LutherQueasies Fulminating about the "Short" Ending of Mark - Dealt with in A.D. 2000 in Thy Strong Word , But They Have No Trouble Teaching against the Chief Article of Christianity

 Read this out loud without laughing - this is what unites Cascione, Webber, McCain, Harrison, and the Preus Crime Family. These sheep-whisperers are late to the party. What was sacrificed first - Justification by Faith or the ending of Mark?

Rick Strickert (Carlvehse) Senior Member Username: Carlvehse Post Number: 9048 Registered: 10-2003

Posted on Friday, December 06, 2019 - 3:21 pm:       Excerpted from a November 12, 2019, Reclaim News article, "LCMS Declares God Did Not Write Mark 16:9-20," by Rev. Jack Cascione. quote: With the publication and distribution of the Concordia Commentary Mark Vol. 2, by Dr. James Voelz, just before Thanksgiving, the LCMS has become the Grinch who stole the Catechism. One day, in its magisterial wisdom, the LCMS decided that God did not write Mark 16:9-20. All the Lutheran catechisms, liturgies, hymnals, services, and books on the Sacrament of Holy Baptism will have to be rewritten, new footnotes added to the Book of Concord, and 145 footnotes added to the American Edition of Luther’s Works.

THY STRONG WORD - 

Published in 2000 A.D.

Textual Work: the Ending of Mark’s Gospel 

Let us look at one text in Mark and see what the manuscript evidence is. An ordinary Bible will not help. Footnotes mention some ancient witnesses, as if they were people. The witnesses are manuscripts. Details explaining the changes are missing. No explanations are offered. And yet, this is not a difficult matter to discuss.  I was told by my Harvard trained college professor, a Lutheran Church in America pastor, that the early Church noticed that the ending of the second Gospel was rather abrupt, stopping at Mark 16:8, so they made up another ending, Mark 16:9-20. Liberals said, “Thank God we now have better manuscripts than the King James Version had, so we can get rid of the manufactured ending and stop the Gospel at 16:8.”

The liberals could not explain why anyone would end a Gospel with the word “for.” The Greek word gar (“for”) is never found at the end of a sentence, let alone at the end of a book. This adverb gar is post-positive, meaning that it is not used as the first word in a phrase. Like the contemporary question, “And?” it assumes completion.

KJV Mark 16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

One theory held that the Gospel was mysteriously broken off at Mark 16:8, letting people imagine death or persecution. Given the value of written texts in the early Church, the abrupt ending is difficult to explain adequately. According to Bruce Metzger, the best known textual expert in America, one 12th century manuscript of Mark broke off at Mark 16:8 with the Greek letter tau indicating the end of a lection and more text following.11 For this reason he rejects that particular manuscript as evidence for the abrupt ending. Nevertheless, Metzger argues very strongly for excluding the traditional ending of Mark, giving little evidence against his view, but he offers three alternative explanations for the ending at Mark 16:8 –
1. The author intended to end his work with “they were afraid.”
2. The Gospel was not finished.
3. The Gospel lost its last leaf before it was copied. (The most probable in his opinion.)12

Justin Martyr used vocabulary from the traditional ending in his Apology, written about 155 AD. Although we do not know exact dates for the New Testament Gospels, it is likely that the entire New Testament was completed before 100 AD. That makes the possible allusion to the traditional ending extremely early. A website about Justin Martyr and other saints made the observation that the early Roman emperors persecuted the Christian Church because they were trying to preserve the old Roman ways. The active persecution of an impoverished and illegal religion might explain the problem with the ending. Justin Martyr was beheaded with six of his students, one of them a woman. My United Bible Society Greek New Testament (Aland third edition) has notes for the variant readings. Similar decisions about which words or sections to include or exclude are made about Shakespeare and all important authors, but most people are not aware of it. The Shakespeare Variorum is an enormous work with variant readings of the dramas. The Yale Shakespeare, in one volume, is the result of many different editorial decisions. Although Shakespeare belongs to the modern age, scholars still argue about the authorship of the plays. Did he write some or all of them? Or did the Earl of Oxford? Or Bacon? If a Shakespeare play began with as much uncertainty as many sermons, no one would pay attention to Shakespeare either. The actor would begin, “Scholars are not sure whether William Shakespeare wrote this play. We chose which lines we would use in performing the play, but no one agrees which words are actually his, or Oxford’s, or Bacon’s, depending on which book you read.”13

The Aland edition of the New Testament omits the traditional ending of Mark, supporting this reading with Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and a few additional witnesses. The traditional ending is supported by Alexandrinus, Epraemi Rescriptus, Bezae Cantabrigiensis, and many others. The position of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus looks very lonely, but aha, do not they agree with each other? Are they not better and earlier? Can we not find it in our hearts to forgive that forgotten scribe who added a few verses to Mark, just to improve the Gospel? Vaticanus does not include the traditional ending of Mark, but the copyist left more than a column of space blank. That was long before the days of “this page intentionally left blank.” At the very least we can assume that the scribe knew of the traditional ending. That leaves Sinaiticus stranded. It is one thing to say that Mark’s Gospel ended abruptly, for no known reason, and that an ending was added. But, if two major witnesses against the traditional ending do not even agree completely with each other, then snipping off verses nine through twenty seems arbitrary, arrogant, and deceitful. St. Jerome knew about manuscripts omitting Mark 16:9-20, but he was convinced of the authenticity of the traditional ending. W. R. Farmer concluded: “In fact, external evidence from the second century for Mark 16:9-20 is stronger than for most other parts of that Gospel.”14 Now we have a great dividing line on this subject. Most of the conservatives have surrendered to Westcott and Hort, abandoning the Majority Text. And yet, an author who accepted the modern theories about the New Testament text, said this about the ending of Mark:

J-002 

“In favor of Mark 16:9-20 there are a host of witnesses: the Alexandrian Manuscript, the Ephraem Manuscript, Codex Bezae, other early uncials, all late uncials and cursives, a number of old Latin authorities plus the Vulgate, one Old Syriac manuscript, the Syriac Peshitta version, and many other versions. Besides, there is a plain statement from Irenaeus (early Christian writer) which clearly shows the existence of Mark 16:9-20 in the second century and the belief that Mark was its author. In brief this is the negative and positive data on the question. On one hand is the unparalleled reliability of the Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts; on the other hand is almost all of the other evidence. J. W. McGarvey wrote a capable defense of Mark 16:9-20 in his Commentary on Matthew and Mark. It was first published, however, in 1875, before the great work of Westcott and Hort on the Greek text was completed. Yet McGarvey’s, with a few minor modifications, can stand with credit today.”           
Neil Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963, pp. 74f.

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have “unparalleled reliability,” except in one of the most important passages of the New Testament—the ending of Mark. If the claim does not match up with the data, then the claim is wrong.15 In light of the concessions made by Lightfoot above, the treatment of the traditional ending of Mark in the New International Version is worth noting. After Mark 16:8, a line appears in the text, indicating a break. The following heading appears above Mark 16:9-20:

“[The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.]”16

Someone who has not read the research on the ending of Mark—and this material is fairly difficult to find—would conclude from the NIV that Mark 16:9-20 does not belong in the Bible. He would not know that the only major manuscript unambiguously omitting the ending is Sinaiticus and that this “most reliable manuscript” suddenly appeared without a so-called family of copies to back it up. Since Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Synod professors participated with the liberals and tongue-speakers of the NIV translation team, a conservative Lutheran would assume that the bracketed information is in harmony with orthodox Lutheran doctrine. In fact, no other Bible translation is so brassy in disdaining the traditional ending of Mark. If a modern scholar’s training goes against the traditional ending of the Second Gospel, and he still supports the Majority Text conclusion of Mark, then the untrained person can see that the case against Mark 16:9-20 is very weak indeed. For the sake of comparison, consider what Westcott and Hort have done to millions of Christians. The Beck Bible published by Christian News has also omitted the traditional ending of Mark with a footnote, following Westcott and Hort.17 When a faithful Lutheran reads this Bible, after being exposed to the King James Version, he is led to believe that the Christian Church was deceived for centuries. Luther was wrong. Tyndale was wrong. All the Reformers were wrong. How can the average Christian check the facts? In front of him is the latest Bible printed by a conservative Lutheran. He has no way of discovering, apart from a theological library, that the manuscripts favored in the new edition have no history at all. If a farmer bred cattle or pigs without knowing their genetic heritage, he would be considered lazy or foolish.

The ultimate result of Westcott and Hort enthusiasm has planted doubt about the entire New Testament text.18 Ironically, the Majority Text is rejected by liberals today because of its heritage, its careful preservation in the Christian Church, its thousands of manuscript witnesses, its consistency, its harmony in many different forms. Even the mysterious Vaticanus tips its hat to the Majority Text, by making room for the traditional ending of Mark.

“We must conclude that fidelity to the New Testament text has been abandoned since the publication of the Revised Version in 1881.”19

Click on Thy Strong Word to get the free PDF, found at this link, with a goldmine of other free and low-cost resources.

 Thy Strong Word, Print and Kindle editions

More Disinformation from Crypto-Calvinist News

Let's start with Calvinism, fellow students, since that sect is cited so often we might jump to the conclusion that LCMS leaders know what they are talking about.

Calvinism does not recognize the Means of Grace and rejects the efficacy of the Word. Let that sink in for a long while.

How are people saved? Preaching? Teaching? Holy Baptism? Oh no. Churches preach and teach and baptize but nothing happens unless the Holy Spirit chooses to visit that day.

Those people are saved who were elected to be saved and those who are doomed were elected to be doomed. This takes place in God's sovereign will, without faith, the Word, or the Means of Grace.

The Sacraments, according to Calvinists, are simply ordinances or laws to follow as a sign of obedience.

 "Herman, Jack, Rolf, David, Jon-Boy, Jay - do you see that?
Our favorite terms came from a famous Calvinist interpreting a Halle Pietist!
We're doomed, I tell ya, doomed." (Unnamed former UOJist)

Calvinists are elected to grace without faith and saved without faith.

Calvinism entered the Lutheran Church through Pietism, which straddled the Lutheran-Calvinist divide through unionism, since "doctrine divides." So unity comes from being Calvinistic, dumping the Biblical distinctives, and ignoring the contradictions.

Calvinism becomes pure rationalism over time, which is exactly what happened with Halle Pietism - overall the source of Lutheran denominations in America (LCA, LCMS, WELS etc). Halle was not the only Pietistic beehive, but it was the main one. All the Church Growth and Missional claptrap is modern Pietism, cell groups especially.

If this does not make people think of the strident UOJ salesmen, I give up.

Here are some obvious advantages of UOJ - for the apostates:

1. Unionism is easy, since everyone is born saved. 
2. The liturgy, creeds, and hymns are conveniently tossed aside for the same reason. 
3. Sermons become law tirades, either for social activism (ELCA) or for coaching (WELS).
4. The Biblical issues fade in importance, though one must carefully guard against an emphasis on faith in Christ.

 The Streets of Rome. All we need is incense.

Christian News Is a Giant False Flag

Although CN has retained Walter A. Maier on its list of saints, the tabloid promotes Calvinistic UOJ to the point where hardly any mention is made of Justification by Faith. Everyone still living who writes for the tabloid is a dedicated UOJ drone.

An illusion is preserved by mentioning Surburg and Walter Maier. 

Since UOJ is rationalistic and anti-Gospel, objecting to any false doctrine of the LCMS seminaries is shameless hypocrisy. Are they weak on Creation? CN, the seminaries, the Dogmatanic, and the Enormous Ghastly "Small" Catechism  reject the Chief Article. They love, love, love ELCA and Thrivent. They are all in bed together, so they are just fussing for show and for donations.

UOJ - the enemy of Biblical doctrine - throws open the door to complete doctrinal indifference.

 Cascione quoted this nonsense with approval. Justified before birth? That sounds so Calvinistic, except the few become everyone. Calvinits become Universalists, then Unitarians, then atheists.

Jack Cascione Dusts Off the Iron Maiden and Polishes the Thumb Screws

You are invited to discuss this issue on

www.Lutherquest.org

October 23, 2012

Pastor Suspended for False Doctrine by WELS but Honored in LCMS

In an era of declining Lutheranism we see a spark of vitality in the Wisconsin Synod suspending Pastor Paul Rydecki from its clergy roster for the nearly extinct charge of false doctrine.  While two-thirds of Lutherans in American are accepting homosexual clergy (ELCA) and Christian News publishes reports of open false doctrine in the LCMS in nearly every issue, suspension for false doctrine in the WELS has a medieval tone.  The WELS has not issued any official public charges but there has been a lot of writing on the subject.

Rydecki’s defenders tend to ignore the importance of correct doctrine and define love as permissiveness.  The medical profession would like to have surgical patients cut them as much slack as laity give pastors who are still coming to grips with doctrinal terms?

[GJ - Jack has a rich fantasy life. There is no relationship between the truth and the description above.]

Christian News Published the Story

The October 15 issue of Christian News reports Rydecki wrote: “only those who believe in Jesus are justified before God.”  This statement needs more explanation.  Rydecki leaves the door open for the false doctrine that faith causes salvation rather than divine grace.  Faith doesn’t cause salvation any more than soil around seed makes the rain fall.  “My faith looks up to Thee Thou lamb of Calvary” only takes place after conversion.

The Wisconsin Synod California-Arizona district president Jon Buchholz recently suspended Pastor Rydecki from the WELS clergy roster because he refuses to teach the doctrine of Objective Justification.  The average layperson has no idea what that is.  Rydecki could clear up the entire controversy by simply agreeing that the world is declared righteous in Christ.

[GJ - There you have it, the Walther-Pieper-Rambach-Webber absolution of the world. David Becker reported the story sympathetically, because many people think UOJ is hogwash.]

What is Objective Justification?

The layperson who doesn’t know what justification means has not been reading the Bible nor (sic) understands what happened at the Reformation.  The words justify, justification, and justified appear in the KJV New Testament 40 times.   Being justified means being declared righteous before God through faith by the merits of Christ on the cross.  Objective Justification means the world is justified by Christ’s payment on the cross for all its sins.  It does not mean the world has faith and everyone is going to heaven.  The term Subjective Justification applies to those who believe and trust that Christ paid for their sins.

[GJ - In other words, to justify means to be declared righteous, and that is never, ever applied to unbelievers. If you have Attention Deficit Disorder, the paragraph above makes sense.]

What Did Luther Say About This?

Without using the terms objective or subjective justification Luther describes the distinction between these two doctrines as follows:

“Even he who does not believe that he is free and his sins forgiven shall also learn, in due time, how assuredly his sins were forgiven, even though he did not believe it… He who does not accept what the keys give receives, of course, nothing.  But that is not the key’s fault.  Many do not believe the gospel, but this does not mean that the gospel is not true or effective.  A king gives you a castle.  If you do not accept it, then it is not the king’s fault, nor is he guilty of a lie.  But you have deceived yourself and the fault is yours.  The king certainly gave it.” (LW 40, 366ff)

Luther’s point here is that divine grace is resistible.  There are untold numbers of p eople going to eternal damnation because they reject God’s saving grace in Jesus Christ.  On the other hand, no one has the power to make a decision to believe in Jesus Christ.  The question of why some are saved and not others, according to the Lutheran Confessions, cannot be answered and is only in God’s secret counsel.  The Gospel is God’s gracious offer of salvation through faith in Christ.
[GJ - UOJ Stormtroopers have a quia subscription to this Luther quotation about the objective truth of the atonement. He is not saying that unbelievers are forgiven. He explicitly denies that in countless places well known to any literate Lutheran (i.e.- not Cascione, not McCain, not Rolf Preus, not John Moldstad, not Jon Buchholz, not SP Mark Schroeder).They never quote the Large Catechism, where Luther clearly opposes their dogma.]

What Does the Bible Say?

Anyone who sees a contradiction between, “Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29) and “by grace are you saved through faith” (Eph. 2:8) does not have a correct understanding of the Gospel.  The Bible says in numerous verses that God has forgiven the sins of the world:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.  John 3:16

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.  2Co5:19

1Peter 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 

1John 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

John 4:42, 2Peter 2:20, and 1John 4:14 all declared that Christ is the savior of the world.  Rydecki makes us doubt if Christ succeeded.  Rydecki places a wedge between God’s forgiveness, love, reconciliation, death in Christ, propitiation for the sins of the world and God declaring the world righteous in Christ.  How can the world be forgiven, reconciled, loved, and benefit from Christ’s propitiation for its sins, and not be justified by God?  Or does God only love the believers?

[GJ - Only Jack could take the Little Gospel, John 3:16, and turn it inside-out into UOJ. The rest of his special pleading is equally inane. Has he read the book that Rydecki translated? I doubt it.]

What do the Lutheran Confessions say?

"That through Christ the human race is truly redeemed and reconciled with God, who, by His faultless obedience, suffering, and death, has merited for us the righteousness which avails before God, and eternal life." FC, SD, Election. Par. 15, Tappert 619

“Our righteousness rests n either upon his [Christ’s] divine nature nor upon his human nature but upon the entire person of Christ, who as God and man in his sole, total, as perfect obedience is our righteousness.” FC, SD, Righteousness, Par. 549, Tappert 549

If Christ is not the righteousness of unbelievers, it is not possible to become a believer.

Evidence against Rydecki

Consider some of the evidence that Pastor Rydecki is confused on the doctrine of justific ation.

1. “The Confessions do not speak of a sense in which all sinners have already been justified before God whether they believe in Christ or not, nor do I believe the Scriptures to teach such a thing, yet such is commonly heralded among Lutherans today as the ‘central teaching of the Bible.’” (Rev. Paul Rydecki, "Do We Want To Be Dresden Lutherans?" P.10)

2. From "The Biblical Doctrine of Justification on One Page:" by Paul Rydecki

“God credits the righteousness of Christ only to those who believe in Jesus, and thus justifies only those w ho believe in Jesus. (John 3:16-18, 36; Luke 18:14; Acts 13:39; Rom. 3:26; 4:5; 10:10; Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:8-9)”

3. Pastor Rydecki preached a sermon titled: "Faith is the difference between those who are justified and those who are not."

4. The Wisconsin California Arizona District President asked Pastor Rydecki to answer two questions and Rydecki refused to give direct answers.

1) “Did God forgive the sins of the world when Jesus died on the cross?”

Rydecki’s Answer: Yes. "He forgave to all people the sin, which no one could avoid." AP, IV, 103

2) “Has God justified all sinners for the sake of Christ?”

Rydecki’s Answer: Yes. "The human race is truly redeemed and reconciled with God through Christ." FC, SD, Election, 15

5. Pastor Rydecki is the translator (from the original Latin) of a 16^th century, recently published book available from Amazon: “Theses Opposed to Huberianism: A Defense of the Luther an Doctrine of Justification” [Paperback] Aegidius Hunnius (Author).  In this translation Rydecki shows that Hunnius, a follower of Luther, rejected the teachings of objective justification. However, in the opinion of many, including this author, Rydecki has misrepresented Hunnius’ position.

[GJ - Cascione does not understand the Scriptures, the Means of Grace, the efficacy of the Word, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the Book of Concord, or the post-Concord era. QED, he is equally expert on Hunnius and Huber.]

Ryd ecki Courted by LCMS Sacerdotalists

Rydecki, an exceptional parish scholar, wants to be a Dresden Lutheran.  This is his term for the Lutherans who migrated from Dresden Germany to the United States beginning in the late 1830’s.  The Dresden Lutherans were also practicing extreme Sacerdotalism, meaning that if the pastor didn’t have the sacrament of ordination, the Gospel, Baptism, and Lord’s Supper would not be effective.  LCMS sacerdotalists (also known as Hyper-Euro-Lutherans who want to revive pre-Walther European Sacerdotalism) publish Gottesdienst.  They recently honored Rydecki with “The Saber of Boldness” for his stance against the Church Growth Movement.  Depending on which LCMS or WELS church one visits today, the pastor may appear in a polo shirt and conduct the service like a YMCA camp counselor with a backup praise band and/or vocalist.  Rydecki’s bold stand against church growth has drawn him to the LCMS sacerdotal movement that views the clergy as the 4^th means of grace.  Martin Stephan used to call himself the chief mediator of the means of grace.  The LCMS sacerdotalists’ mantra is “Where the bishop is, there the church is also.”

[GJ - Papal promoter Paul McCain was a frequent posted on LQ until recently. He was also on Tim Gende's Emergent Church blog. Pope Paul Without a Call gets around, and gets banned.]

The LCMS Went Through This in 1981

Christ's words from the cross, “Father forgive them” mean Jesus prayed that God forgive the whole world.  However, I once heard Walter Maier II, back in January of 1981, tell an audience that “Father forgive them” means only those who have faith, such as the one thief on the cross and the centurion.  Rydeki has placed himself in the same corner.  Either Rydecki is going to agree that when God forgives people they are also justified or that when Jesus spoke the words “Father forgiven them” He was only speaking about the thief on the cross and the centurion.

LCMS President J. A. O. Preus published his opposition to Maier’s teaching in the “Lutheran Witness Reporter” which led to the election of Ralph Bohlmann as LCMS President instead of Maier.  The LCMS Council of District Presiden ts has long since decided to avoid doctrinal issues and turn LCMS congregations into hymnbook free zones and entertainment venues.

In general, church bodies today who indulge in doctrinal discipline are viewed as arcane anachronists, hardly the stuff of praise bands and hootenanny worship.  In other words, doctrinal discipline is bad for business.  But then, what about truth?  Ten of the Apostles were executed.  If a church body is called to pick up its cross and follow after Christ, defense of the doctrine of justification is the highest ground they can walk.

[GJ - The UOJ always forces their argument through false paradoxes. Either they must agree with Jack or they are obvious heretics. Jack earned an A in talking point repetition for this little essay, an F in Biblical exegesis, and a LOL for logic.]

---

A. Berean has left a new comment on your post "Jack Cascione Dusts Off the Iron Maiden and Polish...":

Under what Luther says: Luther's Works American Edition, Vol. 25, Lectures on Romans - "God imputes to none but the believer."

So, that's something to consider... 

Indeed.

Jack Cascione Is Retiring. Who Will Teach Motown That They Are Born Forgiven?

This bilge was lovingly reprinted here:
http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/jmc00225.htm
Preuss turned Catholic after this, when he saw a bright sunset.
Once an Enthusiast....