tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post5686266249175226827..comments2024-01-02T16:09:57.364-07:00Comments on Intrepid Lutherans: "Walking Together Sunday" - The SermonIntrepid Lutheranshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05867580862562801804noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-27836928488672292162010-10-08T08:34:04.429-07:002010-10-08T08:34:04.429-07:00Rebecca Quam, aka "WELS Church Lady":
I...Rebecca Quam, aka "WELS Church Lady":<br /><br />I apologize for my tardiness in responding to this point (I don't visit this site regularly, and don't have time for engaging in these discussions).<br /><br />You did say something that I wanted to respond to, however - and it's not about (U)OJ.<br /><br />You said:<br />"Pastor Samelson requests that Joe Krohn ask a WELS Pastor. Let me tell you, "I have been there and done that." I asked one Pastor about UOJ and he said, "Where did you hear something like that?" This same pastor only used the term 'universal justfication' and acted like he never heard of UOJ.(hum?) A second pastor laughed, shook his head, and said that there are too many takes on this doctrine within the WELS. He laughed at a 'certain' 2005 WELS Convention essay. "<br /><br />What happened after this? I ask, because as a pastor I'll tell you what I would want you to have done: Say something to the effect of "That's not helping me much, Pastor X. I really want to know about this, because it seems like an important issue and if it's not, I need to know why it's not. Could you please do some more research and get back to me?"<br /><br />I bring this up because there is a problem in the church at large, even within the WELS -- a problem which has been exponentially exacerbated by the internet -- of accepting the unacceptable from one's pastor and using that as an excuse to go pastor-shopping (if not actual church-shopping). <br /><br />For a pastor to laugh off, minimize, or otherwise duck a serious doctrinal inquiry from one of his members is unacceptable, and it is good an proper for the sheep to hold their pastor accountable for such. In most cases all it takes is a request for more seriousness (as in my example above), but to simply treat it as "I guess going to my pastor here is a waste of time" is also unacceptable (I'm not saying that's what you did in this particular case, but it happens too often). The pastor's call to shepherd his flock is a divine call, with responsibilities incumbent both upon him and upon the members of the church.<br /><br />What happens when church members "pastor-shop"? Something about "itching ears" comes to mind, but even the most sincere and well-intentioned "shoppers" can be taken in by men (who might themselves be sincere and well-intentioned) who are all too willing to say, "Oh, you were mistreated. Oh, the reason you didn't get a straight answer is because there is none, and they're trying to hide it. Here's what's really going on, and what the truth really is …" and the errant sheep is seduced by the erring shepherd.<br /><br />Again, I'm not saying this is what happened in your specific case, but your comments brought this problem to mind and I felt it worth addressing. There's much more to say here, but I don't think I have time to say it! :)Pastor Jeff Samelsonhttp://www.christlutheran.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-28219149645973356062010-10-07T18:54:00.052-07:002010-10-07T18:54:00.052-07:00The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's peop...The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen. <br />Revelation 22:21.(NIV)Lisette Anne Lopezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17937652817511406106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-7389028290000680242010-10-06T19:40:07.128-07:002010-10-06T19:40:07.128-07:00In the words of George H.W. Bush (as immitated by ...In the words of George H.W. Bush (as immitated by Dana Carvey): "Na ga do!"Joel Lillohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13932613418526752293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-72593617390707561032010-10-06T15:44:33.749-07:002010-10-06T15:44:33.749-07:00Joel, thanks for your reply. I was just looking f...Joel, thanks for your reply. I was just looking for confessional documentation for UOJ in order to have a fruitful discussion and not an argument. After years of study on the doctrine of Justification, the doctrine of Universal Objective Justification and discussions with laity and clergy of the ELS, WELS, CLC, LCMS I am convinced that there is a chasm between Justification as declared by Scripture and the Confessions and the doctrine of UOJ in all it's forms and expressions. I would like to say we are brothers in Christ, but unless we exchange words which clarify each others confession concerning the ultimate clarity of God's Word, the one true doctrine, I cannot determine if we are brothers in Christ. As a member of the (W)ELS you stand by the (W)ELS confession of Justification in This We Believe then I can say we are not. I see that Pastor Spencer has posted that document as the universally accepted (W)ELS confession of UOJ and will hopefully continue the discussion there. I would urge you not to retire from these discussions. They are an opportunity to discuss the efficacy and clarity of God's pure Word in the Words and doctrines that He has given His Church and in His gracious mercy and loving kindness He promises to always work through these Words alone to the benefit of anyone who by the gracious work of the Holy Spirit, reads, marks, learns and inwardly digests them.Brett Meyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15916121605136512091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-63005908846347487572010-10-06T13:57:37.893-07:002010-10-06T13:57:37.893-07:00Brett--
I don't want to get into an argument ...Brett--<br /><br />I don't want to get into an argument with you. Frankly, I don't think it's worth arguing about. From all I've read about this debate, you and I are in agreement about this issue. We both agree that when Jesus died on the cross, he paid for all of the sins of the world. I just think that it is not unbiblical to refer to it in terms of justification and you do think it is unbiblical. I trust that you are a believer in Jesus and have this justification as a posession because of Jesus' work and I hope you can think of me as a brother in Christ because God has led me to believe in this through holy Baptism and has sustained this faith through his Word. That's really the important thing. What theologians call this is secondary.<br /><br />--Joel Lillo<br />Retiring from I.L. once again!Joel Lillohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13932613418526752293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-83383022069993918162010-10-06T12:01:41.736-07:002010-10-06T12:01:41.736-07:00Joel Lillo, please post a link to where the (W)ELS...Joel Lillo, please post a link to where the (W)ELS' official confession concerning the doctrine of Universal Objective Justification can be found. This way the specific doctrinal details can be discussed without reservation. Hopefully it is a confession in the style of the Lutheran Confessions with, this we believe and this we reject. It is the (W)ELS' cental doctrine after all. <br />If such a confessional document doesn't exist, please link the universally accepted essay from the Lutheran church fathers detailing UOJ.<br />If there isn't one that is universally accepted, please link the modern equivalent that is universally accepted.<br />If that doesn't exist please link the confessional UOJ document that you accept without reservation.<br /><br />Thank you,<br />Brett MeyerBrett Meyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15916121605136512091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-8400848463405235372010-10-06T07:08:36.750-07:002010-10-06T07:08:36.750-07:00Pr. Lillo,
Nice to have you back!
I'm not su...Pr. Lillo,<br /><br />Nice to have you back!<br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean about shutting down comments. It's been ages since we rejected any comments. We're putting through the ones that come and allowing the discussion to continue.Rev. Paul A. Rydeckihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01447491206453142100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-228044379282984162010-10-06T06:55:53.773-07:002010-10-06T06:55:53.773-07:00Have you shut down comments because of an argument...Have you shut down comments because of an argument about UOJ?!?!?! To my mind, this is the dumbest debate that has ever raged in Lutherandom. I say that because what the opponents of UOJ say is the "truth" (universal atonement vs. universal objective justification) is so close to UOJ that it is a distinction without a difference. Have the Intrepid Lutherans grown tepid over this stupid argument?<br />--Joel LilloJoelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-91896427103959814222010-09-29T17:39:01.876-07:002010-09-29T17:39:01.876-07:00My apologies, Pastor Samelson for misspelling your...My apologies, Pastor Samelson for misspelling your name.<br /><br />Joe KrohnJoe Krohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08675123326627773329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-91774224352975610662010-09-29T16:55:47.214-07:002010-09-29T16:55:47.214-07:00Douglas,
If you got the impression that I was dow...Douglas,<br /><br />If you got the impression that I was downplaying the sacrament, I apologize. As I said...whether you increase or decrease the frequency you need to question the motive. Personally, I go whenever I can because I know I need it. My church does not offer it every week. If they did, I would go every week.<br /><br />Pastor Samuelson,<br /><br />I don't deny the objective work of Jesus on the cross. But let's call it what it is. There is a reason that the two justifications have a bad history. When we use words to describe that work such as justification, righteousness or forgiveness, we are trying to put a round peg in a square hole. That is why Wycliffe invented the word atonement because there was no word in English that accurately describes the work of the cross. Those words don't work separately or in combination. There is no maybe about what words John the Baptist chose. What he said fits with atonement. Jesus takes away the sin of the world. He died that all would be saved and his death makes salvation possible for all men. But none are forgiven unless they receive faith through hearing the word and repent of their sin. The atoning sacrifice of Jesus sets aside salvation for those who believe in his promises. How can anyone with a straight face say that the souls in hell have their sins forgiven and are justified? This is why the sin against the Holy Spirit is so damning. The hard heart denies the word and the messenger (Holy Spirit) that brings the good news of salvation. The Ministry of the Keys shows us how repentance and forgiveness work.<br /><br />I have to disagree about this being the right place. It needs to be discussed and as long as the Intrepid Lutherans provide a platform for discussion and call attention to these matters, we should take advantage of it. There should be no sloppiness when it comes to a sermon coming from synod. I think it exposes symptoms of a bigger problem. To me this notion of an objective justification on all of mankind hints at universalism.<br /><br />Respectfully Submitted,<br /><br />Joe KrohnJoe Krohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08675123326627773329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-71477816170700745642010-09-29T09:06:29.878-07:002010-09-29T09:06:29.878-07:00"Just trying to help." Yes, Thank you Mr..."Just trying to help." Yes, Thank you Mr. Lindee.<br /><br />"For without faith no one can be be saved; and without the Word there can be no true faith. Therefore, he who does not have the Word of God cannot be saved, because he cannot receive faith. But who ever already has true and justifying faith through the hearing of the Word, though he has by faith accepted the reconciliation...."<br /><br />In response to Pastor Samelson, you CANNOT seperate the Word from the Holy Spirit. It is called Enthusiam(look into it!) Enthusiast(s)-From Greek for "one possessed by a god." The Lutheran Confessions use this term to describe fanatics who believed that god spoke to them without the Holy Scriptures and would save them without the means of grace.(definition taken from Comcordia The Lutheran Confessions-2005 CPH)<br /><br />Pastor Samelson requests that Joe Krohn ask a WELS Pastor. Let me tell you, "I have been there and done that." I asked one Pastor about UOJ and he said, "Where did you hear something like that?" This same pastor only used the term 'universal justfication' and acted like he never heard of UOJ.(hum?) A second pastor laughed, shook his head, and said that there are too many takes on this doctrine within the WELS. He laughed at a 'certain' 2005 WELS Convention essay. The essay refered to 'other' teachings of this doctrine within the WELS, as a "mishmash." How about some of the other things that I have read about? Kokomo!!(aka guilt free saints in hell) Worse, is that my aunt is seeking membership to a Community Church that calls Communion an ordinance. Like her, non-Lutherans do not understand the means of grace.<br /><br />So yes, Mr. Lindee's Chemnitz quote discusses the sacrement of communion and justification by faith. That being said, I do admire Pastor Samelson's confessional stance. He has commented on some of the other confessional Lutheran blogs. Like all the other Intrepids, he is standing against apostasy. Just seeing all these WELS pastors positively comeenting on this blog, I say, "Praise be to God!"<br /><br />One more thing. I am asking pastor "Garland TX" to get out of the Real-Time Feed Jet and start commenting on the blog. You told me that you were sleeping, so get some coffee because I'm sure everyone would like to hear from you. Pastor Tomczak, Harvey Dunn, and I did not sign-on as official Intrepid delegates from the DFW circuit. Toss in Joe Krohn and we have district representation.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Rebecca QuamWELS church ladyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619436777327287395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-74023868929064274192010-09-28T20:30:18.410-07:002010-09-28T20:30:18.410-07:00...Continued from previous post
In this way the s......Continued from previous post<br /><br /><i>In this way the sacraments are for us signs strengthening our faith in the promise of the Gospel; with respect to God they are instruments or means through which God in the Word, by His power and working, conveys, applies, seals, confirms, increases, and preserves the grace of the Gospel promise to those who believe... This teaching extols the dignity of the sacraments and kindles true reverence for their use. It is from these bases that the explanation of the question which is before us is taken. For how could pious ears bear or give heed to those profane statements that the sacraments are superfluous, and that they can safely be despised and neglected without the loss of salvation, when it is certain from the Word of God that God instituted them to aid our weakness and that, in order that He might show the riches of His goodness for procuring our salvation, He himself instituted sacraments or means that through them, by the power and working of the Holy Spirit, our faith, no matter how feeble and infirm, might be able to lay hold of grace and retain it, sealed to salvation and eternal life? The sacraments are therefore necessary both by reason of the weakness of our faith, for which aids of this kind are necessary, and by reason of the divine institution, because God instituted them for this purpose and to this end, that He might through them convey, apply, and seal the Mediator's benefits to believers for salvation. These things are neither useless nor superfluous, but necessary.<br /><br />In this sense we gladly grant that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, namely, as the instrumental cause. Nevertheless, this declaration must be added, that the sacraments are not so absolutely necessary for salvation as are faith and the Word. For without faith no one can be saved; and without the Word there can be no true faith. Therefore, he who does not have the Word of God cannot be saved, because he cannot receive faith. But whoever already has the true and justifying faith through the hearing of the Word, though he has by faith accepted the reconciliation, will not in any way despise the use of the sacraments for the above reasons. Or if he despises it, his faith is not true, for it does not retain its essential quality, which consists in the mutual relation of the Word and faith, namely, that faith seeks and apprehends the word of promise wherever God sets it forth by His institution.</i><br /><br />Chemnitz, M. (1978). <i>Examination of the Council of Trent</i> (Vol. 2; F. Kramer, Trans.). St. Louis: Concordia Publishiing House. (Original work published in sections, 1565-1573). pp. 61-68.<br /><br />In the last paragraph quoted above, Chemnitz distinguishes between the necessity of the sacraments and the absolute necessity of the Word. C.P. Krauth uses this same language in a discussion of Baptism, referring to the preaching of the Word as <i>necessary in the absolute sense</i>, and baptism (or the sacraments) as <i>necessary in the ordinary sense</i>. Chemnitz also follows from this point to discuss those with faith who nevertheless remained without opportunity to use the sacraments before death, in which case they cannot be said to have despised the sacraments no have their faith held up to question. For those with the opportunity, the same cannot be said. <br /><br />Without dictating frequency, or fixing times and places, as the SC and LC would caution us from doing, I will offer the following observation: it seems to me to be the product of a "Theology of Glory" which is rampant in pop-Christianity today, if not preached among us on occasion, that would cause us to think that our faith is so strong that we don't need the regular and frequent aid of the sacraments, as Chemnitz describes. With respect to our faith, we are weaklings, as Christ reminded His disciples frequently, even if we don't realize it.<br /><br />Just trying to help...<br /><br />Douglas LindeeMr. Douglas Lindeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08326973217859277204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-61933909897812375922010-09-28T20:29:08.594-07:002010-09-28T20:29:08.594-07:00...Continued from previous post
When the issue is......Continued from previous post<br /><br /><i>When the issue is shaped this way, the explanation will not be difficult, and it will profitably remind us of many things that excite in our minds true reverence for the sacraments. However, it depends on a consideration of the teaching as to why God added sacraments to the promise of the Gospel. For God, who ordained the satisfaction of His Son, the Mediator, that it should merit and obtain our salvation; who also ordained that faith should be our hand, as it were, by which we may reach for, lay hold of, and accept the grace of God in Christ -- the same God also ordained a certain means or instrument by which He wills to offer and confer the benefits of the Son, the Mediator, for our salvation, in order that faith may have and know a certain means in which it can seek and obtain grace and salvation.<br /><br />Such a means or instrument of God is the Word of the Gospel when it is preached, heard, meditated upon, and apprehended by faith... Now, surely, since God through the Word offers and conveys, faith in the word also apprehends and receives, not something that is only a half, and insufficient, but the grace which is necessary for salvation, so that the Gospel may be "the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith." There arises then the question what the use of the sacraments is, or for what reasons God by His own institution added the external rites of the sacraments to the promise of the Gospel. And indeed there are many men, some fanatics, some wicked, who both think and proclaim that the use of the sacraments is superfluous and not necessary. The souls also of the godly are often tried by thoughts like these: "Since God through the Word offers and conveys all things that are necessary for salvation, and since faith can find and lay hold of them in the Word, what need is there of sacraments? Therefore the use of the sacraments could be neglected without the loss of salvation."<br /><br />Rightly do we reply from the Word of God in opposition to such temptations or clamors of the fanatics that the sacraments, which God Himself instituted that they should be aids to our salvation, are by no means to be judged either as useless of superfluous, so that they could be safely neglected or despised. For Augustine rightly says, ..."The power of the sacraments is unspeakable great, and therefore it makes those who despise them guilty of sacrilege. For something is being wickedly despised without which godliness cannot be perfected."<br /><br />...[W]hen faith declares that the promise of God is true in general, it is worried chiefly about the question of whether it also pertians to me personally. Therefore God, who is rich in mercy, that He might show and commend to us the riches of His goodness, did not want to exhibit His grace to us in one way only, namely by the bare Word, but He willed to assist our infirmity through certain aids, namely through the sacraments which He instituted and joined to the promise of the Gospel, that is, through certain signs, rites, or ceremonies which meet the senses, that by means of them He might impress upon us, instruct, and make certain that what we perceive as being done outwardly in a visible manner in inwardly effected in us by the strength and power of God; for as the Word enters our ears and toughes the hearts, so the rite of the sacrament enters the eyes that it may move the hearts, that we may not doubt that God is dealing with us and wills to be efficacious in us for salvation according to His Word. For through the Word, and through the external signs instituted by Himself, He is wont to deal with men... Therefore God instituted the sacraments to be external and visible signs and pledges of the grace and will of God toward us, by which, as through a glorious visible testimony, He testifies that the promise belongs to those individuals who embrace it by faith as they use the sacraments...</i><br /><br />Continued in next post...Mr. Douglas Lindeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08326973217859277204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-54449266561956118552010-09-28T20:28:39.978-07:002010-09-28T20:28:39.978-07:00Joe,
You're correct when you say of the Sacra...Joe,<br /><br />You're correct when you say of the Sacraments that "they are not necessary for salvation," but I would like to offer some qualification and clarification of that statement -- not to pick on you, since I see that Rev. Samelson has already addressed another point you made, but to use this statement as reason for discussing the necessity of the sacraments. As the question of communion frequency began heating up in this thread, I started rereading some of Chemnitz's <i>Examination of the Council of Trent</i>, focusing on some of the sections dealing with the sacraments. Martin Chemnitz, as I'm sure you know, rose to leadership in the generation of Lutherans immediately following Luther, serving as chief author of the <i>Formula of Concord</i>, compiling the Book of Concord, and returning unity to Lutheranism under common public confession, which had become fractured after the death of Luther. As you may also know, the Roman Catholic counter-reformation began in earnest with the convening of the Council of Trent (1545-1563), just shortly before Luther's death, which addressed the doctrinal claims of the Reformation Lutherans and other protestants, by issuing sweeping condemnation of practically every non-Roman distinctive of Reformation Christianity. Martin Chemnitz's <i>Examen</i> was the detailed Lutheran rebuttal to the Council's Cannon's and decrees, and to this day serves as the starting point for discussion between Rome and confessional Lutheranism, should genuine doctrinal discussion ever be entertained.<br /><br />Anyway, in Volume 2 of Chemnitz's <i>Examen</i>, he admits that the Sacraments are not necessary for <i>obtaining</i> salvation, but <i>are</i> necessary for <i>maintaining</i> it. I quote (at length, so please bear with me...):<br /><br /><i>The things which are necessary for salvation must be distinguished, as Christ meriting it, the Father governing, the instruments of sacraments of the Word and of the sacraments through which the Holy Spirit offers, conveys, seals, increases, and confirms those benefits of the New Testament in the believers, and finally faith, which lays hold of those benefits. Each of these is ordained in its own way and in its own place for our salvation. And just as it does not follow: The sacraments are necessary salvation, therefore Christ has not alone acquired it for us by His merit; so also it does not follow: The sacraments are necessary for salvation, therefore we do not receive the grace of justification by faith alone. Neither has any sane man ever understood justification by faith alone in such a way, as if God, the merit of Christ, and the ministry of the Word and of the sacraments were excluded from justification. No, on the contrary, in justification faith seeks, lays hold of, and accepts the grace of God on account of the merit of the Son, the Mediator; and these things it seeks and accepts through the Ministry of the Word and of the sacraments, and it knows that through these means the Holy spirit will to work effectively. However, Scripture asserts that to seek, to apprehend, and to accept these benefits belongs solely to faith. It is therefore manifest how sophistical it is to set the necessity of the sacraments in opposition to justification by faith alone...</i><br /><br />Continued in next post...Mr. Douglas Lindeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08326973217859277204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-58819189634172076062010-09-28T20:06:46.792-07:002010-09-28T20:06:46.792-07:00Pastor Samelson,
I am no expert, so I don't c...Pastor Samelson,<br /><br />I am no expert, so I don't claim to have all the answers. But I wonder, wouldn't it be better to use confessional/biblical terms for objective justification (like atonement), rather than the current terminology that obviously leaves room for confusion? Scripture clearly talks of "receiving" the forgiveness of sins through the Holy Spirit's work of faith. I think it would be better to stick with that definition of forgiveness, rather than speaking in language that sounds like blanket pardon.<br /><br />But like I said, I do not have extensive training in these matters. I have much more studying to do before I draw any lines in the sand, as it were. Just my current thoughts on the matter.Daniel Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167233773588648850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-86806324969166427682010-09-28T19:42:20.943-07:002010-09-28T19:42:20.943-07:00Joe Krohn:
[Please forgive me if I err in underst...Joe Krohn:<br /><br />[Please forgive me if I err in understanding your comments above; but I'd rather err by saying something you already know than err by leaving it unsaid.]<br /><br />You said: "If I and my neighbor are Christians and have asked for forgiveness, I don't have a problem with these statements. However if one or neither of us are Christians nor are we repentant and the sermon writer believes the statements to still be true, we are in trouble as a synod. NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that sin is forgiven aside from repentance."<br /><br />This is perhaps not the thread for this kind of discussion, but what you're talking about here is the distinction between objective and subjective justification. We always need to tread very carefully here, because if we deny the objective (or universal, or general) effect and significance of Christ's work, we diminish the gospel in a horrible way. [This issue has a long -- and not entirely pleasant -- history in American confessional Lutheranism, especially in the WELS.] <br />[Ask your pastor or a trusted WELS source for more information. Most definitely do not ask for or trust the answers of someone who only wishes to bash the WELS.]<br /><br />But this isn't the place for a drawn-out discussion of the issue. Just consider one verse: John 1:29 -- "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." Maybe John the Baptist didn't use the word "forgive" here, but he clearly connects Christ with the removal of all the world's sins. So yes, that means my sins are forgiven, your sins are forgiven, and my neighbor's sins are forgiven in Christ.<br /><br />But that forgiveness doesn't do me, you, or my neighbor any good without faith -- and with faith, there will, of course, be repentance.<br /><br />Now … all that being said … the lines from the sermon Pastor Rydecki and you draw attention to … blur the distinction between objective and subjective justification. To speak in one sentence of having our names written in the book of life and then, with just one sentence in-between, to say that your neighbor's sins are forgiven is going to confuse people at best. <br /><br />I think the author was just being sloppy -- I doubt that he personally has any misunderstanding on justification and forgiveness. But the sermon, as written, does indeed jump from "You have the assurance of forgiveness because you are a chosen and redeemed child of God" to "Forgiveness is a gift God wants everyone to have, so he has entrusted it to his messengers to share with you and your neighbor and the whole world" without pause or qualification.<br /><br />I'm not saying I've never written or said something without proper precision, but that's what I see going on here. It's just that this is a point of doctrine on which precision is particularly important.Pastor Jeff Samelsonhttp://www.christlutheran.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-32189544267462738682010-09-28T19:11:13.538-07:002010-09-28T19:11:13.538-07:00You know, if we went back to requiring private con...You know, if we went back to requiring private confession and absolution before communion, we'd never have to worry about explaining our closed communion practices again! ;)<br /><br />(We'd just have to explain our requirement of private confession …)Pastor Jeff Samelsonhttp://www.christlutheran.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-87636211159032956672010-09-28T17:07:10.236-07:002010-09-28T17:07:10.236-07:00An illustration in favor of weekly Communion for y...An illustration in favor of weekly Communion for your consideration.<br /><br />Let's say there is a family in your congregation that comes to church every other week. They never deviate from this practice. You ask them, "So, why don't you come to church every Sunday? Are you out of town?"<br /><br />They reply, "No, we're at home. We just sleep in or sometimes we watch TV."<br /><br />You ask them, "Why don't you come to church every weekend?"<br /><br />They reply, "Well, pastor, don't get all legalistic on us. There is no passage in the New Testament that commands us to come to church every Sunday."<br /><br />They're right. There is no NT command to gather for worship every Sunday. They are stll members in good standing. They are not subjects of discipline. <br /><br />But wouldn't you really want them in church every Sunday? <br /><br />So, by analogy, while we certainly wouldn't say any parish that had bi-weekly communion was less than Confessional Lutheran, why wouldn't a Confessional Lutheran parish want to celebrate the Lord's Supper weekly?<br /><br />Just something more to think about.<br /><br />Pax.<br /><br />Rev. Dale M. ReckzinRev Dale M. Reckzinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-51568093526028980972010-09-28T16:19:46.321-07:002010-09-28T16:19:46.321-07:00All of the discussion about Lord's Supper is g...All of the discussion about Lord's Supper is good. I think it can be summed up in two questions as it is with most things we do as Confessional Lutherans in the area of adiophora. I call it that because Communion is not necessary for salvation. We must remember that. But the two questions I refer to are: "Why would you...?" or "Why wouldn't you...?" I think these questions apply here and I don't think anyone is pointing fingers. It comes down to what the motivation is.<br /><br />I would like to see more discussion on the sermon. Especially the statements: "Your sins are forgiven. So are your neighbor’s sins." <br /><br />If I and my neighbor are Christians and have asked for forgiveness, I don't have a problem with these statements. However if one or neither of us are Christians nor are we repentant and the sermon writer believes the statements to still be true, we are in trouble as a synod. NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that sin is forgiven aside from repentance.<br /><br />Peace,<br />Joe KrohnJoe Krohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08675123326627773329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-61141646533638859222010-09-28T15:14:18.088-07:002010-09-28T15:14:18.088-07:00Pr. Doerr,
I'll only respond briefly to your ...Pr. Doerr,<br /><br />I'll only respond briefly to your questions now, and will comment further in the very near future in a post on this subject.<br /><br />For now, please don't become defensive. No one has asserted that you or your congregation are being unfaithful, or that you are not Lutherans or confessional Lutherans.<br /><br />You seem to think that the WLQ article you quoted is a refutation of our position. On the contrary, the essay by Pr. Wegner summarizes beautifully our position and will be the subject of one of those future posts. We agree with both his reasoning and with his spirit, both throughout the original essay and in his subsequent postscript.<br /><br />Although he says it better, I don't think we've said anything different, for example, than what Pr. Wegner said, <br /><br /><em>"How tragically far we have fallen away from that practice which our confessional writings set forth as the normal Lutheran practice! Is it not time to ask ourselves whether we are doing all that our Lord expected of us when He gave us the Sacrament and said: 'This <b>do</b>'? Can you think of any reason even remotely suggested in the Bible why our congregations should <b>not</b> celebrate the Lord's Supper at each regular service?..." (emphasis in the original)</em><br /><br />As you say, Prof. Brug reprinted and reaffirmed Pr. Wegner's essay.<br /><br />There is, of course, much more to his argument and to his plea to the pastors of our synod than is included in that quote. More on that soon.Rev. Paul A. Rydeckihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01447491206453142100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-67727555423063509052010-09-28T15:07:11.057-07:002010-09-28T15:07:11.057-07:00Daniel wrote, "...why would our pastors want ...Daniel wrote, "...why would our pastors want to withhold the Means of Grace every week?"<br /><br />Be careful in assigning ALL blame here to the pastors. Pastors are not to be tyrants who dictate every decision to their people. We are brothers who speak the truth in love, sometimes forcefully, yes, but sometimes also in a winsome and wooing way, properly attempting to apply Law and Gospel to the situation.<br /><br />Is it true that in some places it's the pastor who is the driving force behind a less frequent celebration of the Supper? Yes.<br /><br />Is it also true that in some places it's the congregation that is the driving force behind a less frequent celebration of the Supper? Yes.<br /><br />I take to heart Luther's words in the Catechism about avoiding a new slaughter of souls by making laws about the Sacrament. Is it pastoral to just say, "Hey, we're having the Lord's Supper every week whether you want it or not." Maybe in some places, yes, that is the way to handle it. And maybe at some times if the motivation for not having it is clearly stubborn, prideful, or sinful.<br /><br />On the other hand, it's also good to make haste slowly. Didn't Luther himself allow the practice of distributing the sacrament in one kind to remain for a short time in Wittenberg for the sake of consciences? (Note the phrase, "short time," I am aware that a day came when he said, "Enough.")<br /><br />On the other hand, I also take to heart the truth that the Sacrament is a precious gift of life to us, food that nourishes, and I eat physical food often (three or more times a day!). Here is my Savior, given for me, for the forgiveness of sins, how can I say no to this gift?<br /><br />And so, in my heart of hearts, I desire to receive and to distribute the Sacrament more frequently. <br /><br />So I preach it and teach it and encourage it and discuss it. I find opportunities to make it more available (we have made it a part of Christmas Day and Easter in recent years; also on our Festival of the Augsburg Confession, Confirmation, any midweek Lent/Advent services in which it falls in the normal schedule).<br /><br />In a brief ministry, this has yielded more and greater frequency. Some who came just once a month, now come twice or more. More services throughout the year offer the Lord's Supper. More people, more often ask for it privately when they miss an offering.<br /><br />Trees grow slowly, but they do grow when nurtured with the food and water of life.<br /><br />Grace and peace,<br />BenPr. Benjamin Tomczakhttp://www.stmarklutheran.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-38339047263440497992010-09-28T13:44:18.367-07:002010-09-28T13:44:18.367-07:00I think the better question is, Mr. Peeler, why wo...I think the better question is, Mr. Peeler, why would our pastors want to withhold this Means of Grace every week? Of what benefit to the Body of Christ is not receiving the Sacrament as often as possible?<br /><br />Unless, of course, our pastors - like I fear is true of much of the laity - are beginning to not see the meaning, importance, and application of the Sacrament in "modern" life.Daniel Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167233773588648850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-29917017609261950402010-09-28T11:20:33.155-07:002010-09-28T11:20:33.155-07:00I think it says a lot about the sorry state of Lut...I think it says a lot about the sorry state of Lutheranism in America that Lutheran pastors feel the need to defend the practice of less than weekly Communion. It's almost as if they're saying, "I withhold Christ's body and blood from my people every other week, and I'm proud of it! Don't you dare criticize me."<br /><br />Frankly, it doesn't matter a whole lot to me what the Reformers did or didn't do. What matters to me is that Christ offers me his own body and blood for the forgiveness of my sins. Why in the world would I not want to receive such a wondrous thing every week?<br /><br />Mr. Adam PeelerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-68637497103842450252010-09-28T09:08:34.847-07:002010-09-28T09:08:34.847-07:00Just a note on the Walking Together sermon--I thin...Just a note on the Walking Together sermon--I think part of the difficulty was preaching on only Rev. 14:6. I used the same theme "The Gospel Is Flying" but included 14:7 as well. Under the words "give him glory" from 14:7 I had good opportunity, I thought, to address and apply sola gratia to my people. (i.e., any thinking that we contribute at all to our salvation is not giving God all the glory) Not saying that my sermon was perfect, but I surely have a good conscience about it.<br /><br />Also, I understand there are downsides to showing the video between verses of the sermon hymn: one advantage was that it enabled me to refer back to the video several times in my sermon. My members said that we presented it all in a way that it definitely did not come across as a "Go Synod!" commercial or a "Give money!" commercial.<br /><br />C. DoerrPastor Christopher S. Doerrhttp://www.ineedgraceinwaupun.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-76653190323569911152010-09-28T08:58:48.608-07:002010-09-28T08:58:48.608-07:00Dear Intrepid Lutherans,
A few questions about th...Dear Intrepid Lutherans,<br /><br />A few questions about the continued assertion that less-than-weekly communion equals unfaithfulness to the Lutheran confessions...<br /><br />1) Is this indeed still your position?<br /><br />2) Have you read the refutation of this position from the 1953 WLQ, reprinted and reaffirmed by Prof. John Brug in his Summer, 2010, WLQ article "Historical Postscript on Every Sunday Communion"? If so, why do you continue in this position?<br /><br />3) Would you agree that, according to the logic by which the descriptions of weekly communion in the Confessions are turned into requirements, one could also say that to be faithful to the Confessions every pastor must begin and end every day by blessing himself with the holy cross and then repeating the Creed and the Lord's Prayer and must say the Lord's Prayer before and after every meal, as the Small Catechism says? These are not simply descriptions of 16th century practice, but are stated as commands for every Lutheran head of household, what they should (German, "soll") do. One would then add the same kind of caveat that IL adds when talking about weekly communion: we are not imposing new laws on anyone, just asking people to be honest about whether they are being faithful to the Confessions or ignoring them.<br /><br />Please note that I am not speaking either for or against weekly communion. I am simply addressing what seems to be the ongoing assertion of Intrepid Lutherans that I and my congregation are being unfaithful to the Lutheran confessions because we don't at this time have weekly communion. I look forward to your reply.<br /><br />Pastor Christopher S. Doerr<br />Grace Evangelical Lutheran (?) Church, Waupun, WIPastor Christopher S. Doerrhttp://www.ineedgraceinwaupun.comnoreply@blogger.com