The Error of Modern Missouri - Toxins for Today's Rot into OJ and Church Growth

https://www.lutheranlibrary.org

Answer the Fallacies of Forgiveness and Election without Faith. From the Artesian Well Called The Lutheran Library Publishing Ministry

After finishing Loy yesterday, I decided to take another look at the 3-books-in-one published by Schodde as The Error of Missouri. The middle one Intuitu Fidei was translated by Lenski. The following quote is from part one.

Alec

---

Dr. Jacob Andreae is, besides Chemnitz, one of the main authors of the Formula of Concord. He was far more active than even Chemnitz himself in bringing matters so far that the Formula was produced. In the year 1574 he published a disputation on predestination in which thesis 10 reads as follows: “Predestination and election by grace is the eternal decree of God, declaring that He will save those persons who are penitent and believe in Christ, the Savior and only Redeemer of the world.” Thesis 172: “It is God’s immutable will that all should believe in the Gospel, and that those who believe shall be saved,” Mark 16. Th. 173: “As it is likewise His immutable will, that those who do not believe shall be damned.” Th. 174: “Nor does the universality of the promises of the Gospel contradict the particularity of election” (i. e. by the fact, that election is restricted to a few, or that only a few are chosen). Thesis 175: “For God has not promised salvation to all promiscuously, but only to those who believe.” Thesis 176: “Hence the particular election is included in the universal promise.”

Moreover in this disputation of 1574 Andreae opposes an unconditional election in the following words: “Whoever seeks predestination in an absolute decree of God, because God’s foreknowledge is absolutely certain, leads men to think that such a decree necessarily brings about the salvation of certain persons who under no circumstances can be condemned, while it likewise effects the damnation of others so that they cannot be saved. The result of this is that believers, becoming perplexed when considering this divine foreknowledge, cannot be cheered by consolation; men of Epicurean mind, however, thereby open for themselves and others the door for transgression; because the hidden will of God has decided everything, all our efforts avail nothing. . . . The reason why all are not saved is this, that they spurn the divine grace, which God offers to all in Christ. 

The fact, that this grace cannot be accepted by our own reason or strength, does not overthrow our proposition. All indeed are to hear, and by hearing are to come to faith. Whoever despises preaching, must accuse himself, and not a hidden decree of God, just as his conscience accuses only himself. The doctrine of an absolute decree also renders the work of the Word and the Sacrament useless. Reprobation by an absolute will, without the foresight of unbelief, is blasphemous. Whoever hears the Word, which he indeed cannot believe by his own powers, to him the Holy Spirit is promised, and He works that all who hear may also believe. This coming to hear preaching, this willing and hearing, God demands as a piece of outward obedience, a leading, as it were by the hand, unto Christ, although in itself it does not effect conversion. But this man can do, hear the Word which is the organ of the Spirit, or stop his ears; but man has not the least measure of power for assent, as Erasmus claimed, assent is altogether the work of the Holy Spirit.”

Well, well, Andreae, what are you teaching here? Are you, the actual author of the Formula of Concord still really in such lamentable ignorance regarding the very first letter of the pure doctrine of predestination, which consists of the very opposite of what you teach in these propositions? Don't you know that predestination and the universal gracious will of God are two entirely different "sides" of God's will, which neither reason nor the light of grace is able to harmonize with each other? Let me tell you, my dear Andreae, you should have remained at home with your wisdom, which betrays a "rationalizing tendency"; you had better remain silent as long as you have no clearer light on the a b c of the pure doctrine of predestination. See, "it is impossible for us to mediate between, or to harmonize with our reason, these two scriptural doctrines concerning particular election and concerning universal grace. Not even the light of grace is able to remove this discord, we must wait for the light of glory" ("L. u. W.", 1880, 308). How then could you write such nonsense as this: "The universality of the promises does not contradict the particularity of election; for God has not promised salvation to all promiscuously, but only to those who believe; hence the particular election is included in the universal promise." Why, the thing is just the reverse! Election is "an altogether different thing" from this universal promise. And therefore the particularity of election contradicts the universality of the promise, and we cannot solve the contradiction, and you dare not, as you venture to do. harmonize the two by referring to passages like these: "He that believeth shall be saved," or: "Without faith it is impossible to please God." I am very much afraid, my dear Andreae, that you agree with the later dogmaticians who make "election depend on faith", although I know, of course, that you are the chief author of the Formula of Concord and that you ought to know how it is to be understood. Certainly we respect your Lutheranism otherwise: but when you include the particularity of election in the universal promise ("He that believeth shall be saved"), understanding the former by the latter, when thus you attempt "to explain somewhat and make plausible to our reason'" (!!) "this wonderful mystery of election" by mixing in foreseen faith, then, we are sorry to say, you too have "forsaken the Scriptures and the Symbol" and gone off on the wrong track of Pelagianism. Still one thing serves to excuse you somewhat: your co-workers on the Formula, as the extracts from Selnecker and Chytraeus show, were likewise not quite straight on this subject, and, to put it as mildly as possible, badly misunderstood their dear Formula of Concord in this a b c point of the pure doctrine of election! _Sapienti sat_. [Note from the I. F. proper. – Translator.] 

The Error of Modern Missouri - Classic Study of Justification by Faith - Kindle Edition for Just $3

I did not like e-books until I put them on my large screen, retro desktop computer. It is a great way to read and quote books, as readers may have noticed from my gardening books citations.

The Error of Modern Missouri is a massive study of justification by faith edited by one of the founding members of the Stephanite group - Stellhorn.

The Kindle version is only $3.

http://www.amazon.com/Error-Modern-Missouri-Development-Refutation-ebook/dp/B017E3KZ3C/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1446373533&sr=8-2&keywords=error+of+modern+missouri

The Error of Modern Missouri - Arguing from the Confessions rather than from Walther

The Error of Modern Missouri

Its Inception, Development and Refutation

Authored by Friedrich A Schmidt, Frederick W Stellhorn
Introduction by Conrad H L Schuette, Richard C H Lenksi
Contributions by H A Allwardt, H Ernst
Edited by George H Schodde
Translated by C B Ghodes, W E Tressel, Richard C H Lenski
Edition: 1

This volume, first printed in 1897, was occasioned by the 1880s schism in American Lutheranism. It presents three lengthy treatises on the subject of predestination defending the mainstream Lutheran "intuitu fidei" (Latin: in view of faith) perspective over against a revived deterministic view held by some Lutherans.

The Missouri Synod headed by CFW Walther believed the Bible taught an absolute "single election", which is Augustine's deterministic (and some say, fatalistic) view, but only affecting the saints, a view held by some theologians early in the Reformation.

The Ohio Synod believed the Bible taught an election that preserved some of man's responsibility and freedom in matters of salvation, whether they be saved or damned (Lutheran Scholasticism's view since the 1600s). Using his foreknowledge, God identified and elected those who naturally would resist at times, but would overall cooperate willingly with God's Gospel grace, and have faith at the end of their mortal lives. In other words, none are saved against their will.

F. W. Stellhorn

The first treatise, by Dr. F. W. Stellhorn (translated from the German by R.C.H. Lenski), has three parts: 1) a dogmatic-historical introduction, 2) what the Formula of Concord and the Old Lutheran theologians say, and 3) a debunking the Missouri Synod's doctrine called the election of grace.

The second treatise is by Dr. F.A. Schmidt, titled "Intuitu Fidei." It is translated by Lenski and C.B. Ghodes. Its three parts are: 1) explicating the doctrine of "intuitu fidei," 2) whether the Old Lutheran theologians departed from the Lutheran confessions when they taught "intuitu fidei," and 3) whether "intuitu fidei" is taught in the Book of Concord.

The third treatise is a testimony against the false doctrine of predestination recently introduced by the Missouri Synod, translated by Lenski and W.E. Tressel. The treatise begins with theses prepared by H.A. Allwardt and Prof. H. Ernst, and a discussion of those theses by pastors who left the Missouri Synod over that doctrine. Appended is a history of controversy by H. A. Allward.

Yes, there is another copy out there, even a free one in parts but -

Most monitors or tablets don't have great  resolution, so reading 802 pages on them can be a bear. If you don't wear glasses, you will after reading 802 pages on a kindle or tablet. The book however has print that's as sharp as a tack because printers print out at high resolution - often 1200 dpi.

If one is going to read a lot of pages of anything and make notes and underline, a book is the only way to go. At $20, that's only 2.5 cents a page, which is cheaper than printing it out at home. The print in the proof is surprisingly sharp, better than in the library original it was scanned from, since the letters are darker and the pages whiter.

***

GJ - Fox Valley called this Inuitu Fidei, the Faith of the Eskimo, a funny reflection on their reactionary opposition to anything against the Great Walther, not to mention their obsession with pretending to know something.

I confess to never reading this entire book, but it is a classic benchmark in the history of the LCMS. I would rather start with St. Paul, the Reformation leaders, Concordists, and post-Concordists, but the LCMS-ELS-WELS grows misty-eyed about the Good Olde Synodical Conference. 

Stellhorn came over with the Perryville sex cult, so we can see that a division developed.

As I understand it, Lenski's family was pushed out by Waltherian fundamentalists.

Walther referred doubters to his own work, but this one has hundreds of quotations from the European Lutherans, who were real scholars, not just college graduates like Stephan's disciple and disciplinarian.

This book is a bargain, so it is well worth  buying for those who want to study the history. We know that the LCMS and tourist sites deceive everyone about the sex cult origin of their synod. This is, at the very least, another look at the original debates by those who took part in them.

Walther himself was a bully who had to have things his way. Missouri was keen on driving away anyone who disagreed with Walther, as the CFW sycophants took over. They lost the Lenski family and a universally acknowledged New Testament scholar. They divided Lutherdom, which is now united around justification without faith - a sad, tragic victory for Stephan's waterboy.