faith and good works. But how is it with the Papists, who have not the least semblance of grounds for their position other than their own human laws and doctrines? If they could produce for themselves a shadow of support such as the Jews had in adducing that God gave the law of Moses and chose the temple at Jerusalem, they would instantly raise a cry of, “By divine right” (de jure divino), as in fact did their forefathers the Jews.

BUILDING CHURCHES DOES NOT SECURE GOD’S FAVOR.

8. This epistle text seems to be not at all difficult; it is plain. It presents in Stephen an example of the faith of Christ. Little comment is necessary. We shall examine it briefly. The first principle it teaches is, we cannot secure the favor of God by erecting churches and other institutions. Stephen makes this fact plain in his citation from Isaiah.

9. But if we are to take this position and maintain it, we must incur the same risk Stephen did. Such position calls for the doing away with the bulls of the Pope, with innumerable indulgences, laws of the ecclesiasts and incessant preaching about churches, altars, institutions, cloisters, chalices, bells, tables, candles and apparel. Thus would the holiness of the Pope and his adherents be offended, and not without reason. For in consequence, luxuries of kitchen and cellar would be diminished, and all temporal possessions as well. In course of time idleness, voluptuousness and ease would have to give place to labor, poverty and unrest. The clerical order would be obliged to! study and pray, or support themselves like other people do. Such a course would not be agreeable to them. The holy Christian Church would be despised, as were Christ and the apostles. Her officials could no longer live in royal pomp, waging war, plundering, and shedding blood, all under the pretext of honoring God and exalting the holy Church. For this have the most holy fathers in God done, and still do.

10. We must not, however, be led to conclude it is wrong to build and endow churches. But it is wrong to go to the extreme of forfeiting faith and love in the effort, presuming thereby to do good works meriting God’s favor. It results in abuses precluding all moderation. Every nook and corner is filled with churches and cloisters, regardless of the object of church-building.

11. There is no other reason for building churches than to afford a place where Christians may assemble to pray, to hear the Gospel and to receive the sacraments; if indeed there is a reason. When churches cease to be used for these purposes they should be pulled down, as other buildings are when no longer of use. As it is now, the desire of every individual in the world is to establish his own chapel or altar, even his own mass, with a view of securing salvation, of purchasing heaven.

12. Is it not a miserable, a deplorable, error and delusion to teach innocent people to depend on their works to the great disparagement of their Christian faith? Better to destroy all the churches and cathedrals in the world, to burn them to ashes — it is less sinful even when done through ma-lice-than to allow one soul to be misled and lost by such error. God has given no special command in regard to the building of churches, but he has issued his commands in reference to our souls — his real and peculiar churches. Paul says concerning them ( 1 Corinthians 3:16-17): “Ye are a temple [church] of God If any man destroyeth the temple of God, him shall God destroy.”

13. But observe the holiness of the Papists. The foundation of every soul is disturbed by their error, and the real Church of God is overthrown. This fact does not deter the Papists; indeed, they willingly contribute to the overthrow of the Church. By their doctrine of works they effect nothing else but the destruction everywhere of the true Church. Then they proceed to substitute for it church buildings, of wood and stone. They misuse the conscience until it believes the trivial defacement by knife of such wood and stone is a profanation of the whole church, and the expense and labor of reconsecration must be incurred. Are not the individuals who have no conscientious scruples about the destruction of the actual Church, who even convert that great sin into eternal merit, and at the same time are extremely conscientious about the vain juggling of their own church building — are they not raving, raging, foolish and fanatical? yes, frantic, infuriated?

I continue to assert that for the sake of exterminating the error mentioned, it would be well to overthrow at once all the churches in the world, and to utilize ordinary dwellings or the open air for preaching, praying and baptizing, and for all Christian requirements.

14. Especially is there justification for so doing because of the worthless reason the Papists assign for building churches. Christ preached for over three years, but only three days in the temple at Jerusalem. The remainder of the time he spoke in the schools of the Jews, in the wilderness, on the mountains, in ships, at the feasts and otherwise in private dwellings. John the Baptist never entered the temple; he preached by the Jordan River and in all places. The apostles preached in the market-place and streets of Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. Philip preached in a chariot to the eunuch. Paul preached to the people by the riverside; in the Philippian jail and in various private dwellings. In fact, Christ commanded the apostles ( Matthew 10:12) to preach in private houses. I presume the preachers mentioned were equally good with those of today.

15. But it must be that costly buildings with magnificent arches are required for the false preachers and diabolical teachers of today, though the Word of God could find in all Bethlehem no inn wherein to be born. [GJ - Note that the Infant was born in a spare room, a rented room.]

Should we not, then, with Stephen cry unto these unreasonable creatures: “Ye stiff necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit. Ye are betrayers and murderers of innocent, harmless Christian souls. Though having received the commandments from the apostles, ye have observed none of them”? I suppose, should we do so, their hearts would be ready to burst with rage and they would gnash their teeth, saying we had blasphemed against God and spoken against the holy place; yes, had profaned all churches. O God, the blind leaders, and murderers of souls, who rule under the accursed popery!

16. You see now some reason why lightning strikes the costly Papist churches more frequently than it does other buildings. Apparently the wrath of God especially rests upon them because there greater sins are committed, more blasphemies uttered and greater destruction of souls and of churches wrought than take place in brothels and in thieves’ dens. The keeper of a public brothel is less a sinner than the preacher who does not deliver the true Gospel, and the brothel is not so bad as the false preacher’s Church. Even were the proprietor of the brothel daily to prostitute virgins, godly wives and nuns, awful and abominable as such action would be, he would not be any worse nor would he work more harm than those papistical preachers.

17. Does this astonish you? Remember, the false preacher’s doctrine effects nothing but daily to lead astray and to violate souls newly born in baptism — young Christians, tender souls, the pure, consecrated virgin brides of Christ. Since the evil is wrought spiritually, not bodily, no one observes it; but God is beyond measure displeased. In his wrath he cries, through the prophets, in unmistakable terms, Thou harlot who invitest every passer-by! So little can God tolerate false preaching. Jeremiah in his prayer ( Lamentations 5:11) makes this complaint, “They ravished the women in Zion, the virgins in the cities of Judah.” Now, spiritual virginity, the Christian faith, is immeasurably superior to bodily purity; for it alone can obtain heaven.

18. The false doctrines and works of the Papists are destructive not only of faith, but also of Christian love. The fool may always be known by his cap.

Many a man passes by his poor neighbor who has a sick child or wife, or is otherwise in need of assistance, and makes no effort to minister to him, but instead contributes to endow some church. Or else while health remains he endeavors to heap up treasures, and when he comes at last to his deathbed makes a will bequeathing his estate to some certain institution. He will be surrounded by priests and monks. They will extol his act, absolve the religious man, administer the Sacrament and bury him with honors. They will proclaim his name from the pulpit and during mass, and will cry: “Here is worthy conduct indeed! The man has made ample provision for his soul.

Many blessings will hereafter be conferred upon him.” Yes, hereafter but, alas, eternally too late.

19. But no one while he is living warns of the man’s sins in not administering to the wants of his neighbor when it lies in his power to relieve; in passing him by, and ignoring him as the rich man did Lazarus in the Gospel. And he does not himself recognize his sins. Hence they must remain unconfessed, unrepented of and unabsolved, however many bulls, indulgences and spiritual fathers may have served. This neglect is the very sin concerning which Christ on the day of judgment will say: “I was... naked, and ye clothed me not.” Matthew 25:43. The religious one will then reply, “I heaped up treasures to establish an institution for thee, in obedience to the Pope’s decree, and hence he has absolved me from all my sins.” What can individuals such as he expect to hear but the sentence: “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire”? For by their works they destroy the Christian faith, and for the sake of mere wood and stone despise Christian love.

20. Let us, therefore, beloved friends, be wise; wisdom is essential. Let us truly learn we are saved through faith in Christ and that alone. This fact has been made sufficiently manifest. Then let no one rely upon his own works.

Let us in our lifetime engage only in such works as shall profit our neighbors, being indifferent to testament and institution, and direct our efforts to bettering the full course of our neighbors’ lives.

21. It is related of a pious woman, St. Elizabeth, that once upon entering a cloister and seeing on the wall a fine painting portraying the sufferings of our Lord, she exclaimed: “The cost of this painting should have been saved for the sustenance of the body; the sufferings of Christ are to be painted on your hearts.” How forcibly this godly utterance is directed against the things generally regarded precious! Were St. Elizabeth so to speak today, the Papists assuredly would burn her for blaspheming against the sufferings of Christ and for condemning good works. She would be denounced as a heretic, though her merits were to surpass the combined merits of ten saints.

GOD’S COMMANDMENTS CANNOT BE FULFILLED BY MAN’S WORKS.

22. Stephen not only rejects the conceptions of the Jews in regard to churches and their erection, but also denounces all their works, saying they have received the Law by the disposition of angels and have not kept it. So the Jews in return reprove Stephen as if he had spoken against the temple and, further, blasphemed the law of Moses and would teach strange works.

True, Stephen could not rightly have charged them with failure to observe the Law, so far as external works are considered. For they were circumcised, and observed the rules in regard to meats, apparel and festivals, and all Moses’ commands. It was their consciousness of having observed the Law that led them to stone him.

23. But Stephen’s words were prompted by the same spirit that moved Paul when he said ( Romans 3:20ff) that by the deeds of the Law no one is justified in the sight of God, faith alone being the justifier. Where the Holy Spirit is not present to grant grace, man’s heart cannot favor the Law of God; it would prefer the Law did not exist. Every individual is conscious of his own apathy and disinclination toward what is good, and of his readiness to do evil. As Moses says ( Genesis 8:21), “The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Man, then, being unwilling, he has no real delight in doing the works of the Law. Lacking right motive, he is constrained to works through fear of punishment, of shame and hell, or else through gainful motive and hope of salvation; not through love of God and desire to honor him. All works so wrought are sheer hypocrisy, and in God’s sight are not good. But the Holy Spirit is promised to the believer in Christ, and through Christ’s grace the Spirit produces in the heart a desire for good. Under its influence the individual voluntarily and without expectation of reward performs his good works for the honor of God.

Through faith and the Spirit he is already justified and in a saved condition, a state he could never have attained by any works. In accordance with this principle, we may readily conclude that all who lack faith and grace fail to observe the Law, even though they torture themselves to death with its requirements.

24. When Stephen declares the Jews always resist the Holy Spirit, he means to imply that through their works they become presumptuous, are not inclined to accept the Spirit’s aid and are unwilling their works be rejected as ineffectual. Ever working and working to satisfy the demands of the Law, but without fulfilling its least requirement, they remain hypocrites to the end. Unwilling to embrace the faith whereby they would be able to accomplish good works, and the grace of the Spirit that would create a love for the Law, they make impossible the free, spontaneous observance of it. But the voluntary observer of the Law, and no other, God accepts.

25. Stephen calls the Jews “stiff necked, uncircumcised in heart and ears” because they refuse to listen and understand. They continually cry, “Good works, good works! Law, Law!” though not effecting the least thing themselves. Just so do our Papists. As their forefathers did, so do the descendants, the mass of this generation; they persecute the righteous and boast it is done for the sake of God and his Law. Now we have the substance of this lesson. But let us examine it a little further.

AN EXAMPLE OF GODLY ZEAL AND CHRISTIAN LOVE.

26. First, we see in Stephen’s conduct love toward God and man. He manifests his love to God by earnestly and severely censuring the Jews, calling them betrayers, murderers and transgressors of the whole Law, yes stiffnecked, and saying they resist the fulfillment of the Law and resist also the Holy Spirit himself. More than that, he calls them “uncircumcised in heart and ears.” How could he have censured them any more severely? So completely does he strip them of every creditable thing, it would seem as if he were moved by impatience and wrath.

27. But who today would the world tolerate were he to attempt such censure of the Papists? Stephen’s love for God constrained him to his act.

No one who possesses the same degree of love can be silent and calmly permit the rejection of God’s commandments. He cannot dissemble. He must censure and rebuke every opposer of God. Such conduct he cannot permit even if he risks his life to rebuke it. Love of this kind the Scriptures term “zelum Dei,” a holy indignation. For rejection of God’s commands is a slight upon his love and intolerably disparages the honor and obedience due him, honor and obedience which the zealous individual ardently seeks to promote. We have an instance of such a one in the prophet Elijah, who was remarkable for his holy indignation against the false prophets.

28. We must infer from Stephen’s example that he who silently ignores the transgression of God’s commands, or any sin, has no love for him. Then how is it with the hypocrites who applaud transgression? and with calumniators and those who laugh and eagerly listen to and speak about the faults of others?

29. That the Pope in his absurd laws enjoins the Papists against censuring governors, is not sufficient reason for any man to refrain from administering proper reproof. Whom does Stephen censure here? Is it not the governors of Jerusalem? Yet he was just an ordinary man; not ordained, not clothed with the priestly office. His example teaches the right of every Christian to justly censure the Pope and the governors. Indeed, he is under obligation to do so. Then let no one be content to think he has not such privilege. Especially should spiritual sins be rebuked. Stephen’s reproof was not directed against gross sins, but against hypocrisy; for the Jews in unbelief resisted the Holy Spirit. Thus they wrought more harm than comes from gross sins. By their laws and their works they misled themselves and the multitude.

30. Similarly do the Pope, the bishops and all the Papists deserve public censure as stiff necked and uncircumcised hypocrites, resisting the Holy Spirit and dishonoring all God’s commandments, betraying and murdering Christian souls; thereby being betrayers and murderers of the Christ who bought them with his own blood.

31. We have just had occasion to state that Stephen was a layman, an ordinary Christian, not a priest. But the Papists sing his praises as a Levite, who read the epistle or the Gospel lesson at the altar. The Papists, however, pervert the truth entirely. It is necessary for us, therefore, to know what Luke says in Acts 4 and 5. He tells how the Christians in the inception of the Church, at Jerusalem, made all their possessions common property and the apostles distributed to each member of the congregation as he needed, But, as it happened, the widows of the Grecian Jews were not provided for as were the Hebrew widows; hence arose complaint. The apostles, seeing how the duty of providing for these things would be so burdensome as to interfere in a measure with their duties of praying and preaching, assembled the multitude of the disciples and said: “It is not fit that we should forsake the Word of God, and serve tables. Look ye out therefore, brethren, from among you seven men of good report, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will continue steadfastly in prayer, and in the ministry of the word.” Acts 6:2-4. So Stephen, in connection with six others, was chosen to distribute the goods. Thence comes the word “deacon,” servant or minister. For these men served the congregation, ministering to their temporal wants.

32. Plainly, then, Stephen was a steward, or an administrator and guardian of the temporal goods of the Christians his duty was to administer them to those in need. In course of time his office was perverted into that of a priest who reads the epistle and Gospel lessons. The only trace left of Stephen’s office is the slight resemblance found in the duty of the nuns’ provosts, and in that of the administrators of hospitals and of the guardians of the poor. The readers of the epistle and Gospel selections should be, not the consecrated, the shorn, the bearers of dalmatics and brushers of flies at the altar, but ordinary godly laymen who keep a record of the needy and have charge of the common fund for distribution as necessity requires.

Such was the actual office of Stephen. He never dreamed of reading epistles and Gospels, or of bald pates and dalmatics. Those are all human devices.

THE AUTHORITY OF LAYMEN TO PREACH.

33. As to the question that may arise whether an ordinary layman may be allowed to preach: Though Stephen was not appointed to preach — the apostles, as stated, reserved that office to themselves — but to perform the duties of a steward, yet when he went to the market-place and mingled among the people, he immediately created a stir by performing signs and wonders, as the epistle says, and he even censured the rulers. Had the Pope and his followers been present, they certainly would have inquired as to his credentials — his Church passport and his ecclesiastical character; and had he been lacking a bald pate and a prayer-book, undoubtedly he would have been committed to the flames as a heretic since he was not a priest nor a clergyman. These titles, which the Scriptures accord all Christians, the Papists have appropriated to themselves alone, terming all other men “the laity,” and themselves “the Church,” as if the laity were not a part of the Church. At the same time these people of boasted refinement and nobility do not in a single instance fill the office or do the work of a priest, of a clergyman or of the Church. They but dupe the world with their human devices.

34. The precedent of Stephen holds good. His example gives all men authority to preach wherever they can find hearers, whether it be in a building or at the market-place. He does not confine the preaching of God’s Word to bald pates and long gowns. At the same time he does not interfere with the preaching of the apostles. He attends to the duties of his own office and is readily silent where it is the place of the apostles to preach.

True, order must be observed. All cannot speak at once. Paul writes in the fourteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians ( 1 Corinthians 14) that one or two are to be permitted to speak, and that if a revelation be made to a listener the speaker is to keep silence. That such was the practice of the apostles is evident from Acts 15, where we read how, after the discourses of certain Pharisees, Peter preached, and when he ceased Barnabas and Paul followed, and lastly James. Each spoke in his turn. To a very slight extent the custom still exists in the debates of colleges, but at present sermons are only idle talk about Dietrich of Bern or some dream of the speaker.

35. A sermon proper should be conducted as a dissertation upon any subject at the social board. Christ, therefore, instituted the Holy Supper as an occasion where we might treat of his Word as we sit at table. But now all is perverted and divine order is superseded by arrangements merely human. But let this suffice on this point.

36. In the second place, Stephen’s conduct is a beautiful example of love for fellowmen in that he entertains no ill-will toward even his murderers.

However severely he rebukes them in his zeal for the honor of God, such is the kindly feeling he has for them that in the very agonies of death, having made provision for himself by commending his Spirit to God, he has no further thought about himself but is all concern for them. Under the influence of that love he yields up his spirit. Not undesignedly does Luke place Stephen’s prayer for his murderers at the close of the narrative. Note also, when praying for himself and commending his spirit to God he stood, but he knelt to pray for his murderers. Further, he cried with a loud voice as he prayed for them, which he did not do for himself.

37. How much more fervently he prayed for his enemies than for himself!

How his heart must have burned, his eyes have overflowed and his entire body been agitated and moved with compassion as he beheld the wretchedness of his enemies! It is the opinion of St. Augustine that Paul was saved by this prayer. And it is not unreasonable to believe that God truly heard it and that from eternity he foresaw a great result from this dispensation. The person of Paul is evidence of God’s answer to Stephen’s prayer. It could not be denied, though all may not have been saved.

38. Stephen aptly chooses his words, saying, “Lay not this sin to their charge;” that is, make not their sin unremovable, like a pillar or a foundation. By these words Stephen makes confession, repents and renders satisfaction for sin, in behalf of his murderers. His words imply: “Beloved Lord, truly they commit a sin, a wrong. This cannot be denied.” Just as it is customary in repentance and confession simply to deplore and confess the guilt. Stephen then prays, offering himself up that abundant satisfaction may surely be made for sin.

39. Note how great an enemy and at the same time how great a friend true love can be; how severe its censures and how sweet its aid. It is like a nut with a hard shell and a sweet kernel. Bitter to our old Adam nature, it is exceedingly sweet to the new man in us.

EXAMPLE OF COMFORT AND ENCOURAGEMENT.

40. This epistle lesson, by the example given, inculcates the forcible doctrine of faith and love; and more, it affords comfort and encouragement. It not only teaches; it incites and impels. Death, the terror of the world, it styles a sleep; Luke says, “He fell asleep.” That is, Stephen’s death was quiet and painless; he departed as one goes to sleep, unknowing how — unconsciously falls asleep.

41. The theory that the Christian’s death is a sleep, a peaceful passing, has safe foundation in the declaration of the Spirit. The Spirit will not deceive us. Christ’s grace and power make death peaceful. Its bitterness is far removed by Christ’s death when we believe in him. He says ( John 8:51), “If a man keep my word, he shall never see death.” Why shall he not see it?

Because the soul, embraced in his living Word and filled with that life, cannot be sensible of death. The Word lives and knows no death; so the soul which believes in that Word and lives in it, likewise does not taste death. This is why Christ’s words are called words of life. They are the words of life; he who hangs upon them, who believes in them, must live.

42. Comfort and encouragement are further increased by Stephen’s assertion, “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” Here we see how faithfully and lovingly Christ watches over us, and how ready he is to aid us if we but believe in him and will cheerfully risk our lives for his sake. The vision was not given solely on Stephen’s account; it was not recorded for his profit. It was for our consolation, to remove all doubt of our privilege to enjoy the same happy results, provided we conduct ourselves as Stephen did.

43. The fact that the heavens are open affords us the greatest comfort and removes all terror of death. What should not stand open and ready for us when the heavens, the supreme work of creation, are waiting wide for us and rejoicing at our approach? It may be your desire to see them visibly open to you. But were everyone to behold, where would faith be? That the vision was once given to man is enough for the comfort of all Christians, for the comfort and strengthening of their faith and for the removal of all death’s terrors. For as we believe, so shall we experience, even though we see not physically.

44. Would not the angels, yes all creatures, lend willing assistance when the Lord himself stands ready to help? Remarkably, Stephen saw not an angel, not God himself, but the man Christ, he who most delights humanity and who affords man the strongest comfort. Man, especially when in distress, welcomes the sight of another man in preference to that of angels or other creatures.

45. Our artful teachers who would measure the works of God by their own reason, or the seas with a spoon, ask: “How could Stephen look into the heavens when our vision cannot discern a bird when it soars a little high?

How could he see Christ distinctly enough to recognize him for a certainty?

A man upon a high steeple appears to us a child, and we cannot recognize his person.” They attempt to settle the question by declaring Stephen’s vision must have been supernaturally quickened, permitting him to see clearly into infinite space. But suppose Stephen had been under a roof or within a vault? Away with such human nonsense! Paul when near Damascus certainly heard the voice of Christ from heaven and his hearing was not quickened for the occasion. The apostles on Mount Tabor, John the Baptist ( Luke 3:22) and again the people ( John 12:29) — these all heard the voice of the Father with their ordinary hearing. Is it not more difficult to hear a voice from a great distance above than to see an object in the same place? The range of our vision is immeasurably wider than the scope of our hearing.

46. When God desires to reveal himself, heaven and everything else requisite are near. It matters not whether Stephen were beneath a roof or in the open air, heaven was near to him. Abnormal vision was not necessary.

God is everywhere; there is no need that he come down from heaven. A vision, at close range, of God actually in heaven is easily possible without the quickening or perverting of the senses.

47. It matters not whether or no we fully comprehend how such a vision is effected. It is not intended that the wonders of God be brought within our grasp; they are manifested to induce in us belief and confidence. Explain to me, ye of boasted wisdom, how the comparatively large apple or pear or cherry can be grown through the tiny stem; or even explain less mysterious things. But permit God to work; believe in his wonders and do not presume to bring him within your comprehension.

48. Who can number the virtues illustrated in Stephen’s example? There loom up all the fruits of the Spirit. We find love, faith, patience, benevolence, peace, meekness, wisdom, truth, simplicity, strength, consolation, philanthropy. We see there also hatred and censure for all forms of evil. We note a disposition not to value worldly advantage nor to dread the terrors of death. Liberty, tranquility and all the noble virtues and graces are in evidence. There is no virtue but is illustrated in this example; no vice it does not rebuke. Well may the evangelist say Stephen was full of faith and power. Power here implies activity. Luke would says, “His faith was great; hence his many and mighty works.” For when faith truly exists, its fruits must follow. The greater the faith, the more abundant its fruits.

49. True faith is a strong, active and efficacious principle. Nothing is impossible to it. It rests not nor hesitates. Stephen, because of the superior activity of his faith, performed not merely ordinary works, but wrought wonders and signs publicly — great wonders and signs, as Luke says. This is written for a sign that the inactive individual lacks in faith, and has no right to boast of having it. Not undesignedly is the word “faith” placed before the word “power.” The intention was to show that works are evidence of faith, and that without faith nothing good can be accomplished.

Faith must be primary in every act. To this end may God assist us. Amen.