ICHABOD, THE GLORY HAS DEPARTED - explores the Age of Apostasy, predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, to attack Objective Faithless Justification, Church Growth Clowns, and their ringmasters. The antidote is trusting the efficacious Word in the Means of Grace. John 16:8. Isaiah 55:8ff. Romans 10. Most readers are WELS, LCMS, ELS, or ELCA. This blog also covers the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the National Council of Churches.
FDE Schleiermacher, whose name means "Haze-Maker," studied at Halle University and became a universalist.
Schleiermacher is the most important theologian for apostates. My liberal Reformed professor at Notre Dame loved Schleiermacher.
Karl Barth was profoundly influenced by Schleiermacher and probably learned the essentials of faith without belief from FDE.
Barth was an ardent Marxist and adulterer. He even moved his mistress and co-author, Charlotte Kirschbaum, into his home. Fuller Seminary turned away from its weak inerrancy position when the founder's son studied under Barth in Switzerland. The Fuller president denounced inerrancy as holding back missions! The inerrancy professors were purged or left on their own (as they always do in official announcements). From that point on, Fuller became Church Growth by hiring a liberal statistician named Donald McGavran.
I hope this little post helps people understand the innate universalism behind Fuller's Growthism.
---
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Haze-Maker: Founder of Modern Theology - Major Inf...":
What I'd like to know, is this Karl Barth mentioned above the very same person (i.e. Karl L. Barth) who wrote a foreword to
'ESSAYS FOR THE CHURCH by CFW. Walther....VOLUMES 1 & 11,covering the years 1857 - 1879 (VOL 1), and the years 1877 - 1886 (VOL 11), published by Concordia Publishing house, 1992 ? (Please pardon my ignorance)
Shall be grateful if someone knows ?
It may "explain a lot" for me....presently studying the Election/Predestination Controversy.....according to this publication, alongside of the same issue as reported in 'THE LUTHERANS IN NORTH AMERICA' edited by E. Clifford Nelson; revised edition 1980/Fortress Press, Philadelphia....together with Kurt E Marquart's "paper" entitled 'JUSTIFICATION - OBJECTIVE and SUBJECTIVE: A TRANSLATION..."
Yes, those "above" three dots were given there (those dots are quoted verabatim). Mentioned on the front cover of this last mentioned Concordia Theological Seminary Press Fort Wayne Indiana publication,published in 1982.
KEM: "This is a translation - perhaps a little wooden for the sake of literal precision--of the essay on Justification presented and adopted at the first Synodical Convention in 1872. Proceedings,pp. 20 - 68. Written PROBABLY BY F. A. Scmidt, who later became virulently anti-Missourian, this important essay is favourably cited and appealed to in F. Bente's tripartite "Die neue und die alte Lehre der Ohio-Synode von der allgemeinen Rchtfertigung," Lehre und Wehre, vol. 51, no. 9, Sept. 1905,pp.385. All underlinings follow the original.
KEM thereby gives attribution for this paper to F. A. Schmidt, even though such attribution remains unproven. He also, as given in the quotation above, refers to the "IMPORTANCE" of this essay....
I have not copy of the Bente publication Marquart refers to above, but certainly did not see F. A. Schmidt;s paer - IF it is his - as in any way "important".
It really is not a very good paper on Justification at all; not even FOR the OJ position it seeks to uphold...yet many of the conflcting internal arguments it contains ARE the points argued and promoted by UOJers in our day EVEN ON THIS WEBSITE (who, obviously MUST,therefore, be in possession of this document). .
Taken as a whole, this paper finds absolutely FOR the OJ case...but F.A. Schmidt - if indeed this paper was written by him - as KEM says was "probably" so, later became "virulently anti-Missouri".
(I can understand that. The theses are disjointed, internally self-contradictory, and are not in accordance with the The Word, or the BoC.
Unfortunately, I do not have access to F.A. Schmidt's subsequent writings on this matter (when he became "virulently anti OJ/Missouri"....wish I did... ANYBODY ?)
If anyone else, like me, is VERY interested in this whole 19th Century Election/Predestination Controversy (that took a very different tack on Justification by Faith alone, via Grace alone, AS PROPOUNDED in the Bible and the BoC, then, thanks for your prayers and also any VERIFIABLE information you can maybe provide ?
God richly bless you..and God be thanked if you can help in any way.
Confessing Orthodox Lutheran.
***
GJ - I am sure that the Karl Barth you mention is the "good" Karl Barth, the former president of Concordia, St. Louis. I understand Bohlmann drove him out and installed Johnson, a liberal chameleon.
If you have a chance I would greatly appreciate your insight into Marquart's claim about what he calls the "proper" view of UOJ.
He delineates between Kokomo and older views (Walther etc .)
Here is the paper in question:
GJ - My wife and I were members of Trinity in Bridgeton, Missouri (St. Louis area) when Larry Darby began to challenge people about UOJ. Pastor Bischoff agreed with Larry at first, then made him Public Enemy Number 1. Once the issue was raised, the congregation was in turmoil, because UOJ is utter nonsense, no matter how it is presented. Larry went his own way, and I disagree with him about many matters. Nevertheless, he was always pleasant, generous, and kind-hearted.
Since then I have been called a Calvinist, Darby-ite, and a follower of WAM II. Otten banned me from Christian News--no loss--for daring to raise issues about UOJ. Trinity refused to give CN money until I was banned. Lately Otten said he agreed with the Synodical Conference rather than the Book of Concord. Take note, Lutherans, a true synodical Lutheran will always place a recent publication above the ruled norm, the Lutheran Confessions.
I am not going to parse the entire Marquart essay. He was in failing health, and his effort is a mixed up affair, from beginning to end. He does mention the efficacious Word and the Means of Grace, but his argument contradicts the Biblical doctrine of the Word.
Sig Becker and Jon Buchholz have both tried to rescue UOJ from its sordid past, without success. Marquart tried as well.
I imagine the Jay Webber posting is an attempt to shore up UOJ by using Marquart as an authority. Webber prefers kelming material to writing something original. I noticed that the ELS, while extending the Left Foot of Fellowship to congregations and pastors, linked Webber's quotes on the ministry. So what did that prove? I should correct college essays by linking them to the dictionary or Strunk-White.
Back to the essay itself -
The old Knapp claim is asserted by Marquart:
"Put without polemics then, the justification of the sinner means the declaration of justice by God who at the cross and in the resurrection of Jesus Christ declares all sinners free and just, and thereby makes them just, though this act can, for the Church, have its consequences in the individual only if the individual submits in faith to God’s verdict. . ."
Is that not Kokomo justification? Knapp justification?
Strangely, Marquart quoted the repudiation of his opinion and claimed it as a perfect OJ/SJ triumph:
Both the “objective” and the “subjective” aspects of the biblical understanding of justification are well captured in this balanced definition of the Formula of Concord, Art. III, 4:
Against both parties it was unanimously preached by the other teachers of the Augsburg Confession that Christ is our Righteousness not only according to the divine nature, and not only according to the human nature, but according to both natures, Who as God and Man has redeemed, justified, and saved us from our sins by His perfect obedience: so that the righteousness of faith is forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and that we are adopted as children of God for the sake of the sole obedience of Christ, which is imputed as righteousness to all who truly believe, only through faith, from pure grace, and they are absolved for the sake of the same from all their unrighteousness [my translation, as literal as I can make it].
Why on earth is the Catholic theologian Hans Kueng lifted up as an expert on this subject? I find that appalling. Count the Kueng references. Kueng was an enemy of papal infallibility, but that does not make him a Lutheran theologian. Kueng might as well have argued the theory that the sky is blue and water wet. Even then he would not be a Lutheran.
Marquart:
4.
Defensible Theses of Mr. Larry Darby:
1.
That the “Kokomo” notions about Judas and other inmates of hell being declared “innocent” and granted “the status of saints,” are an absurd and reprehensible travesty of Lutheran doctrine.
It is mind-boggling that any Lutheran could ever have written such stuff, and Mr. Darby is completely right to denounce it as the mischievous nonsense which it is.
But Marquart affirmed that very notion before, and cited the Formula of Concord to support his argument.
Here is another honker:
The trouble with these repulsive “Kokomo” statements is that they ignore the pivotal significance of the means of grace and thereby abandon the proper distinction of Law and Gospel. That, too, in essence is what was wrong with Samuel Huber’s proposal, early in the 17th century, of a notion of “universal justification,” which was duly rejected by representative Lutherans at the time. The story is told in detail by Dr. Tom Hardt of Sweden, in the 1985 Festschrift for Robert Preus, A Lively Legacy.7 Hardt is a meticulous scholar who demonstrates in detail the difference between the wrong sort of “objective justification,” as taught by Huber, and the right sort, as found in C.F.W. Walther’s Easter preaching and theology.
In light of Mr. Darby’s citation of the late Dr. Siegbert Becker in support of the “Kokomo” theses (HD, p. 240), I now regret my editorial note (A Lively Legacy, p. 78) which attempted to shield Becker against criticism by Hardt on justification. However technically defensible my cavils may have been, the larger truth signaled by the “Kokomo” affair is that Hardt was right and I was wrong.
Certain ELS and LCMS leaders worship, adore, and support Tom Hardt. The idea here is to return to the infallibility of Walther, who borrowed his scheme from the Pietists he associated with, whose position is found in the theology of Halle University's Knapp.
Not to be discounted in the acculturating distortion of “objective justification” is the pervasive influence of Schleiermacher and his multitude of followers. Hoenecke put it like this:
According to Schleiermacher there is only a universal [allgemeinen] eternal decision [Ratschluss] of justification, which in turn is nothing else than the decision to send Christ, and in the end is nothing else than the decision to create the human race, insofar, that is, as only in Christ is human nature completed. In the decision of the Redemption is implied [liegt, lies] according to Schleiermacher already that mankind [die Menschen] are pleasing to God in His Son; there is no need for an individual temporal act of justification upon each individual [einzelnen] human being. It is necessary only that the individual human being become aware of this, that in God’s decision of the Redemption in Christ he has already been justified and made pleasing to God (III:355, my translation).
My Disagreements with Darby -
I disagree with Darby about the Atonement and the use of the Word. I am not sure where he was going with the Atonement or how he supported his ideas. He did get into his head the Schwaermer concept of verbatim quotations being the only Word of God. Evidence of that opinion can be found in certain TV evangelists who pepper their sermons with verbatim quotations and the citations thereof. Darby's approach to the Atonement and the Word are both departures from Scriptural, Confessional theology.
Conclusion -
Marquart has presented ideal unionistic theology, saying enough to appease the UOJ crowd and Walther worshipers while affirming the Means of Grace and the efficacy of the Word. He did not deal seriously with Luther or the Book of Concord, wandering all over the landscape instead.
Please accept the following as a rumor. If a rumor is old enough, it is history. See Suetonius and Herodotus on that score. I heard that Marquart initially opposed UOJ and changed his mind. He was a Robert Preus loyalist. The Preus brothers used UOJ to keep WAM II from becoming the Ft. Wayne president, and they really played dirty, sandbagging WAM with a papal letter sent everywhere by Jack Preus. Later, Robert got the same treatment from his brother Jack. That is the trouble with playing by Mafia rules.
I cannot say whether Marquart changed his mind or (that being so) he changed his mind for political reasons. Missouri is keen enough about itself to circle the Walther Memorial every time an issue comes up. No one is ever going to admit Walther or Pieper might have erred in their Human Natures.
Marquart was still alive when I finished Thy Strong Word. I sent it to him, but he did not acknowledge it. That was odd since we were on very good terms for many years. A UOJ opponent phoned him and found Marquart furious about TSW. When I saw Marquart at Ft. Wayne, he politely told me he received the book. I believe he also sent a postcard thanking me at about the same time. His comments and criticisms would have been welcome, but he never said or wrote anything.
A pall of silence fell upon the publication of TSW, and no one with any standing reviewed it. Otten refused to publish any positive comments about TSW in CN. If only I had been a Babtist or a member of a Bund!
To this day the entire corpus of criticism directed toward TSW can be summed up as - ad hominem and frigid silence.
Thank you Dr Jackson for mentioning my blog 'What Sasse Said'. I am continuing to add to it as often as I can, especially for the sake of lay people who might not be familiar with Sasse's wisdom.
***
GJ - At an early point in leaving the LCA, I latched onto Sasse's This Is My Body, a brilliant book about the Real Presence and not compromising with the Reformed. I am happy for the Sasse blog and will now link it on the main page.
Jim Aderman, a founder of Church and Change, contributing editor of FIC,
I have been enjoying some comments lately, especially abusive and scatological ones. I figure the Shrinkers are starting to feel their losses. UOJ is not so eager to share its thousand points of darkness.
Here is a great irony. Every so often UOJ has to pop up and assert its strange and bizarre claims. That only reminds people how perverted the UOJ opinion is. Shoring it up with the Brief Statement and Walther does not help matters. That only reminds people about the heritage of UOJ and the fallibility of the Synodical Conference.
I hear that FIC ran another UOJ article. I only read the magazine from its websty on WELS.net. Although WELS pumps a ton of money into "technology" each year, the FIC updates are painfully slow - only October is showing at the moment. Is the magazine not produced on a computer? How difficult is it to post those shallow, Babtist-loving, UOJ articles? Would an update hurt circulation? Oh, that makes me laugh. WELS pastors have despised the magazine for several decades. One told a member he only reads the Mark Schroeder articles.
Have you ever been to Crossroads in Chicago? If you report about the vices of a congregation only in generic terms with no actual evidence or concrete information about it. It is mere ignorant slander.
For your information, Crossroads is a very law/gospel biblical based church that does a good job of providing spiritual milk every Sunday to a congregation of mostly visitors yet having a very good method of Bible instruction classes for members who need spiritual whole food.
Also, their "mission statement" is almost identical to the one you wrote at WLS.
A synodical publication is supposed to advance the agenda of the organization. That has been painfully obvious in the ELCA, LCMS, WELS, and the Little Sect on the Prairie. As WELS leaders always liked to say in the past, when they assumed false doctrine was lodged elsewhere, "A fish rots at the head first."
When the LCA got into quotas, The Lutheran magazine began to run articles based on quotas. The LCA had to admit that their fancy Yorba Linda mega-church experiment was a big flop, but the ELS, WELS, and Missouri mags have promoted the Shrinkers with unabated joy and undiminished ignorance.
Multi-culturalism, via quotas rather than the Gospel, is now assumed in all the four-letter Lutheran groups. Multi-culturalism, financed by Thrivent, is the fad that got the Ft. Hood terrorist labeled as a victim of stress rather than a Soldier of Allah. The ELS still thinks a mixed marriage is a Norwegian married to a Swede. Fuller embraced multi-culturalism a long time ago.
The problem with FIC is this - it no longer represents the WELS at convention. The old Northwestern Lutheran broke with its original mandate under Mischke and Jeb Schaefer. The Shrinkers had control of The Love Shack at that time. They still run FIC, as shown by the Chicanery editorial policy and Chicanery authors like Peter Pan-denominational, Kudu Don Patterson, Retiree James Aderman, Fuller Bivens, and the editor hisself.
Now the Shrinkers are getting their just reward after reaping destruction everywhere, dividing congregations, and grabbing money for themselves. The Shrinker head count at The Love Shack is...shrinking.
FIC could easily be produced as a PDF, emailed to everyone who needs to read it. The Chicanery content of FIC could be entirely eliminated. I have already taken over the promotion of Church and Change. I post their photos and their boasts. I notify people about their conference agenda. I even urge them to attend Chicanery events. What thanks do I get for all this?
Abusive comments,
Four-letter words,
Shopworn insults,
Empty threats of legal action,
Mockery of the kitty photos.
--- Michael Schottey has left a new comment on your post "Good Sign - Comments Getting More Abusive": Awww...thanks for playing along Anon@7:11. The real question is whether or not you're a WELS member, human being, or Christian because you're posting anonymously. But thanks for calling MY accountability into question. I'm too old for that kind of spine twisting maneuver. I have been there. My sister (recently moved from New Ulm to Tulsa, OK) spent two years as a member of Crossroads. Being a family man, I've worshiped, attended Bible Study, and even potlucked there. I've also sat with the pastor there and discussed how foolish I think it is to leave out the name Lutheran so he knows exactly how I feel about that and other CG garbage. But again, thanks for stopping by---whoever you are. *** GJ - I give Michael credit for signing his name and being frank. Open discussions are good. I have no use for people who send insulting and crude comments, anonymously, but it does please me that I have gotten under their skin. If someone sends a comment, it does not de-rez in seven days. I can use it as long as it exists. The defense of the Chicago stealth congregation is typical of WELS attitudes, and I sympathize to some extent (but not enough to stop pounding the Shrinkers). We do not want to break the bonds of friendship and kinship, but we should know the Word will do that. Jesus taught that clearly enough. KJV Mark 3:32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother. The point of my original post was to highlight the stealth congregation in Chicago. Readers with good memories will recall that the pastor had already studied under the odious Leonard Sweet before Kelm sponsored and defended that particular Chicanery conference. Someone leaked the listserve comments. I highlighted the stealth congregation in Chicago to show how despicable FIC has been. The subsidized WELS magazine is the publishing arm of Church and Change, itself a free-basing parachurch organization. So the suckers of WELS pay for Church and Change to send its propaganda all over the world, via print and the sluggish website (run by another Shrinker). The mission offering is to convey Christ's Gospel to the world? Not so fast. A vast amount of that money goes to promote the most blatant false doctrine, by means of:
FIC.
Various useless periodicals.
Both mission boards and their CG lackeys.
Mission counselors, possibly more dangerous than the periodicals.
Mary Lou College, The Sausage Factory.
Parachurch CG tumors started with synod money and led by Chicaneries.
Free staff for well-connected pastors like Don Patterson.
Doctrinal Pussycat enablers, who get their own fat subsidies for the onerous work of protecting Shrinkers like Parlow, Ski, Witte, Hunter, Olson, Gunn, etc.
Vicars for cutting-edge Shrinkers like Randy Hunter.
As I have said many times before, the non-Lutherans would brandish pitchforks and burning torches if a speck of baptismal regeneration, Real Presence, or efficacy of the Word emanated from their scrofulous schools and printing presses. They must lick their slavering jaws when the conservative Lutherans show up with wads of Thrivent cash and synod subsidy money in their fists. WELS members - your pastors have earned DMins in Church Growth from such prestige schools as:
Gordon Conwell - Witte. Now on the Asian board. Nice promo.
Fuller Seminary - L. Olson. Waldo Werning Professor of Church Growth at Mary Lou College.
Denver - John Parlow, St. Mark Depere, a congregation of the Willow Creek Association.
Our Lady of Perpetual Sorrows in St. Louis - Paul Kelm, the retiring but never shy guru of Reformed doctrine for WELS.
The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) President Mark Schroeder delivered a wonderful address to their convention last summer. He seamlessly interwove doctrine and practice. Right doctrine in this address is not some sort of boundary or some set of right words added to a program to make it work. For Schroeder true biblical doctrine is in, with and under all that the redeemed say and do.
Here is an excerpt from the address which asserts that our work is not a matter of slick programs with God’s word sprinkled on top but our work is simply a matter of proclaiming God’s word sans programs.
The book of Acts tells us repeatedly that, as God’s people proclaimed the gospel, “the Word of the Lord grew.” As the Holy Spirit worked, the Word grew in the hearts of people. It grew to fill the empire. It grew to span the centuries…
What we do conclude from that? First, we are reminded wherein the success of our mission lies. If we were left to our own strength, our own wisdom, our own resources, the task would be daunting. We would surely either be compelled to retreat from that task or be doomed to failure. But the strength of our mission and our witness does not depend on us, on our own cleverness, our own will power, or on our abilities. Its effectiveness is not to be found in slick programs or in effective marketing strategies. The strength and success of our mission is found in one place: in the power and faithfulness and love of a God, whose Spirit works through the preaching of his Word and the administration of his sacraments.(p. 3)
A while back I complained that President Kieschnick’s address to the district onventions was the opposite approach. Instead of a unified presentation of doctrine and life he spent the first fifteen minutes rattling off confessional truisms to try and convince the synod that he is orthodox. “Me thinks thou dost protest too much.” More to the point, a good synodical president does not need to prove his orthodoxy; he simply is orthodox in word and deed. This is what we mean by churchliness and this is an outstanding trait of Matt Harrison who is the clear confessional alternative to President Kieschnick for president of the LCMS.
Unlike the leadership of the LCMS, President Schroeder judges synodical success by the measure of faithfulness and not the measure of numbers. Here is another excerpt from President Schroeder’s address:
As our synod carries out its mission of sharing the gospel with the lost and caring for the souls of the found, we dare never forget that our success will not be measured in terms of numbers or statistics. Ours is a theology not of glory—striving for mere outward achievement or measurable accomplishments for their own sake. Our success will be measured only by our faithfulness—to God, to his effective and powerful Word, and to the work he has called us to do.
Rather than a theology of glory, ours is a theology of the cross. Our theology centers on a message that came to us wholly and completely because of the love of Christ. It proclaims a message that calls sinners to repentance, directs them to the cross, and that assures them that in Christ and his love all of their sins find full forgiveness.
Admittedly, the theology of the cross is not attractive in our postmodern, self-gratifying world. Unlike the theology of glory, the theology of the cross makes no promises of instant relief for the ills of life in a sinful world. It does not beckon people with the lure of financial or personal or professional success. It does not seek validation of its success in terms of numbers. It does not offer a practical “how to” manual to achieve temporal happiness or to mine the depths of human potential. The message of the cross cannot be packaged to be palatable and cannot be soft-pedaled to be acceptable. It is a message that this world does not understand and does not desire.
In fact, our message—if we are faithful to it—will always be regarded as utter foolishness, just as Paul reminds us, “The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.” (1 Cor 1:18) (pp. 3-4)
This address sounds like the addresses of the synodical president’s (sic) of old. You can get a taste for those traditional and faithful presidential addresses in Rev. Harrision’s new book, which of course demonstrates that Rev. Harrison is at home with this Biblical approach to leading a synod and further qualifies him for the LCMS presidency.
We recommend you read the entirety of President Schroeder’s address. You can do so by clicking here.
***
GJ - Faithfulness to the Word is success - so reads the conclusion of Walther's Law and Gospel, quoting Luther. Oh wait, Reformation Day is over. Forget him for another year. Sorry.
I am pleased that Missouri has a leader to emulate - Schroeder. Sadly, Barry and McCain simply prepared the way for Kieschnick.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "SP Schroeder Noticed by LCMS Blog":
Dear Greg,
I appreciate the words of the synod president as I was present and felt very good about his presentation. However, I also believe the WELS is in denial about many areas of ministry and wants to blame that on church growth or a host of other excuses. My school is struggling and as a member I see no serious effort by the pastors, principal, or lay leadership to address the problems. How do I balance my concerns against your feelings that I might be focused on measurements? I just don't feel like we have the right effort and yes, I do realize that God is directing all things to His glory. I am however having a real problem with the lack of urgency and action that I see from our called workers and some of our lay leaders.
***
GJ - I can understand the dismay. WELS was in complete denial 20 years ago. Someone like Kelm could publish a Reformed paper, teach Reformed doctrine in WLC, and still be hired as a Perish Assistant at headquarters. As someone said about a mere Circuit Pastor, "The Holy Spirit put him in that office. If I question his decisions, I am questioning the Holy Spirit." I might add - and no one questions Holy Mother WELS, either.
One synod leader told me, "Even the best pastors do no visiting." I think that is the heart of the problem. The executive model has killed the pastoral model. A home-going pastor does make for a church-going congregation.
District Popes have also used their imaginary prestige to meddle with congregations and destroy the divine call. Tis strange how a man has a "divine call" to be a Fuller-trained consultant, a kindergarten teacher has a "divine call" to tell kids to draw within the lines, but the parish pastor is just a robot wound up to do the bidding of the DP. If the DP wants to get even because a pastor has discovered a praesidium pal in adultery, may God have mercy on that man's soul - because the DP won't. And I don't mean the adulterer.
The WELS method has been, at least since the days of heresiarch Ted Hartwig, to prosecute the person who tries to deal with false doctrine. WELS can always invent evidence that the wrong process was used, or the right one used in the wrong way, to incur the wrath of the officials against who? - not the false teacher, but the one who dares mention such a thing. God cannot bring about the fruits of the Gospel, when the Word of God is mocked at every step.
Dr. Walter E. Lammerts has a doctorate in genetics, and is well known as a prominent breeder of roses. He reportedly produced 46 new varieties of roses between 1940 and 1981 including the famous Queen Elizabeth. Twenty-five percent of his roses were chosen by the All-American Rose Selection for the years top rose variations. As a result of his efforts the American Rose Society created an entirely new class of rose known as the Grandiflora.
It would not be inappropriate to state that Walter Lammerts is one of the fathers of the modern creation science movement. He was the first president of the Creation Research Society (the first creationist organization in the U.S.), which was founded by 10 scientists in 1964. Dr Lammerts was also the editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ) from 1964 to 1968. Most notably, he was an active researcher for several decades in biological and geological sciences, and much of his work was published in the CRSQ." Creation Wiki
Efficacy of the Word
November 13, 2009
"For let me tell you this, even though you know it perfectly and be already master in all things, still you are daily in the dominion of the devil, who ceases neither day nor night to steal unawares upon you, to kindle in your heart unbelief and wicked thoughts against the foregoing and all the commandments. Therefore you must always have God's Word in your heart, upon your lips, and in your ears. But where the heart is idle, and the Word does not sound, he breaks in and has done the damage before we are aware. On the other hand, such is the efficacy of the Word, whenever it is seriously contemplated, heard, and used, that it is bound never to be without fruit, but always awakens new understanding, pleasure, and devoutness, and produces a pure heart and pure thoughts. For these words are not inoperative or dead, but creative, living words."
The Large Catechism, #100, Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 609. Tappert, p. 378f. Heiser, p. 175f.
Efficacy is the most neglected characteristic of God’s Word today, although it was central to Luther, the Concordists, the orthodox Lutherans of Europe, and the General Council in America. The efficacy of the Word was defined by WELS theologian Adolph Hoenecke: “The Word never without the Spirit, the Spirit never without the Word – that is sound doctrine.” Encapsulating the Scriptures and Confessions, that plain and simple formula means God Word and Spirit cannot be divorced from each other. If God’s Word is taught in its purity, without the adulteration of man’s wisdom, that Word will have its effect, whether to save or damn, illuminate or darken, convert or harden. Moreover, the timing of God’s work and will is not ours to judge. The efficacy of the Word is the point of contention in discussing the topic of justification. Enthusiasm—separating the Holy Spirit from the Word—lies behind every error in teaching justification, whether that error is advanced by Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, or synodical Lutherans. [A synodical Lutheran honors and protects the visible church, the synod. A confessional Lutheran values the Scriptures and Confessions above all.]
Starting a book with the authority and inerrancy of the Scriptures would allow many points of agreement with traditional Protestants and with Rome. Evangelicals are keen to sponsor inerrancy conferences. My wife and I attended one in Chicago, where Robert Preus and Kurt Marquart were in attendance. One of the best descriptions of the Scriptures is from Pope Pius XII – “The Scriptures are like Christ, having a divine and a human nature, but without error.” (Paraphrased from memory. Cited in Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant.) Tragically, Lutherans have been far too eager to concentrate on points of agreement rather than areas of discord. Abusing and neglecting the efficacy of the Word has made it easy for synodical Lutherans to engage in unionistic efforts without pangs of conscience. Compromise unites, while doctrine divides – the sheep from the goats.
The doctrine of Creation embarrasses synodical Lutherans because they must believe, teach, and confess the efficacy of the Word to allow Creation its rightful place. Modern Evangelicals, influenced by Harold Ockenga, are only too happy to surrender Creation to the theory of Evolution, that 19th century insight that gave us eugenics, genocide, and abortion. Roman Catholics can teach evolution with a good conscience because the Vatican has approved man’s ascent from apes (now revised as “descent” by the animal rights advocates). No one should be shocked that the “conservative” pastors who gladly embrace Church Growth are just as willing to abandon Creation:
"Don't let the world paint us into a corner of antiquarianism on subjects like a six-day creation or verbal inspiration." Rev. Paul Kelm, WELS, "How to Make Sound Doctrine Sound Good to Mission Prospects," p. 13.
"The evangelical believes that Christianity is intellectually defensible but the Christian cannot be obscurantist in scientific questions pertaining to the creation, the age of man, the universality of the flood and other moot Biblical questions." Rev. Harold J. Ockenga, 12-8-57, news release quoted in William E. Ashbrook, Evangelicalism, The New Neutralism, Columbus: Calvary Bible Church, 1963, p. 8.
"Thus, the Teaching of the Church leaves the doctrine of Evolution an open question, as long as it confines its speculations to the development, from other living matter already in existence, of the human body. (That souls are immediately created by God is a view which the Catholic faith imposes on us.) In the present state of scientific and theological opinion, this question may be legitimately canvassed by research, and by discussion between experts on both sides." Encyclical of Pius XII, Humani generis, August, 1950, #36. Cited in Remy Collin, Evolution, New York: Hawthorn Books, 1959, p. 117.
"Many Catholics hold what is known as 'moderate evolutionism,' that is, the theory that the human body evolved to a certain point from animals, and then God intervened directly and breathed into this living, animal body a human soul and so produced the first man and the first woman. Such a theory does not seem to be contrary to Catholic teaching, and Catholics are free to hold it." Kenneth Baker, S.J., Fundamentals of Catholicism, 3 vols., San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1982, II, p. 142.
Therefore, these leaders of compromise and retreat, Rome and Kelm and Ockenga, urge their disciples to look upon Creation as a burden, a terrible cross to bear. They are saying that we can make the revealed doctrine of God sound better if we process it, add sweeteners, and remove the splinters of the cross.
Synodical Lutherans will allow the doctrine of Creation to remain in the background, if no one insists on the Six-Day Creation. Are they embarrassed by God getting His work done in six 24-hour days, resting on the seventh? No, they are secretly scandalized by God working exclusively through the Word, because that Biblical doctrine denies them their glory, their agenda, their expensive programs of adulterating God’s Word. In short, the doctrine of Creation threatens their income and worldly honors, such as the Church Growth Hall of Shame.
Doctrine of Creation – Conversion – Efficacy
Before man existed, God fashioned the entire universe through the creating Word – the Son of God. When God spoke through the Logos (the Word), His will was immediately carried out, not in billions of years to allow for random events of infinite complexity. This issue is not antiquarian but essential to justification by faith.
KJV Galatians 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. 15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature [new creation].
KJV 2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature [new creation]: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
KJV Ephesians 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man,so making peace;
KJV Ephesians 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
KJV Colossians 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: 11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
The universe was created by the Word, and every believer is a new creation through the Word. But UOJ advocates would have us understand that God works without the Word in declaring the entire world absolved, free from sin, extending this Enthusiastic decree to the residents of Hell.
Christ unifies Creation and the new creation. The Fourth Gospel begins with phrases so simple that they serve well to introduce anyone to a new language. Each of the three clauses seems to be the ringing of a solemn bell—the Word, the Word, the Word—tolling the eternal Godhead of Christ Jesus, the foundation of the Christian faith, the cornerstone of the City of God.
A.In the beginning was the Word – The Incarnation, Virgin Birth, and Two Natures are implicit in the revelation of the pre-existence of Christ, five words in Greek, six in English. Jesus, the Word, has existed from the beginning, and therefore must be God. He is also man, having Two Natures, divine and human, in one person, Christ. Far from being absent in John’s Gospel, the Virgin Birth is assumed, since it is consistent with the Two Natures united in one person.
B.And the Word was with God – The Father/Son relationship, so clearly revealed in John’s Gospel, illuminates every passage of the Old Testament where God commands, speaks, and sends forth His Word. God speaks and the speaking is accomplished through the Word, the Son of God, co-equal in majesty.
C.And the Word was God – On the first day of Greek class, the slowest student, using a jimmy, can determine that all denials of the divinity of Christ are utterly rejected in a few words of child-like simplicity.
The Genesis commands, “and God said,” are the work of the Logos in John. The creating Word—He was in the beginning with God.
What the Word of God is no longer trusted to do is achieved with the psychological techniques of such modern evangelization. There is of course talk of the Holy Spirit, but one no longer knows who He is. It seems He can be measured and quantified. - Hermann Sasse, *We Confess: The Church* p. 23.
***
GJ - The quotation above is from Weedon's blog. A good source of Sasse wisdom is the Sassedotalist blog.
1) Even though they deny the idea of merging the seminaries is coming from official channels, then why was there an official summit discussing it at Ft. Wayne?
2) The LCMS HQ denied that they were going to sell KFUO-FM, and then a few months later it was sold. Kieschnick cares nothing for honesty.
3) there are only about 88 students in each seminary class taking the MDiv residency route. That hardly justifies having two seminaries, esp. when the cost is $18k and going up.
[GJ - Official denials draw attention to actual plans. The Boomers went to seminary for almost nothing, but they lavish offering money on themselves while forcing students into permanent debt. The congregations, pastors, and districts should be ashamed, but they are not.]
Helpful Information on the Status of the Seminaries in a Note from President Meyer to CSL Students
November 12th, 2009 Post by Pastor Tim Rossow
Dear Students,
A short e-mail to thank you for a good quarter! After the recession’s stomach punch last year, I’m thankful…
* That our Seminary is operating in the black;
* That there’s a good spirit/Spirit to move the Savior’s mission forward through us;
* That we’re looking at topics that will impact our futures in ministry, especially “Life Together.”
This is a unique place in the world and church, and I’m thankful for your positive contributions these past ten weeks.
As you have opportunity, please share the thanks of our Seminary community for the support (prayer support, encouraging words, and financial support) that so greatly helps us in our work of formation and mission.
And should the question come up about the future of LCMS seminaries…
Contrary to rumor, there is no offer from Washington University to buy our campus.
* There is no proposal “on the table” to close or consolidate seminary campuses. Yes, there is talk about such possibilities but it is not been put forward through established channels, not “on the table” but in the shadows.
* In the next weeks I will send you an e-mail report about the recent Summit in Ft. Wayne on the future of theological education.
* My time in the President’s Forum on December 2nd will be given to the rumors and realities about seminary futures.
I hope that you will enjoy a restful break. Jesus led His disciples away from ministry into times of rest, and I invite you to get away with Him and your loved ones to a quiet place that you may rest (Mark 6:31).
Last but not least, coming from a guy who in some ways gets more scared the older I get: Please drive safely!
Dale A. Meyer
Comments (4) Leave a comment
1.
sumbody
November 12th, 2009 at 11:19 | #1
Really in the Black. I am a doubting Thomas! Did Thrivent come thru again? I would like to see the books .
2.
Jack
November 12th, 2009 at 11:50 | #2
If the seminary is in the black, it likely means the students are in a deep, crimson red.
For the most part, when I was on campus (2005-2009), past letters informing students of the seminary operating in the black were never heavily celebrated, because those of us living on campus saw the bill for around $5,000 that arrived in each of our mailboxes every ten weeks.
It’s good that finances are somewhat tamed now in light of the recent economic problems, but I understand that tuition was to be raised by 3% starting with the new academic year. I suppose that means the recession for students goes on, because the tuition grants only cover around 40-50% of the charges.
Melanchthon was a hyper-European.
He would be banned today by LutherQuest (sic).
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Luther and Ordination":
Why don't we call ordination a sacrament? Because the author of the Formula insists it isn't:
Martin Chemnitz, Ministry, Word, and Sacrament: An Enchiridion
Q. 222
Q: "But why is ordination of ministers of the church not a Sacrament, though the Apostles laid hands on those called to the ministry and through that laying on of hands necessary gifts were conferred on ministers? (1 Ti.4:14; 2 Ti 1:6)
A: No doubt the legitimate call and ordination of ministers of the church is established by the Word of God and confirmed with the promise of divine blessing; and that affords very sweet comfort. But ordination does not have this promise, that he who wants to obtain the grace of God and eternal salvation must be invested with the holy priesthood. For also many who have prophesied will hear this fearful sentence of Christ on that day: I never knew you; depart from Me, etc. (Mt. 7:23). And besides, the laying on of hands has no express command in the Word of God, but the apostles used that ceremony as a thing indifferent, for the sake of public prayers.
And unction, which the papists practice in ordaining elders, has neither any command nor promise in the Scripture of the New Testament; but, contrary to the Word of God, it reduces the ministry of the New Testament to the shadows of Levitical ceremonies. Since, then, the ordination of ministers of the church lacks both the element and the promise of grace, both of which are required for the essence of a Sacrament in the New Testament, it neither is nor can be called a true sacrament.
---
7] The adversaries understand priesthood not of the ministry of the Word, and administering the Sacraments to others, but they understand it as referring to sacrifice; as though in the New Testament there ought to be a priesthood like the Levitical, to sacrifice for the people, and merit the remission of sins for others. 8] We teach that the sacrifice of Christ dying on the cross has been sufficient for the sins of the whole world, and that there is no need, besides, of other sacrifices, as though this were not sufficient for our sins. Men, accordingly, are justified not because of any other sacrifices, but because of this one sacrifice of Christ, if they believe that they have been redeemed by this sacrifice. 9] They are accordingly called priests, not in order to make any sacrifices for the people as in the Law, so that by these they may merit remission of sins for the people; but they are called to teach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments to the people. 10] Nor do we have another priesthood like the Levitical, 11] as the Epistle to the Hebrews sufficiently teaches. But if ordination be understood as applying to the ministry of the Word, we are not unwilling to call ordination a sacrament. For the ministry of the Word has God's command and glorious promises, Rom. 1:16: The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Likewise, Is. 55:11: So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of My mouth; it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please. Augsburg Apology
***
GJ - I don't want to go all Iowa Synod on the readers, but I can see both viewpoints. Of course, Chemnitz' fine book is not the ruled norm while the Apology is.
I find it rather dense to argue against a position taken by the Apology. By itself, Melanchthon's defense of the Augsburg Confession would be one of the great theological works in history.
But of course, the Synodical Conference has consistently taught a position against Luther - ever since Pieper, with the stage set by CFW Walther himself. The ELS has made the Book of Concord null and void while raising a Walther sermon to the level of Holy Writ. The Methodists did the same with Wesley's sermon collection - with predictable results.
I suggest people read the Apology's clear and compelling witness about justification by faith.
If more Zinzendorfs keep showing up, people will start reading the Book of Concord again.
***
PS - "Not unwilling" is a litotes, something not taught in the synodical education process, apparently. Here is a Mormon link to help out someone in need of rhetoric lessons.
The litotes is a way of insisting on something in a modest, understated way. If someone mentioned that I had over 3,200 posts, I could say, "I was not unaware of the total."
Or I might post, "Dealing with the evasions and confusions of the UOJ crowd is no small task." Does that mean it is a small effort or a Herculean labor?
---
LCMS Pastor Art Bolstad sent this:
"Ordination and installation look a lot alike, in a sense, both make a
man the pastor of sheep (the Greek word for "pastor" literally means
"shepherd". However, there is a difference.
When a man decides he should study to be a pastor, he is doing something
approved by God (1 Timothy 3:1). Notice the focus here on the desires
of the man. There is no call mentioned only his "desires". Notice too
that "desire" is not the same as achievement. In other words, just
because a man desires to be a pastor, does not mean that he will ever
actually be one.
In John 10:1-5 Jesus talks about the difference between a shepherd who
comes in through the door of the sheepfold and a thief who comes in over
the fence. Then in John 10:7 He says that He Himself is the door.
Ordination is the door through which the sub-shepherd meets His sheep.
A man attempting to "shepherd" sheep on his own (without going through
Jesus (the door) or not being ordained) is described in John 10:12-13 as
a hireling, and worthless.
Ordination places a man in an office created by God (administered by His
Church), the office of Pastor. In ordination a man accepts the
responsibility of being a shepherd for the sheep which God sends him.
Ordination itself does not imply that there are (or even will be) sheep
to be shepherded. Ordination is, if you will, between God and a man.
That ordination brings with it God's direction and blessings is
commented on in 1 Timothy 4:14). Both 1 Timothy 4:14 and 1 Timothy 5:22
say that ordination is given by other previously ordained pastors.
Ordination then is going through Christ as the door in John 10.
On the other hand, installation is when a pastor receives sheep to be
cared for. No one would want to be installed without the promise of
God's blessing on the man being installed, nor would the people
receiving the pastor want one who proposes to operate without God's
blessings. The choosing of a particular pastor is done by the
congregation (Acts 14:23).
Consider the parallel to the anointing of David. David was anointed
King as a young man but did not become King for around 20 years. Thus
there was a distinction between entering the office and entering the
application of the office. 1 Samuel 16:3; 2 Samuel 5:4. Also David
became King by the choice of the people even though he had been anointed
by Samuel some 15 years earlier.
Installation and ordination, as was commented above, are the activities
of 2 different sets of Gods representatives. Installation is a
congregational activity while ordination is a pastor's activity. The
meaning of each is different, they involve different sets of God's
representatives, and both are documented and prescribed in Scripture."
Tim Rossow - <--Mequon grads, left click on the link
As I read the opening editorial in the most recent Concordia Journal (page 10 or 346 here) from the St. Louis Seminary I was pleased to find the president, Dale Meyer, defending residency seminary education. He writes a stirring description of life for seminarians in an urban setting at the St. Louis campus and it is worth the read.
This is quite ironic (or maybe purposeful) since just last week President Kieschnick met with President Meyer and President Wenthe in Ft. Wayne to noodle the idea of closing down the seminaries and instead remaking pastoral education to be done in some sort of drive-by style combination of on-line courses and a few seminars at one of the Concordias, colleges that is, not seminaries.
Kudos to President Meyer. We have been critical of the seminaries, joining in with our cartoonist Scott Blazek in referring to the seminary professors as dust bunnies. In this editorial however, President Meyer takes an excellent stand on a timely issue. We would appreciate Dale Meyer being a little more direct. He never mentions the threat of closing down the seminaries but clearly this is a defense of on-site, residency based seminary education.
This is an important issue. How would you like your doctor to perform surgery on you based on a few on-line courses? If your MD messes up you only pay for it temporally. How would you like your pastor to operate on your soul based on a few on-line courses? If your M Div messes up you pay for it for eternity. (M Div refers to the Master of Divinity degree awarded to seminary graduates.)
There were some troubling aspects to the editorial. President Meyer announced a new program of joint work with the adjacent Fontbonne College. That is fine except that it is a Roman Catholic school To his credit President Meyer is quick to point out that the sharing is only in non-theological areas. That’s good but I just can’t imagine Martin Luther or C. F. W. Walther proposing any sort of joint work with a Roman Catholic college.
One of the proposals is the seminarians take some business courses at Fontbonne. I think it is good for seminarians to learn the basics of goal setting and how to create and manage a program in the parish where helpful to the Gospel but this is the least of our problems. Our problems in the LCMS are not of a practical, business nature but of a theological nature.
Thank you President Meyer for defending residency seminary training. Keep it up. We encourage you to be a little more direct but this is certainly a start toward the “dust bunnies” rising up and hopefully becoming a herd of stampeding “jackelopes” running over the proposals to close the seminaries, stampeding the BRTFSG proposals, and ultimately trampling the non-Lutheran Ablaze movement.
Note: For those of you unfamiliar with the “jackelope,” it ain’t no dust bunny! It is a mythic character, the product of some early photo-shop work that combined a jack-rabbit with an antelope. It was a fearsome looking character. It was seen on countless vacaton (sic) postcards mailed home from the great west back in the 60’s and 70’s. I think you can still find them in various tourist traps out west.
***
GJ - Do you remember how long ago I said Missouri would close the Ft. Wayne seminary? Nevertheless, The Surrendered Fort went ahead with a multi-million dollar expansion of the library.
St. Louis bought the entire college adjacent to it, later selling it for a loss. St. Louis has enjoyed princely donations from the Schwan Foundation. They built the Chapel of St. Timothy and Titus and Marvin with a princely donation from him. St. Louis also spent millions on the cafeteria and dorms.
Wisconsin, Missouri, and the Little Sect on the Prairie should have viewed St. Marvin of Schwan as a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, since all three have been in dire straits after enjoying an avalanche of money poured over their heads.
Incompetent leadership stretches back to the Bohlmann years (at least). The Shrinkers and women's ordination buffs got their start during The Terror, as the Bohlmann administration is fondly remembered. One faculty member of Missouri ordered something from me, but made sure I mailed it to his home address - not the school - during those years.
Nine years of Barry and McCain gave Pentecostals, Shrinkers, and unionists a playground larded with fat financials. Barry led boldly and decisively - in every direction. I met Kent Hunter (DMin, Fuller Seminary) on his way into the Purple Palace, where he taught the DPs and Barry how to grow the synod. The statistics, as Hunter and Werning taught me in their books, tell the story. Missouri has been in steep decline ever since.
There is the argument for the Church Growth Movement in graphics too horrifying to deny. There too is the bitter fruit of UOJ. The old Synodical Conference began with Pietism and Enthusiasm, aided by healthy flirtations with orthodoxy. Over time, all three synods have returned to their Pietistic roots.
Zinzendorf is a good example to remember - for bad results. With the best of intentions, he devoted his life to helping others at Herrnhut and supporting missions. His son got another settlement going that was so bad the guys could have starred in Party in Fire Island Pines.
Dale Meyer is defending his hyper-expensive residential seminary? How charming. The seminary posted a video of Meyer interviewing heresiarch Leonard Sweet, the Missouri leader looking like a devoted puppy ready to spring into Sweet's lap and nibble his ear. For that alone, St. Louis should be closed.
Our Lady of Sorrows gave Paul Calvin Kelm a DMin in Church Growth. For that alone, St. Louis should be closed.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Another Hoo-Hah from UOJ":
Justification is not difficult.
"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and [all] are justified freely by the redemption that came through Christ Jesus."
All sinned... all justified.
The passage cannot mean: "All have sinned.... and some with faith are justified." Or "when they have faith they are justified." Such renderings just plain change the clear Word.
Part of the problem with this whole discussion is that there is a confusion of dogmatic loci (spheres). UOJ belongs in the locus on "Basis of Salvation" and JBF belongs in the locus on "Order of Salvation."
It is the Pietists who would love the emphasis on faith. Historically, that's all they wanted to talk about. Pietists find their comfort and security in their faith. Read Timothy Verinus Vol. 1 Ch. 5 (and note that the "double justification" mentioned there is NOT a reference to UOJ.)
Also, the Greek word for preach is "khrusso" - "to proclaim." Preaching is a proclamation, an announcement of what God has done. In order for a proclamation to be made, there must be an objective truth to proclaim. The Gospel is an announcement of what God has done for the world in Christ. What has he done? Forgiven all their sins. That is why the risen Lord Jesus said (Luke 24) that "repentance for the forgiveness of sins" be proclaimed in his name.
Both sides here are talking past each other. True, UOJ could be wrongly used to support some idea of universalism, but JBF could also wrongly be used to promote the idea that some condition must be met in man before God forgives him. (Then we're back to the intuitu fidei controversy...)
Just because some people (apparently) misuse the phrase doesn't mean that the phrase is inherently wrong. UOJ is properly taught to emphasize the truth that our salvation is entirely God's own work -- "extra hominum", as our Lutheran forefathers put it -- and is emphasized to guard against man taking any tiny bit of credit for his salvation. (read Koberle, Ch. 3, on this)
***
GJ - I am glad our Zinzendorf posted this, so people could see how the UOJ Pietists operate. The posturing reminds me of several people, but I will not venture to guess which one it is. Zinzendorf came to America, using a false name. All...all the Shrinkers and Pietists use the same name - Anonymous.
He wants to build his castle on all, without citing the actual passage. Let me quote one of their favorite UOJ passages:
KJV Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
This means that judgment came to all men, through Adam, so also the free gift of salvation comes to all men for justification. Of course, the Gospel of salvation comes to all men, because the Atonement is universal. However, the UOJ magic is lost in the next verse - "shall many be made righteous." No one can turn many into all. Our Zinzendorf is a false teacher, an Enthusiast, a liar who uses the Word of God to overturn the Scriptures - maladroitly, of course.
Zinzie has to reword verse 19 to refute it - a lame Straw Man fallacy. The plain meaning of the passage trumps the faux-intellectual version of Z.
"It is the Pietists who would love the emphasis on faith. Historically, that's all they wanted to talk about."
Guilt by association! Faith talk - why that be Pietistic. "Historically..." - more unwarranted assumptions from a gasbag. The Pietists were obsessed with visible results - Shrinkers of their day, just as divisive and destructive as the Shrinkers of our day.
"What has he done? Forgiven all their sins."
Begging the question! The Scriptures clearly say - He has paid for their sins, quite different from pronouncing absolution on Hottentots and Hindoos (I like the old spellings, like Eskimaux.)
"Both sides here are talking past each other."
Reu correctly identified the marks of a unionist as including the desire to erase doctrinal differences. La-dee-dah. There are no real differences here, not in substance. A few more Latin references, from me, and vague citations of deep books read, by me, and a blueprint of Toad Hall, by me, and all questions will be resolved.
Lenski wrote in his Romans commentary:
If a world justification were intended, the word employed would have to be dikaioma. Paul even adds zoe, for this justifying action admits "to life" everlasting, which only those receive who "receive the gift of the righteousness" by faith although Christ won it for all men. Romans, 5:18, p. 379.
---
L P has left a new comment on your post "Our Zinzendorf":
Why is it that UOJers love to chop off Scripture?
Here is the actual quote in context:
Romans 3:
23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
The often leave out verse 25.
LPC
***
GJ - The UOJ Stormtroopers do not comprehend the Means of Grace, so they cannot harmonize their Enthusiasm with hundreds of Scriptural passages. Why do they chop verses? They are Antinomians who imagine the Law is obsolete, so whatever they do to advance their cause is meet, right, and salutary, at all times and places.
Luther sagt:
"Let everyone, therefore, who knows himself to be a Christian, be assured of this, that we are all equally priests, that is to say, we have the same power in respect to the Word and the sacraments. However, no one may make use of this power except by the consent of the community or by the call of a superior. (For what is the common property of all, no individual may arrogate to himself, unless he is called.) And therefore this “sacrament” of ordination, if it is anything at all, is nothing else than a certain rite whereby one is called to the ministry of the church. Furthermore, the priesthood is properly nothing but the ministry of the Word—the Word, I say; not the law, but the gospel. And the diaconate is the ministry, not of reading the Gospel or the Epistle, as is the present practice, but of distributing the church’s aid to the poor, so that the priests may be relieved of the burden of temporal matters and may give themselves more freely to prayer and the Word. For this was the purpose of the institution of the diaconate, as we read in Acts 5 [6:1–6]."
Note also AC XIV: Ordination maketh not the pastor. The divine call maketh the pastor.
***
GJ - I wonder why some want to insist "ordination is not a sacrament." The Book of Concord disagrees with that claim. I find Lutherans staking a claim on one little part of the plant and calling it the entire Church, something Krauth observed about the sectarians.
If "the call makes the pastor," then almost everyone in WELS is a pastor. Everyone gets a call, even the kindergarten teacher.
WELS and the ELS enablers did their best to enforce a Reformed view of the pastoral ministry. The worst Shrinkers are the ones who are quick to correct anyone who fails to use their terms their way, but they are happy to dream away in Fuller Fantasy land.
The WELS view of the ministry can be called Papo-Babtist. They are eager to be little popes in their parish, but their doctrine is Babtist lite.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Justification Book, First Installment":
Pastor GJ or Brett, can you explain this example of justification that a WELS pastor has used many times:
"The supermarket is giving away free turkeys for everyone. However, you have to go to(drive or walk) the supermarket to receive the turkey".
I know that their are others in the WELS that understand this as the proper teaching. Correct me if I am wrong, but I read Luther's works all the time and I just do not see how the example is fully orthodox.
In Christ,
from WELS chuch lady
***
GJ - "All analogies limp," as Gawa taught us at Mequon. This analogy stumbles and falls. The comparison is very J. P. Meyer-ish. Synergism (Reformed doctrine ) is exemplified by "God has done this, so you must do that." Some Reformed teachers say, "You must complete the transaction." What is the Means of Poultry in this example?
The Word of God teaches that God conveys Christ to us through the Holy Spirit working in the Means of Grace (the invisible Word of preaching and teaching, the visible Word of Baptism and Holy Communion) - to plant faith in our hearts and to nurture that faith. WELS is thoroughly Pietistic, so many are in the dark about the Means of Grace.
---
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Another Hoo-Hah from UOJ":
What is so difficult about justification that MLC and Mequon graduates do not get it? I fail to see how they can go on and on about UOJ, and then get it wrong. Is the quality of the instructors, the students, what?
***
GJ - One little window in their souls was provided in the October issue of FIC. Bivens, one of several Shrinkers published in that issue, was denouncing sodomy while MLC students were posting their version of the gay video from Fire Island Pines - and defending their version!
Genesis 19:5-8 and Jude 7 confirm that the Sodomites were guilty of homosexuality. Both references, in their original Hebrew and Greek, use idiomatic language to identify and describe homosexual sin, and it pays to be aware of this. Those who deny that homosexuality was involved seek linguistic loopholes from the idiomatic language. Nevertheless, biblical language dictionaries confirm that homosexuality prevailed in Sodom and its surrounding towns.
Ezekiel 16:49,50 does not explicitly mention sodomy or homosexuality as the cause of divine judgment on these lost cities but tells us that they were guilty of additional immoralities. Arrogance and social injustice are highlighted. Second Peter 2:6,7 leaves the nature of their ungodliness unspecified.
Letting all of these passages speak leads us to conclude that Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of homosexuality; arrogance; violence; inhospitality; and a self-centered apathy toward others, especially the poor and needy. These cities impenitently spurned God’s grace in a number of ways and invited divine judgment.
People who have already made up their minds that homosexuality is morally acceptable desire to understand the biblical testimony differently. Invariably, modern defenders of homosexuality conclude that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their violent and greedy behavior. They interpret Genesis 19 as condemning homosexual rape, which would be parallel to heterosexual rape. These texts are said not to apply to consensual homosexual activities. These defenders say that “loving, committed, same-sex relationships” are approved.
Advocates of homosexuality also say that Jude’s words “strange flesh” (the idiomatic expression he uses in the King James Version for sexual perversion) refer not to homosexuality but to the desire to have sexual relations with angels. It takes some exegetical mind-bending to arrive at this conclusion, but powerful presuppositions are able to pave the way for these advocates.
Look for balanced conclusions
You ask if God’s severe judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah teaches us that homosexuality is a worse sin than others and perhaps qualifies as unforgivable. Here is where other Bible sections guide us to a balanced conclusion. In Matthew 11:20-24, Jesus denounces other cities for being unrepentant despite the miracles he performed among them. While he does not excuse or deny the guilt of Sodom, he makes it clear that others may sin even more grievously and pay a greater price on the Last Day. First Corinthians 6:9-11 confirms that homosexuality is a serious sin that calls for divine judgment, but it also affirms that it is fully forgivable and that many former homosexuals enjoy new life and heavenly citizenship through faith in Christ. In Romans 1:21-27, Paul uses homosexuality as an example of how God may deal with hardened sinners and use sexual perversions as a judgment. But other passages remind us that homosexuality, like other sin, is forgivable despite deserving God’s anger and punishment.
For a balanced biblical perspective on this important subject, I hope that all interested readers will take the time to examine the Bible sections mentioned above and walk away with a renewed appreciation of the seriousness of all sin and the greatness of God’s love in Christ.
Contributing editor Forrest Bivens, a professor at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary, Mequon, Wisconsin, is a member at Calvary, Thiensville.
Author:
Forrest L. Bivens
Subscribe to FIC
This monthly magazine, sent to almost 50,000 subscribers, addresses important issues facing Christians today.
Order online
Search the Archive
Begin by entering a topic. Then press "GO".
"
I find it hard to object to free publicity. I will even make the offer to send a .pdf version of the paper to anyone interested; it will have the Hebrew and Greek intact and make dealing with the footnotes an appendices a little easier. You can email me at akring@me.com.
