A Few Corrections for the Ceaseless Moloch Commentary

Moloch lizard -
"The thorny dragon is covered in hard, rather sharp spines that dissuade attacks by predators by making it difficult to swallow. It also has a false head on its back. When it feels threatened by other animals, it lowers its head between its front legs, and then presents its false head."

http://welsdocument.blogspot.com/2015/02/additional-reading-for-techlin-case.html?showComment=1425136634264#c3053873536863759626

Warren R. MolochFebruary 27, 2015 at 8:41 PM

With reference to Lenski's NT Commentary, both NPH and CPH are publishing new commentary volumes but neither have produced a complete series since the People's Bible Commentary, which of course is a popular commentary series more like Kretzmann's. It is unfortunate that more of the commentaries of the Wauwatosa Theologians have not been translated and published by NPH, and CPH has not published the translations of the commentaries of Georg Stoeckhardt which were available in mimeograph editions when I was a student at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne. To this day Stoeckhardt's Romans commentary is only available in an abridged translation of the complete text, with only the first half of the commentary available in a complete translation. Stoeckhardt was supposed to write a commentary on "Isaiah I" to which August Pieper's "Isaiah II" was meant to be the second volume, but Stoeckhardt died after only completing part of his portion of the commentary.
Somebody can check for me, but I believe that Lenski intentionally dedicated his commentary on 2 Corinthians to the faculty of WLS and another commentary to the faculty of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, because the Synodical Conference rejected his false teachings.

GJ - The president of the Synodical Conference, Gausewitz, published his catechism, absent of any mention of UOJ - and Gausewitz was WELS. He died before the odious Brief Statement of 1932 was published. The 1905 German catechism of the Missouri Synod had no mention of UOJ. Both catechisms taught justification by faith. So does the KJV catechism still sold by Concordia Publishing House. To claim the Synodical Conference rejected justification by faith as false teaching is pure hooey, to put it politely. The fanatics who love UOJ are also the ones who promote Church Growth, Emergent Churches, and New Age dogmas. UOJ is mainline apostasy, loved by ELCA and the UCC and the rest of the scoundrels - all in the name of grace - but without the Means of Grace.

Bryan LidtkeFebruary 27, 2015 at 9:15 PM

Mr. Moloch, your logic states that there is unionism one way or another in the WELS regarding this case. Since it has been declared a closed case, there is unionism, correct? Either the WELS allows error or there are those in the WELS who practice error and refuse to leave, thus making the WELS heterodox. Why not put your money where your mouth is and either do something about it or stop criticizing, well, pretty much everybody else involved then?

Warren R. MolochFebruary 27, 2015 at 10:38 PM

Mr. Lidtke, if those who support Mr. Techlin and believe that offense has been given and not removed have choosen (sic) to still remain in the WELS, then it logically follows that they, whatever they may say to the contrary, accept the fact that the case has been closed and do not believe that the offense allegedly given is sufficient reason for them to leave the synod. Their actions demonstrate that their own self-interest rises above the seriousness of the offense which they claim to believe has been given. As long as they are willing to remain in the WELS and are not under disciplinary action, then I must assume that their actions are more important than their words and accept them as being in fellowship with the WELS.
If the WELS chooses not to take action against the supporters of Mr.Techlin because those individuals have chosen to remain in the synod and are not involved in any disciplinary action, then the synod has obviously accepted their action in remaining in the synod rather than any words of theirs regarding the Techlin case as their own final decision regarding the case. If their side of the case of those "offended" was not sustained by Mr. Techlin's congregation or his district and there is no way in which the case can be taken before the synod, and yet they choose to remain as members of the synod, then it logically follows that there is no real issue left to deal with, in spite of all of the talk. It lies with those who are "offended" and yet have decided to remain in the synod to demonstrate how serious they take the "offense" by actions rather than words.
Therefore, I will acknowledge that I was wrong to accuse the synod of "unionism" because the synod accepts in good faith the decision of the those "offended" to remain as members of the synod in spite of their alleged "offense." It is those who remain as members of the synod in spite of their claim of being "offended" who are open to the charge of "unionism," because they are obviously willing to "agree to disagree" regarding the doctrine and practice of fellowship.

MelanchthonFebruary 28, 2015 at 9:17 AM

Just a quick reminder that will all this convoluted logorrhea from Mr. Moloch, he is still almost completely unfamiliar with even the most basic facts regarding the case.

Also, he overlooks the facts that WELS pastors and congregations are actively and openly communing the person formally declared out of fellowship by the errant congregation and the district.

How the Mr. Moloch can imply that this action represents "accepting the synod's decision" beggars belief. No: what it represents is a decision to do the right thing even when the synod directs one to do the wrong thing. It is to be praised that the synod does not stop them or discipline them for ignoring the synod's incorrect action--but this is therefore an admission of past error on the part of the synod..

From 2007 - The Adams Book Preus of Missouri

Pope John the Malefactor, center, traveled to India on your offering money.

I was reading Preus of Missouri again. Every century I pick up a book about Lutheranism or the Reformation, to stay even with the synodical leaders. I know from experience that they are a studious lot.

I happen to own Pope John's copy of Preus of Missouri, probably through a book sale. I thought I left the night light on in the library, but the glow came from this iconic book, which should really be in the rare books collection of Bethany Lutheran College. In the high-security showcase: "SP John Moldstad actually owned this book. Scholars are divided about whether he read it."

Robert Preus left his priceless collection to Bethany rather than Concordia, Ft. Wayne.

I chuckled when I read Preus of Missouri's description of the Little Sect on the Prairie as "hyper-orthodox." The journalist's grasp of theology was definitely mainline, but he tried to be fair and largely succeeded.

Neuhaus played a significant role in the Seminex split, leaving the LCMS, joining ELCA, and now prominent in the Church of Rome. Leigh Jordahl was a student of Jack Preus at Bethany. Leigh married a Gullerud (CLC president) and became ELCA by steps. Jordahl was friends with Wilken, who joined Rome. (Jordahl had some minor involvement with my dissertation at Notre Dame, as an advisor.)

Bethany itself is central to Lutheran history of the last century. Al Barry and Oswald Hoffman studied there. Robert Preus earned the first seminary degree there, leaving Luther Seminary just before graduation. Jack Preus had a faculty position at Bethany, etc. Preus relatives at Bethany College included Ylvisaker and Norm Madson.

Once upon a time, the Little Sect on the the Prairie had courage. On November 22nd, 1938, the Norwegian Synod (now the ELS) sent a letter to LCMS President Behnken. Missouri was getting close to the American Lutheran Church without expecting a repudiation of errors, such as unionism, Lodge membership, etc. The Admonition was signed by two Preus relatives: S. C. Ylvisaker and Norm Madson. It was also signed by Christian Anderson and H. M. Tjernagel. The ELS followed with a longer message in April of 1939, signed by the same four leaders, sent to all LCMS pastors and professors.

The Norwegian Synod was impoverished and tiny in size. They did not have Marvin Schwan as a sugar-daddy yet. But they had faith in the efficacy of the Word. The Word proved efficacious, hardening Missouri's attitudes against orthodoxy. Behnken was definitely a see-no-evil president.

Can anyone imagine the ELS writing a similar admonition to WELS? I cannot. For one thing, the ELS is so eager to parrot WELS that they have nothing to say to correct WELS.

No synod has repudiated the Church Growth Movement and meant it. Instead they have spoiled the Egyptian compost heap while denying their involvement. The ELS likes to hold itself above WELS but is no different.

***

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "James Adams' Preus of Missouri":

Oh yes, the holy Preus name. They can certainly do no wrong can they! Robert left to join the unionists in Missouri. Rolf gets kicked out of the ELS and sends his kids to Constantinople...I mean Fort Wayne. Smart theologians who evidently have no concept of fellowship. I guess if you can't stand the heat you might as well jump into the fire.

***

GJ - If Anonymous reads the Adams book, he will see that Jack and Robert grew up among three synods: Big Norwegians (eventually ELCA), Little Norwegians (ELS), and LCMS. I think Jack was a Missouri member for 20 years while he was growing up. Governor Jake Preus was an all-synod man. Founding Lutheran Brotherhood and other causes made Jake sceptical or maybe indifferent about church organizations.

Jack and Robert Preus did more to change Missouri in the twentieth center for the better than anyone else. Their publishing efforts alone were worthy of note. Too bad Lutherans do not read good material anymore. Robert's last work was an excellent repudiation of moving toward Rome. UOJ is also repudiated in the clearest possible language.

I do not consider the Preus name holy. I am saddened that the men who started to change Missouri went after each other and handed victory to the apostates. Bohlmann was of course a Bohlmann loyalist, so he may not count. The same is true for Waldo Werning. According to legend, Jack was just as much an antagonist toward Robert as Bohlmann was. The Otten brothers have kept the same Bronze Age Missouri position.

Everyone in a synod is a unionist today. Scaer is fond of saying, "Why join the community ministers group? Just go to LCMS circuit meetings. Each one is a rainbow coalition."

WELS is united behind Leonard Sweet, Reggie McNeal, and Fuller Seminary. They have their own Holy Office of the Inquisition set up: Church and Change. There are pastors who dissent, but they are being disciplined. The buddies of these errorists? - the CG gurus of WELS.

The Little Sect on the Prairie is silent about false doctrine. In 1939 the quoted Walther as saying, "Indifference is unionism." That was then, this is now. The ELS certainly echoes and imitates the worst errors of WELS.

The Church of the Lutheran Confession (sic) protects the two worst false teachers from the consequences of their errors.

ELDONA disagrees about justification by faith, unles Stefanski(associated with but not a member of ELDONA) has read the Book of Concord or the Gospel of John and changed his mind. Stefanski is a UOJ fanatic. [GJ - Note that this changed - and ELDONA became the only organized group to teach justification by faith. Various UOJ fanatics had their Calvinist robes in a knot about this.]

Etc.

Causes for apostasy are:

1. Lack of study.
2. Blood is thicker than doctrine.
3. Loyalty to classmates (who are often relatives).
4. Loyalty to the seminary, whose professors are often relatives.
5. Veneration of Holy Mother Synod, Immaculate and Infallible.