We used to laugh about the febrile WELS leaders having CG-asms. They would announce with great excitement that they just discovered "another Church Growth Principle."
I have just discovered antithetical statements in the Book of Concord.
All these years I have been pummeled for stating that marketing the Gospel is false doctrine. "That is Christian-bashing" I was told. I have been eviscerated in public for saying Fuller Seminary is the Great Sewer of Protestantism in America. "That is legalism. They are Christians. We can learn from them, too. I went to the Ohio Conference to deal with legalism down there." (Valleskey, on his Spoiling the Egyptians masterpiece, plagiarized from Larry Crab, who plagiarized Augustine, each crib far dumber than the previous one).
Here is one antithetical introduction in the Book of Concord:
From these, the antithesis also, that is, the false contrary dogmas, are manifest, namely, that in addition to the errors recounted above also the following and similar ones, which conflict with the explanation now published, must be censured, exposed, and rejected, as when it is taught:
That is from the Righteousness of Faith section in the Formula of Concord. Not it is not the Righteousness of No Faith, as the UOJ people would claim. They should read their Book of Concord, that big fat book behind the pile of synodical 3-ring binders.
Oh! Oh! Oh! I found another one:
38] However, it by no means follows thence that we are to say simpliciter and flatly: Good works are injurious to believers for or as regards their salvation; for in believers good works are indications of salvation when they are done propter veras causas et ad veros fines (from true causes and for true ends), that is, in the sense in which God requires them of the regenerate, Phil. 1, 20; for it is God's will and express command that believers should do good works, which the Holy Ghost works in believers, and with which God is pleased for Christ's sake, and to which He promises a glorious reward in this life and the life to come.
39] For this reason, too, this proposition is censured and rejected in our churches, because as a flat statement it is false and offensive, by which discipline and decency might be impaired, and a barbarous, dissolute, secure, Epicurean life be introduced and strengthened. For what is injurious to his salvation a person should avoid with the greatest diligence. (Good Works, Formula of Concord)
Censured and rejected? Strong words. A good test of Lutheran knowledge is this - Which man promoted good works as necessary? Which one denounced good works as injurious to salvation? Both men were important leaders after Luther. Major - good works are necessary. Amsdorf - good works are injurious. Can anyone imagine this happening today? No, the synods are too busy proving everyone is infallible by kicking out anyone who dissents.
The old Synodical Conference will keep on breeding Universalism by teaching justification without faith, absolution of the world without the Word. One man went to a dreary Easter service where everyone was promised death. "But that's OK. Everyone here is going to heaven." As he said, there is not much preaching that can be done with UOJ.
It is, therefore, dangerous and wrong to convert the Gospel, properly so called, as distinguished from the Law, into a preaching of repentance or reproof [a preaching of repentance, reproving sin]. For otherwise, if understood in a general sense of the entire doctrine, also the Apology says several times that the Gospel is a preaching of repentance and the forgiveness of sins. Meanwhile, however, the Apology also shows that the Gospel is properly the promise of the forgiveness of sins and of justification through Christ, but that the Law is a doctrine which reproves sins and condemns. (Law and Gospel, Formula of Concord)
Dangerous and wrong? Are they talking about Paul Kelm, who starts with the Gospel and moves to the Law? Or Wayne Mueller? Oh my.
Luther did not start the Reformation, by the grace of God, because he discovered the Gospel. After all, Spalatin explained the Gospel to him. The Gospel never went away. Luther mortally wounded the Whore of Babylon by distinguishing between sound doctrine and false doctrine. The pope (like our Lutheran popes today) could not stand antithetical statements. Without them, anything can be claimed, no matter what is intended.
Lutherans teach salvation by grace. So do Roman Catholics. A Lutheran/Roman Catholic conversation can be quite pleasant until one defines what is and what is not grace.
The Lutheran organizations have adopted a Roman Catholic attitude about doctrine - You can teach and believe whatever you want as long as you do not denounce anything. That is why pockets of dissent exist here and there, happily chirping to each other about how bad things are, but silent about false doctrine. A Roman Catholic priest can march in a religious procession with the seminary professors of the ELS and no one objects. An archbishop pedophile can teach WELS and the public while district popes defend and deny.
Ichabodians - watch and listen as pastors studiously avoid doing what the Book of Concord practices: publishing the antithetical statement. Until that happens consistently, the visible Lutheran Church will remain in the Slough of Despond.
