What do you do with a Certified Letter? Here is one idea...

Certified Letter to Faith Church

The following letter was sent, Certified Mail, in response to the receipt of a Certified Letter from a Lutheran Congregation. While such letters are an official way for a congregation to terminate relationships with individuals and families they are releasing from membership, and an entirely appropriate form of rebuke when an estranged member cuts himself off from the congregation and refuses to respond to their overtures of evangelical concern, they are nothing but a callous expedient for the congregation which makes no attempt whatsoever to reach out to its members (who up to that point were supposedly considered their brothers/sisters in Christ) or to otherwise contact the intended recipient ahead of time to determine with certainty what their situation is; thus, such Certified Letters belie the congregation’s evangelical confession. That is what happened to the family, below. So perturbed were they with this callous expedient, that they returned the Certified Letter, unopened, along with a personally handwritten letter of their own that extended nine full pages of legal-sized paper. They had much to say, which they found important enough to deliver to their former congregation via Certified Mail. It is worth reading. As many readers may find it difficult to read human handwriting, rather than posting images of the handwritten letter, it has been transcribed, below (edited, of course, for public consumption).

---

Lxxxxx
1234 Anystreet Road
Nowhere, WI 54000

Faith Church
5678 Anyotherstreet Road
Next to Nowhere, WI 54000

To Whom It May Concern:

We received a piece of certified mail from you, postmarked March 11, 2015. We are returning it to you, unopened. We have very little interest in hearing what you may have to say in such a letter, that you could not preface with a demonstration of evangelical concern, or even basic courtesy, by making a simple phone call or sending an email. But, to be honest, it would have been difficult for us to imagine that you would have done otherwise.

At one point in time we were considered by the members of Faith Church to be Christian brothers. At least, we are pretty sure that we were. Feeling welcomed when we first joined, we were immediately drawn by them into the ministry of the congregation and put to work, and labouring closely with them, had established what we had considered to be close and meaningful relationships. This all came to an end after nearly seven years, when, in mid-2007, without explanation, we were shunned by the congregation. It was difficult to discern precisely, at first, as Mr. Lxxxxx was heavily involved with Church leadership, and was in constant communication with many of those who are now counted as our former friends. But by the end of 2007, his final year in any leadership capacity at Faith Church, it had become clear that the only communication being initiated by those “friends” was strictly related to church business. Beginning in 2008, the reality was unmistakable. Not just a few people, but everyone, including the Pastor, remained mysteriously aloof. He waited week after week for his friends to initiate with him some form of personal conversation. Weeks turned into months. Months turned into years. Nothing. All the while, the women of the congregation pretended to carry on as normal with Mrs. Lxxxxx, but she saw very clearly what was going on, and refusing to be socially separated by them from her husband, remained by his side. She was quickly disfavored, as well. By the time Pastor Sxxxxxxxx passed away in 2009, those former friendships were regarded by us as completely severed. As the years continued to pass, however, we once again began to enjoy some social involvement in the congregation, as other marginalized members of Faith Church recognized our situation and reached out to us in various ways. We also enjoyed conversation with new members, who had not yet been fully received into the labours of the congregation.

Accordingly, Mr. Lxxxxx’s last face-to-face meeting with the Rev. Wxxxx was unfortunate, but predictable. Having had to travel for work, he was unable to attend the October 2013 Voters’ Meeting, but discovered some weeks afterward – quite by accident – that there was some concern regarding the issue of Bible translations, and that the Board of Elders had been asked by the congregation to look into it. There was no hint that this was intended as any kind of formal investigation. Nevertheless, having himself been rather notoriously engaged in research and writing on the topic, he forwarded to the Rev. Wxxxx a number of articles and resources for the Board to consider. When, at the following Voters’ Meeting in January 2014, Mr. Lxxxxx was surprised to see that the issue of Bible translations was on the agenda, he enquired of the Rev. Wxxxx regarding the nature of the Elders’ report – as he was again unable to to attend due to business travel. He was stunned to learn that the Elders would not only be reporting their findings, but would move to officially adopt the NIV 2011. “Did the Board study any of the documents I forwarded to you, for them to consider?” he asked the Reverend.

“What documents?” was the reply.

Mr. Lxxxxx, realizing that he had been marginalized yet again, then clarified, “The documents and links I sent to you in an email not long ago.”

“Oh,” then after a long pause, “No. We only considered the documentation provided by Synod.”

“But that documentation was biased in favor of a single conclusion!”

“Yes, I know it was biased. It was biased on its face. But I don’t know why it was biased...”

Now incredulous, Mr. Lxxxxx proceeded to make clear, in sharp and conclusive terms, that he would allow neither himself nor his family to knowingly sit under teaching that proceeded from a document descending directly from post-Modern philosophies known to be perverting human language, and, along with it, human thought patterns; a document which is nothing more than the translators’ paraphrasing of the original languages (paraphrasing which is further edited downstream in the publication process by “readability committees”); a document which deliberately twists thousands of words of Scripture in ways that purposely accommodates liberal theology (feminism, in particular); and a document which, rather than clarifying the Scriptures for English readers, ultimately obscures their meaning by intentionally gutting the Bible of significant vocabulary and grammatical forms found in the original languages – that do have English parallels, if translators care to take into consideration not just the limits of “conversational English,” but the full capacity of the English language to carry objective meaning – making it ever more difficult for the English reader to find and rely on “direct positive statements of Scripture,” and thus also statements that are, by definition, clear. Such translation ideologies gravely endanger the Perspicuity of Scripture in the name of making it accessible for the marginally literate English reader, they threaten to drive the laity of the Church ever deeper into a general illiteracy and intellectual incapacity such as was common in medieval times, and they certainly ought not be vaunted in Christ’s Church as the standard English form of Holy Writ in all teaching and publications.

Nevertheless, Faith Church proceeded to officially adopt the NIV 2011 as the congregation’s translation.

This was not the reason we left Faith Church and the WELS, however; it was merely the straw that broke the camels back.

A few months prior, we were warned by the Rev. Wxxxx to “prepare” our sixth grade boy, who had just entered Catechism, for a discussion of the Sixth Commandment. Finding it a bit ridiculous to rush him through “sex-ed” just to prepare him for Catechism class, we refused to go to such lengths, insisting that such matters need to be handled delicately with children his age, that discussion of sexual activity in any direct terms would be entirely out of bounds, and that there is very little basis for understanding the Sixth Commandment anyway, without a thorough positive grounding in biblical courtship and marriage – deviation from which would itself serve as a glaring example of something that is sinful.

Then we read the catechism that would be used by the Reverend to instruct our young boy, which was written by one Rev. David Kuske. In comparison with the catechism resources we afterward recommended he use instead for the Sixth Commandment lesson (Gausewitz or Koehler), Kuske goes into excessively lurid detail of sexual intercourse, including what kind of sex to have, when to have it, and how enjoyable it should be. The Rev. Wxxxx forcefully rejected use of the alternative resources we suggested (which were, in our opinion, better by orders of magnitude, without all of the direct sex-talk and associated imagery), and when we opted to keep our son home rather than attend his lesson, were indirectly criticized by him for our parenting decisions. In retrospect, given all of the sexual scandals in WELS that have been made public over the past year, and the many more that are roiling just under the surface, we wonder now whether Kuske’s catechism might have something to do with it – whether, in our over-sexed day and age, introducing direct sex-talk with sixth-grade boys and girls is a bit premature for these youngsters, and puts images in their minds that they might otherwise be inclined to struggle against, had their pastor not been the one who put them there using Synod materials that carry the approval of the Church. Given this, it is no wonder the current generation of WELS theologians prefers the NIV 2011’s use of the phrases “make love” (Ge. 4:1,17,25; 29:21,23,30; 38:2; Ru. 4:13; 1 Sa. 1:19; 2 Sa. 11:11; 12:24; 1 Ch. 2:21; 7:23; Is. 8:3; etc.) and “have sex” (Ge. 19:5; Jud. 19:22; 1 Co. 6:9) – phrases and imagery thought in previous generations to be far too indelicate to implant in the minds of pious Christians, who were probably also averse to using such terms for fear that they would indirectly reinforce immoral standards cherished by the world and ignite fleshly desires, against which Christians already struggle.

About a month after Mr. Lxxxxx’s final face-to-face conversation with the Rev. Wxxxx, he was called by the Reverend on the telephone. Mr. Lxxxxx made clear that he meant what he had said in January, and that we were looking for another congregation. He told him that we were, at that time, investigating other WELS congregations, along with LCMS congregations. The Reverend assured him that we remained members in good standing, that if we found a suitable WELS congregation he would be glad to transfer us, and if not, then we would be simply released from membership. We never heard from him again. In all of this time, we were contacted by no one from the congregation out of evangelical concern, or even curiosity, over our extended absence, save one person. We received from the congregation what we had come to expect since 2008: near deafening silence.

We quickly found that there were no suitable WELS congregations within reasonable traveling distance. In the end, we found that among those WELS congregations which seemed intent upon demonstrating their Confession through a wholesome liturgical practice, seemed uncorrupted by ambitions of glory, seemed unwilling to give place to worldly entertainment standards in their worship chambers, seemed confident in the Holy Spirit’s work through the Means of Grace to Call, Gather and Enlighten His Elect, and seemed content to allow Him to work in His way, through His Means, in His time, unaugmented by their own innovations, Faith Church was to be most commended in regard to its NIV 2011 deliberations: where Faith Church actually had the courage to at least publicly identify “Bible translation” as an issue, and to go through the motions of publicly addressing that issue (although, with a predetermined outcome, given that a single source of admittedly biased materials was all that they consulted), all of the other WELS congregations we visited simply started using the NIV 2011 without discussion, without the people even knowing it – when we asked, we learned that the new Bibles just showed up in the pews one Sunday, and no one knew the difference. We could not abide such cowardice.

Of all the other options in our area, there was one ELS congregation and two LCMS congregations that were in many ways very suitable. But we ultimately decided that we were unwilling to dance around the issue of Universal Justification, merely for the convenience of attending those congregations.

“Universal Justification” is the teaching espoused by name in the WELS, and with one name or another by ELS and LCMS, as the centerpiece of Christian teaching – the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls. It asserts that all mankind, including every individual, is righteous before God, and forgiven of his sins, whether he has faith or not. The natural, and fully accepted and confessed, consequence of this teaching is that those who die without faith, though they are righteous and forgiven by God, nevertheless spend an eternity barking in hell – not as punishment for their sins (since no one bears sin before God under the teaching of Universal Justification), but merely for their lack of faith. Thus they are willing to accept the teaching that righteous and forgiven saints spend an eternity in hell. The doctrine of Universal Justification, however, is nowhere named, described, or articulated in the Scriptures. It is a purely derived doctrine, without a single word of direct positive attestation in the entirety of Holy Writ.

In all, however, according to the Rev. Dr. Siegbert Becker in his essay Universal Justification, there are a total of three distinct doctrines of Justification taught by WELS. The first is Universal Justification. The second distinct doctrine of Justification, which is merely a corollary of Universal Justification, is “Objective Justification.” It teaches that God, and not man, is entirely responsible for man’s Justification. Such a teaching is not peculiar to WELS, or to Lutherans for that matter; for even the Calvinists do not deny that Justification is objective in this sense. However, WELS, ELS and LCMS seem to assert that Objective Justification also defines “faith” as “man’s work”, and therefore insist that claiming Justification comes by faith is thus to assert a doctrine of synergism. Normally, Universal and Objective Justification are conflated by them, and referred to as “Universal Objective Justification,” but, Becker makes clear, they are, in fact, distinct doctrines, with Objective Justification merely a happy consequence of Universal Justification.

The third distinct doctrine of Justification espoused by the old Synodical Conference Lutherans is so-called “Subjective Justification” – the only doctrine of Justification spoken of and articulated in the Scriptures, and the doctrine identified in the Lutheran Confessions as the main doctrine of Christianity. Except, the Scriptures don’t name it “Subjective Justification”; the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions refer to this doctrine interchangeably as “Justification” and “Justification by Faith Alone.” According to WELS, “Subjective Justification” is entirely superfluous. All of mankind is already righteous and forgiven before God (they say); Justification does NOT come though faith, since that is man’s work, and to suggest that faith is in any way the cause of Justification (even an “instrumental cause”, as it was defined by Leyser and Gerhard) only robs God of the glory He is due for the work He has already accomplished. Subjective Justification (they say), isn’t “Justification” at all, properly speaking – it’s merely “the reception of faith,” and with it merely “receiving the benefit” of the righteous and forgiven standing they, and all men, have had in the eyes of God since the time of Christ’s death and resurrection. Prior to faith (they say), all of mankind is already Justified – fully righteous and forgiven before God – but individuals are denied “enjoyment” of this Justification until God gives them faith.

According to the Bible and the Confessions, however, “Justification by Faith Alone” is the only doctrine of Justification that is taught; mankind (including every individual) is NOT already Justified before God, he is already Condemned; the unbeliever is NOT already righteous and forgiven before God, but stands before God in the filth of his own sin, in need of righteousness and forgiveness; this Justification was earned by Christ in His Passion, and is now offered to mankind in the Message of the Gospel, via which the Holy Spirit works to produce faith; and a person is said to be Justified when the promise of Salvation has been appropriated to himself through the faith God gives him, and not before.

Frankly, it was a shock to us to learn that WELS, ELS and (it seems) LCMS all believe, teach and confess a doctrine of Universal Justification. This fact was withheld from us during Bible Information Class (adult catechism). The fact is:

• We reject the doctrine of Universal Justification as without a scintilla of Scriptural or Confessional support;
• We reject as Scripturally unfounded and as entirely fallacious reasoning the assertion that Justification must be Universal in order for it to be objective, or to be accomplished entirely outside of man;
• We, rather, fully embrace and confess the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone;
• We, further, confess and insist that the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is the only doctrine of Justification taught by the Scriptures in direct positive terms, and that it is therefore the only Scripturally defensible doctrine of Justification that Christians may confess;
• We fully reject the assertion that faith is in any way man’s work (the Scriptures directly forbid this notion), and we therefore reject the assertion that Justification by Faith Alone is a doctrine of synergism;
• We reject the assertion that “Objective Justification” is a doctrine of Scripture which is taught in distinction from Justification by Faith Alone, and find it impermissible to define “Objective Justification” as any kind of justification at all;
• We, rather, confess that the objectivity of Justification is a defining attribute of the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, and insist that Justification by Faith Alone does, indeed, constitute a fully objective Justification – that is, our Justification is accomplished fully outside of us, without any merit or participation of our own in any sense;
• We confess with confidence and rejoicing that faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit;
• We reject as flippant hyperbole the assertion that saving faith, under the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, is reduced to merely “a profound hope that man conjures within himself”;
• We further confess in this regard, that it is fully biblical to speak of faith being active (i.e., receiving, appropriating, trusting, etc.), without it also being considered volitional and thus synergistic;
• We recognize that the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is the only doctrine of Justification confessed in the Lutheran Confessions, and was the only doctrine of Justification directly named and taught by the orthodox Confessors and Concordists;
• We further recognize that a form of Universal Justification was asserted by a heterodox member of the Wittenberg Faculty, a teacher whose doctrine was roundly condemned by his orthodox peers, and who was dismissed in 1595 for clinging to his false doctrine – for denying that Justification is restricted to believers;
• We therefore reject as unfounded fiction and utterly preposterous all claims that Universal Justification is “implicitly taught in the Lutheran Confessions,” that it was understood, embraced and taught by the Confessors and Concordists without ever being named or articulated by them, and that it must therefore bind the consciences of any Christian today who would lay claim to an orthodox confession;
• We recognize the introduction of Universal Justification and its corollary teachings in American Lutheranism, as a biblically indefensible innovation of the old Synodical Conference.

Putting the best construction on our experiences, and despite any appearances that might cause some to conclude otherwise, we assume, Faith Church, that you are, in fact, possessed of great evangelical concern over our plight, and though, over the course of a full year, you exerted no effort to find out from us directly, we also assume that you are nevertheless deeply interested to know how we fare today.

We have found a Lutheran congregation. It is a congregation affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA). Of this congregation, we are happy to say:

• They are confessional – that is, they understand the dire need for a clear Christian confession in a sinful world where otherwise well-meaning believers, as victims of sin’s corruption, everywhere misunderstand and pervert the Scripture’s teaching;
• They fully subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions, as articulated in the Christian Book of Concord, not insofar as they are a correct presentation and exposition of the pure doctrine of the Word of God, but boldly confessing before the world and other Christians, that they are so;
  
  in particular:
  
  
  • They positively reject the doctrine of Universal Justification, and instead, believe, teach and confess the single Scriptural and Confessional doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone – the very doctrine for which Luther and his fellow confessors struggled so mightily, risking their lives that it would be preserved to the Church for the eternal benefit of mankind;
  • They do not confuse laity with clergy – that is, laymen are NOT considered Ministers of the Word, and are NOT tasked with carrying out the functions of the pastoral Office;
  • They fully trust the Holy Spirit to work through His appointed Means, and being confident in the efficacy of those Means and content with His timing, do not feel compelled to augment His work with their own innovations;
  • Not merely mouthing the words of their confession, they endeavor to make manifest this confession, maintaining in the Divine Service a wholesome liturgical practice that unmistakably demonstrates Lutheran catholicity, rather than supplanting it with the obnoxious sectarian practices of pop-church evangelicalism.
  
  
• They are conservative – that is, rather than dispose of their Lutheran birthright (which, in order to keep it, requires much honour, trust, patience and a keen awareness of the past) for an immediately satisfying bowl of sectarian and worldly porridge (which, if it satisfies at all, does so merely for the moment, soon afterward requiring the satiation of new and different cravings), they endeavor to carry into the future that great deposit of wisdom wrought of Christian experience over the millenia. Thus they endeavor to conserve the past, rather than discard it as quaint, passé and irrelevant in favor of the wisdom of the day;
  
  in particular:
  
  
  • They reject (as far as we can tell) the post-Modern philosophies of contemporary times, which represent a full frontal attack on the very morality of language itself, mightily threatening the Church, not by changing the words She confesses before the world, but by dramatically altering that Confession in place – altering the meaning of Her Confession by altering the structures of language employed to express it;
  • They have chosen to use and promote a wholesome translation of the Scriptures which not just theoretically, but manifestly honours the doctrine of inspiration, retaining in English as much as practicable, both the grammatical forms and the vocabulary found in the Greek and Hebrew originals, and which honours the tradition of English ecclesiastical thought and expression by maintaining continuity with the English translation Received by English speaking peoples over 400 years ago as the Bible in English, and that continues to this day as a dominant Bible translation preferred by English speakers;
  • They hold that it is wise practice for the Church to maintain a sharp distinction from the world in Her practice, including the use of terminology in their catechesis and during the Divine Service, which maintains a continuity with the past and which reinforces the “other worldly” reality of the believer’s citizenship in the Kingdom of Grace.

And to top it all off:

• They – like Lutherans across the globe (in our experience) – are just plain nice folks.

Unfortunately, this congregation, being a two-hour drive for us, is not very conveniently located. We are not able to attend weekly, as we would like, but endeavor to attend at least twice monthly. When we are unable to attend, however, we do take time to worship as a family in our home, following a modified form of “The Order of Morning Service” from The Lutheran Hymnal (pg. 5), and reading from Luther’s Postils for the Sermon. This works very nicely.

If the truth be told, however, we started this practice of home worship years before finally leaving the WELS. We began to notice that there was a consistent dearth of Law in the preaching and teaching, not only of Faith Church, but in every WELS church we visited. The emphasis on the Gospel was so smothering that the Law, if present at all, was virtually indiscernible. While both of us had grown up within pop-church Evanglicalism and among confessing Pietists, were fully acquainted with the Law, and personally found Law-less Gospel preaching a sufficient (and welcome) balance to the smotheringly Gospel-less Law preaching we had been reared with, the impact on our children, who, over a decade had only become familiar with the Gospel, was unmistakably negative. Having literally no acquaintance with the Law, they failed to place any real significance on the Gospel, taking for granted that they were already forgiven and righteous regardless of what they do, as if they were entitled to it. The result was behaviour issues of various kinds, a general disregard for God’s Word, and a failure to respond to correction which was drawn from it. We appealed at various times to our WELS pastors for more Law in their preaching, so that there would be a more discernible balance between Law and Gospel, but when our requests were dismissed – sometimes with ridicule for being “lovers of the Law” – we realized that there would be no changing their nearly Law-less Gospel preaching. Mrs. Lxxxxx had finally grown so fed up with the fact that our children had not imbibed the Law in any significant way from our association with WELS, that she began taking them through the Book of Proverbs every month, and visiting with them other sections of the Bible that emphasize Law – like the Book of James. This had quite an impact. As the the older children would read the Proverbs, they would stop, read it again, gulp, and say things like, “Oh, boy...” They had no idea. At one point, Mrs. Lxxxxx even suggested, somewhat facetiously, that we leave Lutheranism entirely, and go back to Pietism, just so that our children could be acquainted with the Law through the teaching of the Church, and finally come to appreciate the Gospel. Needless to say, that is not what we did. Instead, we started reading Luther’s sermons for semi-regular family worship, in place of attending Faith Church every Sunday. Luther is very direct in his preaching of the Law, and equally so in his preaching of the Gospel, nearly every sermon being very well balanced between the two. It is unlike any preaching we had heard over the past four decades, including the last fifteen years of association with WELS. Acquaintance with the Law has helped with discipline in the home, too, and improved our family’s appreciation for the Gospel.

Finally – you may be interested to know – there is informal, though very serious, discussion of opening a Lutheran mission congregation in our area (River Falls, Hudson, New Richmond, Baldwin, etc.), of confessional and conservative character similar to the congregation in which we currently enjoy membership. The intent would be to use our family, and perhaps other interested individuals, to seed this mission. Efforts are underway, now, to investigate possible meeting places.

Ta Ta for Now,

Lxxxxx

Dr. Martin Luther: Christian Unity needs Harmony among Individuals; however, Ecclesial Unity requires that False Teachers be publicly Admonished and Rebuked by Fellow Pastors

In commentary following a recent post by anonymous blogger "Matthias Flach" entitled, A Travesty Examined, Part Nine , it was suggested that "Matthias" contact the President of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), and complain to him about all the problems he sees – the idea being that the Synod President, having enough complainers behind him, would be emboldened to, say, acknowledge these problems publicly, maybe even repudiate them... possibly, like Synod President Matt Harrison of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS), even use the publishing power of his office (the only power the WELS SP really has) to consistently expose the errors of false teachers in the WELS Ministerium who are apparently prized, protected and promoted by the entirety of the WELS Praesidium, warn against them, and rebuke those fellow pastors who embrace these teachings and practices.

Maybe such would happen... Assuming the best of the WELS SP, perhaps it can also be asserted that he needs numbers behind him, not for courage, but for factual corroboration. Quite honestly, however, even having the corroboration, I don’t think that any sort of public acknowledgement or admonishment would be forthcoming. At least nothing with any sort of impact that wouldn’t be immediately overcome by a swift, unanimous and well-coordinated action of the Twelve District Presidents who evidently oppose him. One primary reason, in my opinion, is how very close-knit WELS has become. It has grown unhealthy. For instance, when a person names a given WELS pastor, the instinct (in my personal experience) seems to be toward immediately calculating ones degree of familial relation to the man, and then recalling his direct and indirect experience with him. While this is perfectly natural in small old organizations, there now seems to be an inability to distinguish between individual and Office among them. Any just criticism of a pastor’s doctrine or practice seems to be interpreted as an attack against him personally or against his extended family and classmates, an arrogant elevation of the person issuing the criticism, and a disruption of the harmony necessary for unity to persist among them. The example currently found in the LCMS, of pastors exhibiting the courage to name false doctrines and practices among them, and, increasingly, the pastors who embrace and promote those teachings and practices, seems to be a cultural impossibility in WELS, unless it is already a family squabble of some sort, a matter of personal history or conflict between individual pastors going back, say, to high-school, college or seminary, or an internal political issue within the ministerium where lines have already been drawn.

Martin Luther preached, however, that recognizing a distinction between individual and Office is necessary, that Christian duty to cherish and preserve harmony – to be “compassionate and loving as ‘brethren, tenderhearted, and "friendly" or "humble-minded"’” – extends to the manner in which individuals carry on with one another. It is not, however, necessarily characteristic of the Office, the function of which includes the preachment of the Law in a way that cuts to the bone and exposes sin – which, to the person offended by the Law, does not seem like a very friendly thing to do – and as God’s representative, even extends to the withholding of forgiveness from the unrepentant (Matt. 16:19; John 20:23) – which does not seem to the unforgiven to be a very friendly thing to do, either. He preached further that it is a function of the Office, and thus of the pastor who is responsible to “represent not [his] own but God’s dignity,” to admonish and rebuke false teachers – i.e., fellow Office holders, saying:

But if one dishonors the Baptism, Sacrament, or Ministry committed to me by God, and so opposes not me but God Himself, then it is my duty not to be silent nor merciful and friendly, but to use my God-ordained Office to admonish, threaten and rebuke, with all earnestness, both in season and out of season – as Paul admonishes Timothy – those who err in doctrine or faith or who do not amend their lives; and this regardless of who they are or how it pleases them.

All of this – the duty to cherish harmony among Christians, the duty to rebuke false teachers in the Church (which appears disharmonious but preserves pure doctrine, which is necessary for true harmony), and drawing the distinction between these duties – is found in his Sermon on the Epistle Lesson for the Fifth Sunday after Trinity (1 Pet. 3:8-15), pertinent excerpts from which follow:

---

From Dr. Martin Luther’s Sermon on 1 Peter 3:8-15
The Epistle Lesson for the Fifth Sunday after Trinity

On the Duty to Cherish Christian Harmony
No one has a different baptism or sacrament, a different Christ, from mine, or grace and salvation other than I have. And no individual can have another faith than have Christians in general, nor does he hear any other Gospel or receive a different absolution, be he lord or servant, noble or ignoble, poor or rich, young or old, Italian or German. When one imagines himself different from or better than his fellows, desiring to exalt and glorify himself above others, he is truly no longer a Christian; because he is no longer in that unity of mind and faith essential to Christians. Christ with His grace is always the same, and cannot be divided or apportioned within Himself.

Not without reason did the beloved apostles urge this point. They clearly saw how much depends upon it, and what evil and harm result from disregard of the commandment. Where this commandment is dishonored, schisms and factions will necessarily arise to corrupt pure doctrine and faith, and the devil will sow his seed, which afterwards can be eradicated only with difficulty. When once self-conceit rules, and one, pretending more learning, wisdom, goodness and holiness than his fellows, begins to despise others and to draw men to himself, away from the unity of mind which makes us one in Christ, and when he desires the first praise and commendation for his own doctrine and works, his own preaching, then the harm is already done; faith is overthrown and the Church is rent. When unity becomes division, certainly two sects cannot both be the true Church. If one is godly, the other must be the devil’s own. On the other hand, so long as unity of faith and oneness of mind survives, the true Church of God abides, notwithstanding there may be some weakness in other points. Of this fact the devil is well aware; hence his hostility to Christian unity. His chief effort is to destroy harmony. “Having that to contend with,” he tells himself, “my task will be a hard and wearisome one.”

Therefore, Christians should be all the more careful to cherish the virtue of harmony, both in the Church and in secular government. In each instance there is of necessity much inequality. God would have such dissimilarity balanced by love and unity of mind. Let everyone be content, then, with what God has given or ordained for him, and let him take pleasure in another’s gifts, knowing that in eternal blessings he is equally rich, having the same God and Christ, the same grace and salvation; and that although his standing before God may differ from that of his fellows, he is nevertheless in no way inferior to them, nor is anyone for the same reason at all better than or superior to himself.

...

The other virtues enjoined by Peter are easily recognized – compassionate, loving as “brethren, tenderhearted, and ‘friendly’ or ‘humble-minded’.” These particularly teach how Christians should esteem one another. God has subjected them all to love and has united them, with the design that they shall be of one heart and soul, and each care for the other as for himself. Peter’s exhortation was especially called for at that time, when Christians were terribly persecuted. Here a pastor, there a citizen, was thrown into prison, driven from wife, child, house and home, and finally executed. Such things happen even now, and may become yet more frequent considering that unfortunate people are harassed by tyrants, or led away by the Turks [Muhammadans], and Christians are thus dispersed in exile here and there. Wherever by His Word and faith God has gathered a church, and that spiritual unity, the bond of Christianity, exists in any measure, there the devil has no peace. If he cannot effect the destruction of that church by factiousness, he furiously persecutes it. Then it is that body, life and everything we have must be jeopardized – put to the stake – for the sake of the Church.


On the Duty to Admonish and Rebuke False Teachers
The lesson teaches the duty of each individual toward all other individuals, not toward the God-ordained Office. Office and person must be clearly distinguished. The officer or ruler in his official capacity is a different man from what he is as John or Frederick. The apostle or preacher differs from the individual Peter or Paul. The preacher has not his Office by virtue of his own personality; he represents it in God’s stead. Now, if any person be unjustly persecuted, slandered and cursed, I ought to and will say: “Deo gratias;” for in God I am richly rewarded for it. But if one dishonors the Baptism, Sacrament, or Ministry committed to me by God, and so opposes not me but God Himself, then it is my duty not to be silent nor merciful and friendly, but to use my God-ordained Office to admonish, threaten and rebuke, with all earnestness, both in season and out of season – as Paul admonishes Timothy (2 Tim. 4:2) – those who err in doctrine or faith or who do not amend their lives; and this regardless of who they are or how it pleases them.

But the censured may say: “Nevertheless you publicly impugn my honor; you give me a bad reputation.” I answer: Why do you not complain to Him who committed the Office to me? My honor is likewise dear to me, but the honor of my Office must be more sacred still. If I am silent where I ought to rebuke, I sully my own honor, which I should maintain before God in the proper execution of my Office; hence I with you deserve to be hanged in mid-day, to the utter extinguishment of my honor and yours. No, the Gospel does not give you authority to say the preacher shall not, by the Word of God, tell you of your sin and shame. What does God care for the honor you seek from the world when you defy His Word with it? To the world you may seem to defend your honor with God and a good conscience, but in reality you have nothing to boast of before God but your shame. This very fact you must confess if you would retain your honor before Him; you must place His honor above that of all creatures. The highest distinction you can achieve for yourself is that of honoring God’s Word and suffering rebuke.

“Yes, but still you attack the Office to which I am appointed.” No, dear brother, our Office is not assailed when I and you are reminded of our failure to do right, to conduct the Office as we should. But the Word of God rebukes us for dishonoring that divinely ordained appointment and abusing it in violation of His commandment. Therefore you cannot call me to account for reproving you. However, were I not a pastor or preacher, and had I no authority to rebuke you, then it would be my duty and my pleasure to leave your honor and that of every other man unscathed. But if I am to fill a divine Office and to represent not my own but God’s dignity, then for your own sake I must not and will not be silent. If you do wrong, and disgrace and dishonor come upon you, blame yourself: “Thy blood shall be upon thine own head,” says Scripture (1 Kings. 2:37). Certainly when a judge sentences a thief to the gallows, that man’s honor is impugned. Who robs you of your honor but yourself, by your own theft, your contempt of God, disobedience, murder, and so on? God must give you what you deserve. If you consider it a disgrace to be punished, then consider it also no honor to rob, steal, practice usury and do public wrong; you disgrace yourself by dishonoring God’s commandment.

---

Notice that Luther preaches the following:

However, were I not a pastor or preacher, and had I no authority to rebuke you, then it would be my duty and my pleasure to leave your honor and that of every other man unscathed.

This is a note to us laymen. We don’t have the Office of rebuking and correcting. It’s not our job. It is for this reason that I, for one (and I think, perhaps, many laymen along with me), have been very reluctant to name specific situations or pastors, and have preferred to speak in general. IT’S NOT MY JOB! This makes the silence of pastors who see the error and yet remain silent all the more distressing, as it drives the laity, of necessity, to enter in where they would otherwise have no place. And to their shame, they seem content to allow the laity to do it, unaided. IT IS THEIR JOB! But they seem to either be derelict or cowards.

And to those WELS pastors who boldly speak behind the cloak of anonymity – you help no one other than rumour mongers and gossipers. You complain, “What of my family? What of my livelihood! I can’t let anyone know who I am, my adversaries might find out and cause me grief and woe!” But you are more than willing to name them publicly, to cause them grief and woe. Luther preaches above,

“It is my duty NOT to be silent nor merciful and friendly, but to use my God-ordained Office to admonish, threaten and rebuke, with all earnestness, both in season and out of season,”

and in times of persecution,

“body, life and everything we have must be jeopardized – put to the stake – for the sake of the Church.”

Your adversaries have the courage to openly preach and promote falsehood, but you do not have the courage to correct them with the Truth, to act in the interest of preserving their disciples and the Church from the impact of their false doctrine and practice? How strong, then, is your doctrine? Indeed, how eminently valuable is it if you are not willing to sign your name to it? Is it truly Christian Conscience and Confessional Integrity that drives you to “anonymously voice your deep concerns,” or is it sport? Tinged with a touch of schadenfreude?

You saw the hurricane approaching far in the distance, and you’ve waited only till landfall to begin preparing yourselves, your families, and your congregations for the inevitable? You have only yourselves to blame for the disaster you have brought upon them: “Thy blood shall be upon thine own head.” The time to act was in May of 2010, if not before. Where were you? Still deciding to prepare? Where are you now? Just beginning to prepare? Must you “first go bury your father” (Matt. 8:21-22)? I’ve got news for you – it’s way too late now to weather the storm intact. Your Leaders are unanimous: they are busy excommunicating the likes of Rev. Rydecki, while coddling the likes of Rev. Skorzewski and publicly endorsing events like the 2015 Christian Leadership Experience. In my opinion, the only way to survive now with pure teaching and faith intact is to evacuate, to leave everything behind and start anew on higher ground.

Treating the Symptom

Thoughts from Thunder Mountain

["Huachuca" - A Chiricahua Apache word meaning "thunder."]

 

Treating the Symptom

 

BJ: "You treated a symptom. The disease goes merrily on." (M*A*S*H, season seven, episode 22, "Preventive medicine")

Of course, in a very real sense, this is the way of the Gospel ministry. Pastors, Elders, Deacons, and Christians in general deal with the symptoms of sin every day; some at times much worse than others. But, try as we might, with ourselves or others, we can't get rid of the disease - sin itself. That won't happen until we die or Jesus returns, whichever comes first.

But this is not just true of the conflict between the New Man, created through faith in Jesus Christ, given by the Means of Grace, and the Old Adam, created at our conception. This is also true of many problems in this all too human institution called the visible church. Look at the issues that IL has been raising the past few years: the spread of contemporary worship, use of Reformed and/or Arminian songs and sermons, denigration of the visible Sacraments, felt-needs approach to outreach, giving in to feminist tendencies in Bible translations so as not to offend certain segments of the population, and so forth. How would we sum up all these items and others like them? What's the common denominator?

In this reporter's opinion, it is - once again - a kind of fear. This time it is fear of growing smaller and smaller; of getting so small as to pass into insignificance; fear of becoming a mere footnote in the history of Lutheranism in America; fear of getting so small that full-time positions in the church body can no longer be funded; fear that schools can't remain open, or even fear that churches will grow so small that many Pastors will end up selling shoes in a department store or driving an ice crème truck in order to put food on their tables. But isn't this shrinkage exactly what Jesus Himself predicted of the Last Times? Did He not wonder out loud that if the Last Day was put off beyond the time set by His Father, would there be any believers left on earth at all? See Luke 18.

So what happens? All too often it seems - and maybe it's only an impression I have - but it seems that Pastors and leaders will grasp at anything to fill the chairs, and worry about whether what they grasp is true orthodox, Biblical, confessional Lutheranism later. Thus, we get five-man-electrical-bands cluttering up the Chancel, churches with no public celebration of the Lord's Supper, "relaxed" worship with very little awe and reverence for a transcendent God. In short, congregations following the latest fad in church work. Very often these tricks pull in lots of people, that's true. But there used to be an old adage my seminary professors taught me, "If you get people for sociological reasons, you will also lose them for sociological reasons!" And so we often see these same "successful" churches with a kind of revolving door, as people come to be entertained for a year or two, if that, then leave out the back door once they've become bored with the "show," and go looking for something more fun and exciting.

Therefore, what is happening is that we end up treating the symptom - trying to make the Gospel "real, relevant, and relational," while the disease; rejection of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Him crucified, goes merrily on. And all the time, God has given us the antidote to this disease; preaching the Law to show people their sin, and preaching the Gospel to show them their Savior; calling people to repentance and faith in God's Son for the forgiveness of their sins and the salvation of the souls; and bolstering this preaching with the tools God has also given, Holy Baptism, Holy Absolution, and Holy Communion. True, even this will not stop sin from occurring again and again, but it can and it will keep the disease in check and bring comfort and peace to hurting souls. That is the kind of "operation" that God has given us to do.

As a classmate back in seminary used to say when studying the latest Church Growth gimmicks, "Tricks are for kids!" Let's all get back to the serious business of battling Satan and the disease he brings, using only the best medicine of all, the Word and Sacraments!

Deo Vindice!

Impressions from My Visit with ELDoNA at their 2013 Colloquium and Synod – PART V.4

(Continued from PART V.3, yesterday)

PART V.4
Rev. Michael Henson:
“That God Would Probe the Mind of Man”
This is, quite possibly, one of the most concise developments of the Lutheran teaching and preaching rubric of Law and Gospel I've ever heard. Written as a series of twelve simply stated theses, it begins with God's omniscient searching of Man's heart and mind, in which He finds sinfulness beyond man's capacity to measure. God, far from being blind to it, sees man's sin, and reveals man's sin to himself through His Law – revealing through it also His righteous anger, causing man to cry out either in rebellion against God or in anguish and a desire to be free from the effects of sin. This is the point where the Gospel has application: instead of a cry of hopeless complaint, the Gospel gives man a basis for crying out to this same God for mercy and deliverance from His wrath – which He freely and faithfully accomplishes through faith in His promises. The grateful Christian, receiving grace and mercy through faith, and thus free from God's wrath and no longer finding God's perfect Law to be a curse, still desires that God would probe his mind, would test and prove him. At peace with God, he is contented.

That is a summary of the twelve theses, each thesis being supported by Scripture, of course, and the whole being amplified by Luther's commentary on Psalm 90,vv7&8. It was a genuinely well-received paper, and I found it to be a marvelously fresh and concise presentation of Law and Gospel that emerged directly from the Scriptures – without being over-burdened with the use of elements from human psychology (“the sinner ought to feel this particular way about his sin, or else the Gospel has no application... then the Gospel will make him feel a different way,” etc...). Though nothing that Rev. Henson said was new to me, this was the first time I had heard all of these elements put together in this way. I found myself quite grateful for having been able to have received his presentation.


Rev. Paul Rydecki:
“The Forensic Appeal to the Throne of Grace in the Theology of the Lutheran Age of Orthodoxy: A Reflection on the Atonement and Its Relationship to Justification”
This paper more than met the high standards of scholarship and fidelity to the sources that readers of Intrepid Lutherans have come to expect from Rev. Rydecki, and which I was expecting from the papers of the Colloquium, and more than met the “post-Synodical-Conference” character of ELDoNA, for whom, as I stated above, neither Lutheran history nor the “Lutheran Age of Orthodoxy” began in 1848 – although, Rev. Rydecki (in his first footnote) redefines that latter term for the purposes of his paper: “For our purposes, the age of Lutheran orthodoxy will be defined as the period beginning with Martin Luther and ending with Johann Gerhard, c. AD 1515-1637” (typically, I think the “Lutheran Age of Orthodoxy” is defined as something like AD 1580-1730 – clearly as a reference to the growth and impact of Lutheran Scholasticism). In my opinion, this paper constitutes a vitally important and academically honest contribution to the current – and growing – debate over the proper and orthodox way to articulate the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification.

As the title of this paper – along with the first footnote – makes abundantly clear, it is concerned with establishing for the modern Lutheran an understanding of the Doctrine of Justification and its relationship to the Atonement, as they were taught during the first two generations of Lutheran theologians, based on what they stated directly concerning these doctrines, rather than how their statements “can be properly understood” according to various recent formulations of them. What this means is that neither the extended “Election Debates” of latter 19^th Century America, nor the American Lutheran figures from that period, are in view – although the claims of some contemporary commentators regarding the doctrine of the Reformers, and of orthodox Lutherans in the immediate post-Reformation period, are addressed, since many such claims do not rely on the words of those early theologians as they spoke them, but instead pass those words through the prism of hardened positions taken by confessional Lutherans involved in the 19^th Century “Election Debates,” and since such claims tend to frame the current and growing debate concerning the Doctrine of Justification.

Subsequent to delivering it at the ELDoNA Colloquium, Rev. Rydecki published his paper both on his own blog, Faith Alone Justifies, and on Intrepid Lutherans. The reader is invited to read the paper at either of these two sources; links to various sections of his paper will be included as it is reviewed, below.

Rev. Rydecki starts precisely where he ought, with the “Common Outline of Forensic Justification” that is articulated in the Formula of Concord (FC:SD:III:24-25) and cited by nearly every competent author who involves himself in this debate. The four components of that Outline are reiterated by Rev. Rydecki, as follows:

1. “God's grace”
2. “Christ's merit”
3. “faith, through which the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner, and”
4. “the promise of the Gospel, since faith is only kindled in the heart by the Holy Spirit working through the Word.”

He then immediately identifies the genre of terminology to which the term “justification” belongs as juridical, and emphasizes that:

“The role of each one of these components is described by all of the principal writers in the age of orthodoxy in ‘forensic,’ that is, ‘judicial’ or ‘courtroom’ terminology, as they unfold the Biblical concept of ‘justification’.”

That is, all of the components of the Common Outline, are treated by orthodox Lutheran writers, from Luther to Gerhard, as juridical, just as the term justification is itself juridical. Thus, while justification was recognized as a juridical term, it was not viewed as being comprised of both juridical and non-juridical components. ALL components were regarded as juridical – as occurring before a judge in a courtroom setting.

This “courtroom setting” is the centerpiece of an analogy used by the early orthodox writers of the Lutheran Confession to explain the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification. It is not the analogy of a “bank account” nor of a “water tower” – which are frequently repeated in contemporary times, even though they are totally contrary in nature to that of justification, which is, again, juridical in nature, not financialin nature, nor having the nature of public utilities. Rather, Rev. Rydecki emphasizes, the early orthodox Lutherans actually used a juridical analogy of a courtroom to explain justification according to its Common Outline – an analogy in which there are at least three distinct features:

1. A real human being as a whole person – not a pre-incarnate person, not God's foreknowledge of a person, but a real live person
2. A Righteous Judge who examines the merits of that person's works, Who, finding none, justly condemns that person
3. Another Authority to which that real human being can appeal for Mercy and Pardon (much like a condemned prisoner in our day will appeal to the Office of the Presidency for official pardon, saying “Yes, I'm guilty. Yet I beg of you, please have mercy on me.”).

In support of the observation that orthodox Lutherans from Luther to Gerhard relied on this analogy, Rev. Rydecki marshals lengthy quotes from Luther, Melanchthon and Chemnitz, both from Confessional documents and from other writings, like commentaries on books of the Bible or doctrinal treatises, and also from Gerhard and Hunnius – who states, significantly:

“In a human judgment, they are said ‘to be justified’ who are pronounced free from the guilt of the crimes of which they were accused... In the same way, understanding the word in the same forensic usage, they are said to be justified before God who, fleeing to the Throne of Grace², are absolved from the guilt of sin and from damnation, and are reckoned as righteous by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, which consists in His obedience” (Articulus de iustificatione hominis peccatoris gratuita)

Likewise states Chemnitz as he negates the false teaching of the Roman church in his Examination of the Council of Trent. In its Decree of the Sixth Session, Article II – entitled “Concerning the Term ‘Justification’,” the Roman Catholic Church rejected the Lutheran position of Justification by Faith Alone, instead requiring within its definition of the term “justify” a righteousness that is infused in man by faith, rather than imputed to him, and which thus serves as a basis on which God would adjudge him “righteous”. Chemnitz responds, saying in part:

The meaning of the word ‘justify’... is judicial, namely, that the sinner, accused by the Law of God, convicted, and subjected to the sentence of eternal damnations, fleeing in faith to the throne of grace, is absolved for Christ's sake, reckoned and declared righteous, received into grace, and accepted to eternal life.” (Examination, Vol. 1, 474)

Here Chemnitz makes clear, the sinner BEFORE GOD already stands convicted and condemned on account of his sin – that is, God is not blind to his sin!. Because this is true, the convicted sinner flees in faith to where he will find Mercy: the Throne of Grace.

Lest one be tempted to regard this Analogy as having been understood by the early Lutherans as anything other than a single event, however, he should take note, first, of the lengthy quote offered by Rev. Rydecki from the Loci Theologici of Martin Chemnitz:

Thus, the use of the legal term “justification” refutes the ideas of the Epicureans. For it shows that the justification of the sinner is not some insignificant or perfunctory thing, but that the whole human being stands before the judgment of God and is examined both with respect to his nature as well as his works, and this according to the norm of the divine law. But because after the entrance of sin a human being in this life does not have true and perfect conformity with the law of God, nothing is found in this examination, whether in the person’s nature or in his works, that he can use to justify himself before God; rather the Law pronounces the sentence of condemnation, written by the very finger of God Himself.

...Therefore, because God does not justify out of frivolity, unconcern, error, or iniquity, nor because He finds anything in man whereby he might be justified before God; and yet the just requirement of the Law must be fulfilled in those who are to be justified... therefore a foreign righteousness must intervene – the kind of righteousness which not only with payment of penalties but also with perfect obedience to the divine law made satisfaction in such a way that it could be a propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

To this the terrified sinner, condemned by the voice of the Law, flees in true faith. This he desires, begs for, lays hold of; to this he submits himself; this he uses as his defense before the judgment seat of God and against the accusation of the Law. By regard for this and by its imputation he is justified, that is, he is absolved from the comprehensive sentence of condemnation and receives the promise of eternal life.

In this quote, we clearly see that, according to Chemnitz

1. the sinner involved is a whole human being – not a pre-incarnate person, not the idea or foreknowledge of that person in God's mind from the moment of Christ's death or resurrection, long before that person came into existence, but a real, live whole person.
2. the sinner – as a living breathing human being, not a pre-incarnate person, not the idea or foreknowledge of that person in God's mind – actually stands before the judgment seat of God (also referred to by Chemnitz as the Throne of Justice, in his Enchiridion, Q.146), in the nakedness of his own sins, to which the Righteous Judge does not turn a blind eye, but on account of which He justly convicts and condemns the wretched man
3. the sinner – again, as a whole human being – terrified by this sentence which he justly deserves and cannot escape on his own, flees in faith to the Throne of Grace and appropriates to himself the promises freely extended to him there
4. the sinner – again as a living breathing human being – pleads his case before the Throne of Justice with the promises of the Gospel as his defense against the accusations of the Law, and thus is granted absolution from the sentence he deserves, and is justified.

This is Justification according to the Common Analogy, explicated above by Chemnitz, and expressed in various similar ways by the likes of Luther, Melanchthon, Gerhard and Hunnius through the “Lutheran Age of Orthodoxy” (as it is defined by Rev. Rydecki in footnote one). There are no pre-incarnate humans involved at any stage of anyone's Justification; rather the whole, living human being is involved from start to finish. At no point does any aspect of this whole, living person's Justification occur without his presence in God's divine court.

The second point one should note, lest he be tempted to regard this Analogy as having been understood by the early Lutherans as anything other than a single event, is amplified by Rev. Rydecki as he notes several aspects from Chemnitz' lengthy recitation of the Analogy with respect to the Common Outline of Justification that the Analogy was intended to explain:

1. ALL components of the Outline are necessary, not just some, and
2. ALL components occur simultaneously.

Rev. Rydecki states:

“[J]ustification occurs in the divine courtroom, not without the accused fleeing in faith to the Throne of Grace, not before the accused flees in faith to the Throne of Grace, but simultaneously with this ‘fleeing’ or this ‘forensic appeal.’” ...Chemnitz’ analogy illustrates that the concept of forensic justification, as described by the Lutheran Fathers, is not a piecemeal justification that already ‘happened’ for all sinners, whether or not they appeal to the foreign righteousness of Christ, and then later ‘happens’ again through the Word and faith. Instead, it is the culmination of the four ‘causes’ that comprise the article of justification, each of which is a sine qua non in forensic justification. There can be no forensic justification of the sinner without God’s grace, or without the merit of Christ, or without the sinner being clothed by faith in the foreign righteousness of Christ, or without the promise of the Gospel that kindles faith.

These observations can leave little doubt that the early orthodox Lutherans did NOT view the entirety of Justification as anything other than occurring in a single point in time.

But what of this “Throne of Grace”? What is it and where does it come from? Surely, all Lutherans understand the picture of the “Throne of Justice” – this is, of course, where the Righteous Judge sits. But what is the Throne of Grace in this old Lutheran analogy of Justification? It is the seat of mercy, or the “Mercy Seat,” Who is Jesus Christ Himself, who in mercy freely confers NOT the sinner's own “pre-incarnate Justification” (since all aspects of Justification occur simultaneously within the confines of the Divine courtroom-setting, in which the whole person is present for the duration), but the benefit of His own Atoning or Reconciling work. Rev. Rydecki states:

“On account of the satisfaction Christ made to the divine law, there exists, objectively, a Throne of Grace to which all sinners are invited (in the Gospel) to flee, an alternate place of judgment opened up as a result of God’s grace and the obedience, suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ. It is ‘another tribunal,’ apart from the Law, where God is propitious, where absolution is pronounced, justification is declared, and eternal life is bestowed for the sake of Christ. The ‘atonement’ made by Christ has opened up this Throne of Grace, which is actually Christ Himself, the ‘atonement cover’ or ‘Mercy Seat,’ sprinkled with His own blood⁶, the ‘Atoner’ or ‘Reconciler.’”

So far is covered the Common Outline of Justification, articulated in the Confessions, and cited as the starting point by everyone who has involved themselves in the current and growing debate on the Doctrine of Justification, and a Common Analogy used by orthodox Lutherans from the time of Luther to that of Gerhard – exhausting fully six pages of text (though referring to additional supporting material in the Appendices). The Common Analogy used by these early Lutherans says a great deal about how they understood the Doctrine of Justification and its relationship to the Atonement – but it is still just an analogy, not the Doctrine of Justification proper. For this reason, it was not, nor should any mere analogy be, used as a binding Confession – such are used only to assist in explaining what a given Confession is. For this reason Rev. Rydecki continued for an additional eleven pages to voluminously adduce evidence from the Lutheran Confessions and the doctrinal treatises and Scripture commentaries of these early Lutherans in an attempt to show that the Common Analogy they used to explain the Doctrine of Justification was in perfect harmony with the Doctrine they Confessed and explicated, and was consistent with their explanation and use of Scripture concerning that Doctrine. This evidence was broken down according to the four components of the Common Outline, and the reader can take in that evidence directly at the following links:

The Grace of God
The Merit of Christ
Faith
The Promise of the Gospel

In closing this paper, Rev. Rydecki does highlight a Wittenberg theologian from the period between 1515-1637, who neither accepted the Common Analogy nor maintained the Common Outline. He was a Swiss theologian who distinguished himself in his attacks against the Calvinists in favor of Universal Atonement, and who wrote a book against them totaling 1185 theses, entitled, That Christ Jesus died for the sins of all men. Impressed, in 1592 the Wittenberg theologians invited him to join the faculty, thinking he would make a strong ally in their own fight against Calvinism in Germany. That Swiss theologian was Samuel Huber. Rev. Rydecki continues:

“But within three years, the Wittenberg faculty noticed that Huber was straying from the ‘common (and Scriptural) outline’ of justification. He was teaching a justification that ‘happened’ for all men apart from the Word and apart from faith. It was a ‘general justification,’ a ‘universal justification’ that was supposedly pronounced at some time on all men. As they dug back into his book of 1185 theses, the Wittenberg theologians found that he had already been teaching this false doctrine there... It can easily be determined, both from Huber’s writings (especially his Tübingen Theses) and from Hunnius’ writings against him, that Huber was by no means a ‘Universalist’ in the modern sense of the word; he did not teach that all people go to heaven. Nor did Hunnius ever bring that accusation against him... What Huber did teach was that, although God had justified the whole world, people could reject this general justification and fall back under God’s condemnation. But he taught that baptismal regeneration was necessary for salvation. He also taught that justification by faith was necessary for a person to be eternally saved.

Huber’s problem was not that he was a Universalist. It was that he strayed from proper Biblical exegesis of certain passages, including Romans 5:12-20... It was that he strayed from the common outline of forensic justification that requires the imputation, by faith, of Christ’s righteousness in order for any sinner to be justified. It was that he strayed from the confessional Lutheran teaching that ‘restricts justification to believers only, as prescribed by all prophetic and apostolic Scriptures’ (Hunnius, Theses Opposed to Huberianism, Thesis 20 Concerning Justification).”

Samuel Huber was dismissed from the Wittenberg faculty in 1595. That he was dismissed, and, in particular, the foundation on which that dismissal was justified, i.e., “denying that justification is restricted to believers,” is further evidence offered by Rev. Rydecki of what the early orthodox Lutherans both confessed, and also what they rejected.

Finally, filling out the forty pages Rev. Rydecki submitted to the Colloquium, he included four appendices to his paper, offering still further evidence from the direct statements of orthodox Lutherans from Luther to Gerhard concerning the Doctrine of Justification as to what they in fact believed, taught and confessed.

• Appendix 1 is entitled, “The ‘Causes’ of Justification”, and adduces lengthy explanations from Polycarp Leyser, Aegidius Hunnius,and Johann Gerhardt.
• Appendix 2 is entitled, “The Lutheran Fathers on Specific Bible Passages,” and adduces the explanations of Martin Chemnitz, Aegidius Hunnius, Martin Luther, Johann Gerhardt, Philip Melanchthon, and the Book of Concord for the following Bible references:
  John 1:29
  Romans 3:24
  Romans 4:5
  Romans 4:24-25
  Romans 5:18
  2 Corinthians 5:19
• Appendix 3 is entitled, “Citations from Luther's Commentary on Galatians”
• Appendix 4 is entitled, “Answering some Questions Concerning Specific Citations from the Lutheran Fathers,” and responds to the following commonly raised questions:
  Luther’s “the king gives you a castle” analogy
  Luther’s “forgiven before our prayer” from the Large Catechism
  Ambrose’s “forgave to all” statement from the Apology
  Gerhard’s “absolved us in Him” phrase

As was stated at the head of this review, the title of this paper – along with the first footnote – makes abundantly clear, that it is concerned with establishing for the modern Lutheran an understanding of the Doctrine of Justification and its relationship to the Atonement, as these were taught during the first two generations of Lutheran theologians, based on what they stated directly concerning these doctrines, rather than how their statements “can be properly understood” according to various recent formulations.

In this reviewer's opinion, Rev. Rydecki did a thorough and convincing job of establishing such an understanding. It seems clear that, based on the volume of material he marshals from the early orthodox Lutherans, the number of different authors cited and their recognized stature as respected theologians, and the unity of these citations across the two generations from which they are drawn, it is therefore reasonable to conclude, based strictly on their own statements, that Lutherans from the time of Luther to Gerhard taught that

1. Justification consists of the following four components: (1) the Grace of God; (2) the Merit of Christ; (3) Faith, through which the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner; and, (4) the promise of the Gospel, since faith is only kindled in the heart by the Holy Spirit working through the Word.
   
2. ALL components are necessary to Justification, not just some components
   
3. ALL components are regarded as juridical – as occurring before a judge in a courtroom setting.
   
4. ALL components occur simultaneously
   
5. the sinner involved is a whole human being – not a pre-incarnate person, not the idea or foreknowledge of that person in God's mind
   
6. the sinner involved is not “already Justified,” but is already condemned on account of his sin, and is in very real need of Mercy
   
7. “they are said to be Justified BEFORE GOD who, fleeing to the Throne of Grace [in faith], are absolved from the guilt of sin and from damnation, and are reckoned as righteous by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ”

Others may dispute these obvious conclusions to be drawn from Rev. Rydecki's research regarding the teaching of the early orthodox Lutherans. Fine. But it is not enough now for them to merely disagree, especially if such disagreement serves as any basis for their continued and malicious public malignment of his character. Rev. Rydecki has, with this paper, quite clearly laid down the gauntlet. The onus is now on those who disagree that this was the teaching of the early orthodox Lutherans to adduce with equal volume and unity, from a similar number of orthodox Lutheran theologians, having similar stature, from the same era treated by Rev. Rydecki, direct statements indicating the contrary. Short of this, the onus is on them to simply be honest, and admit that, in disagreeing with these obvious conclusions, though they stand in agreement with one another, they nevertheless stand in disagreement with the teaching of the Lutheran Fathers regarding the central article of the Christian faith.

Click here to Continue to PART V.5

“Who do You Say that I AM?” What do the Scriptures Say?

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth — those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.

“If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true... I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved... I have a greater witness... for the works which the Father has given Me to finish — the very works that I do — bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

“I do not receive honor from men. But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me... How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God?” (John 5:24-44, NKJV)

The bile which dribbles from the lips of His enemies is no different now than it was when Jesus walked the earth. Though man’s search for Meaning and Truth, and his desire for Eternal Life continues unabated, the Life and Message of the Man Who is also God – Jesus Christ, the Messiah and the World’s one and only Saviour from Sin – is reviled, and those who follow Him, despised. The World along with man’s own Fleshly Nature remain as much the Christian’s enemy as the Devil himself, to tear us away from the Only Way to the Father: Jesus (Jn. 14:6, Ac. 4:12). The words above are those of Jesus in response to His enemies.

But, who is Jesus? How do we know about Him? How do we know He is Who He said He is? In the text above, Jesus Himself names for us the two coordinating witnesses which answer these questions:

1. “I do not receive testimony from man... I have a greater witness... for the works which the Father has given Me to finish — the very works that I do — bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me”
   
   That is, the historical facts of Jesus life, death and resurrection are ample testimonies of Jesus' claims.
   
   
2. “And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.”
   
   That is, the Scriptures themselves – and in this case, Jesus was referring specifically to the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the Messiah, numbering on the order of 300, which in Him alone are exactly fulfilled – written by God through the pens of His appointed prophets (2 Pe. 1:20-21,Is. 59:21; 2 Ti. 3:15-17; 1 Co. 14:37,2 Co. 13:10,1 Pe. 1:25; 2 Pe. 3:2,2 Pe. 3:15-17; Mk 16:15-18,He. 2:3-4), also give ample testimony concerning Jesus.

These are the two witnesses who testify of Jesus: the events of Jesus’ life and the words of Scripture. And it is only upon two or three witnesses that testimony concerning a man is to be received (De. 19:15, Matt. 18:16, He. 10:28). And these are the witnesses against whom the Beast has waged war, and which the World around us has long left for dead, whose carcasses they “rejoice over and make merry, and send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth” (Rev. 11:1-14).

According to the very words of Jesus, God’s Message to all of mankind about the work of Jesus, the Message against which all of mankind is naturally opposed, cannot be divorced from the actual historical facts of Christ’s life. Indeed, such facts are as important to us today as they were to the disciples who witnessed the events of His life firsthand, who on the basis of what they had seen and heard “could not help but speak of it” (Ac. 4:12-21), even in the face of persecution by the Jewish, and later, Roman authorities. Already before the close of the Apostolic Age, on the basis of their witness to these events and the Message of Jesus Christ which attended them, the Good News had become known as that which was “turning the world upside down” (Acts 17:1-7). No, the Message of Good News cannot be divorced from the historical events of Jesus’ life as Scripture records them, from His birth to His death by crucifixion, and especially His bodily Resurrection. For “if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching in vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ... If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable” (1 Co. 15:11-23). The facts of history concerning Jesus, as they are recorded in the Scriptures, establish the Christian religion; and this is why, as facts, they are important: for if the Messiah had not actually come as God in the Flesh, if He had not died on the Tree as propitiation for the sins of the World, if He had not risen bodily from the grave, all in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, then the Christian religion is a myth – the same as every other religion on the planet which rests on false or unverifiable historical claims, or on no claims whatsoever.

So it behooves every Christian to make these facts his own, as facts and not only as articles of faith (which by definition any worldly religion can claim regardless of the facts), and be prepared, as St. Peter and St. Paul adjure us, to assert them as such as part of our defense of Christianity: “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” and “Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching” (1 Pe. 3:15 & 2 Ti. 4:2, NKJV). With this in mind, the following brief explanation for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, according to the facts recorded in Scripture, is produced.

The First Part focuses on the facts of the person of Christ – beginning with man’s need for a Saviour, God’s promise that He would send a Saviour, the prophecies concerning His coming, and the facts of His life demonstrating that Jesus was this promised Messiah, both God and man.

The Second Part focuses on the facts of the crucifixion of Jesus – His arrest, trial, torture and death.

The Third Part of this post focuses on the facts reported in the Gospels regarding Jesus’ bodily resurrection, the accounts themselves impressing their truthfulness upon even the most ardent of skeptics, if he not already be overcome with the rebellion of irrational prejudice.

These facts are vitally important for the Christian to understand, as they are fulfilled in the historical person of Jesus, and served as a primary basis on which the Message of the Early Evangelists was proliferated throughout, and beyond, the Mediterranean. They must continue to serve as such, lest our own irrational prejudice against historical fact increasingly rob the Good News of the Person Who gave it. They impress upon us, and all who would hear us, that the events of Christ’s life as recorded in the Scriptures, as important as they are to the Christian religion, aren’t just religious truths, aren’t the product of an desperately profound hopefulness willing to jettison reality: they are also, and just as importantly, legitimate history – the same sort of legitimate history by which we learn of Pope Gregory VII, Martin Luther, George Washington, Napolean Bonaparte, Queen Victoria, or Winston Churchill – a history which has not lost integrity as historians and archeologists have studied the historical claims of the Bible, but a history whose credibility remains established as those claims have become verified as fact.

“What was missing in my life was Absolution”: One Christian's Journey from Evangelicalism to Confessional Lutheranism

On Tuesday, we published a short blog post highlighting the research of Rev. Matthew Richard (CLBA), who is working on a doctoral degree at Concordia Seminary - St. Louis, entitled, 'Crucible Moments' and 'Becoming Lutheran'. Afterward, while perusing his blog, PM Notes: Evangelizing Moral Therapeutic Deists; Comforting Post-Evangelicals; Strengthening Monergists, I stumbled across one of his posts from last December: Confessions Of A Former Evangelical (Encore). It is a brief post, featuring only a broadcast from Chris Rosebrough's Fighting for the Faith, regarding which he comments:

A wonderful message from Chris Rosebrough on his journey from Evangelicalism to Lutheranism. A close friend and Baptist blogger posted this sermon on his blog saying that it was "Perhaps the Best Defense of the Gospel You'll Ever Hear (From a Lutheran)". Please listen, it is well worth your time.

I recall this episode from Fighting for the Faith, and agree: It is well worth your time. I've included it in this post, below. Give it a listen.

Incidentally, that post, linked to from Rev. Richard's blog to his Baptist friend's blog, is no longer there. Perhaps his Baptist friend was just cleaning up old posts, but nothing before January 2013 is available. However, maybe this following fact is pertinent. On February 28, 2013, his Baptist friend, a Baptist minister, announced that he has left the Southern Baptist Convention. He has many very interesting, and familiar, reasons for doing so. Please read his post: Why I’ve Left the Convention.


A Journey From Legalistic Pietistic Evangelicalism to the Cross
delivered at the First National BJS Conference, February 2009
by Chris Rosebrough

 

Quotes from Chris Rosebrough's “Plenary Speech” compiled for those of who won't listen to the podcast, who haven't been through the transition of “Evangelical” to “confessional Lutheran,” who don't know what a genuine Worldview Crisis really is (See our recent post, 'Crucible Moments' and 'Becoming Lutheran' for more information on “transition” and “Worldview Crisis”.) They've completely transformed the church service. It's no longer a pastor who is an undershepherd of the Good shepherd, feeding God's sheep with God's Word, making disciples, giving them Word and Sacrament, proclaiming and announcing the forgiveness of sins won by Jesus Christ on the Cross. Instead, it has been turned into a psychological freakshow. How about this from Saddleback Church: “When you're running on empty, learn the ancient secrets from God's Word for a less stressful, more relaxing, lighter and free-er lifestyle.” Now here is the fun part about it. All of these churches... when these guys launch -- four, five or six hundred people. They are marketing experts, they are running circles around us. And the people coming to their churches, are they hearing the Gospel? Not at all... All of these guys "claim" that they are doing these things to reach the lost for Jesus Christ, and to give them the Gospel, and that they are not compromising. HOGWASH! What are the results of all this? ...After 20 years, 40% of their people don't believe in salvation by Grace... 57% don't believe in the Authority of the Bible... 56% don't believe Jesus is the Only Way to Eternal Life. Former Evangelicals, they're like ex-smokers... So you can say that, at that time, I was "On fire for the Lord!" -- and you bet I was, because I was told if I wasn't, I was going to burn in Hell. There was no Grace. There was no forgiveness. Only an endless rat-wheel of good works with no assurance that I was even meeting the lowest standard necessary for me to be saved. That's the thing about the Law: How do you know when you've done it enough to please God? I did everything I could to stand out as a Christian among Christians, and at the time if you were to ask me if I was going to heaven when I died, my answer would have been. “I hope so... I hope so.” Beneath the Christian facade was a young man who was struggling with his sin, and who knew he wasn't winning that battle. And I knew that I was not good enough to be saved. “We believe that 'Entire Sanctification' is that act of God, subsequent to regeneration, by which believers are made 'free from original sin, or depravity,' and brought into a 'state of entire devotion to God', and 'the holy obedience of love made perfect'. It is wrought by the baptism with the Holy Spirit, and comprehends in one experience the cleansing of the heart from sin and the abiding indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, empowering the believer for a life of service. 'Entire Sanctification' is provided by the Blood of Jesus, is wrought instantaneously by faith, preceded by entire consecration into this work and state of Grace, the Holy Spirit bears witness. This experience is also know by various terms representing its various phases, such as 'Christian perfection', 'perfect love', 'heart purity', the 'Baptism of the Holy Spirit', the 'Fullness of the Blessing', 'Christian Holiness', and 'Second Blessing of Holiness.'” Perfection... and that's really the Material Principle of Pietism... Modern day Evangelicals, the center of their preaching is 'the changed life', and, their Formal Principle is 'The Bible as Guidebook for Living.' That's what they preach for. Life change. I was literally fed a steady stream of tactics and practical methods for 'living a God-pleasing life'... But there was no peace for me, no assurance, no hope, my sin problem wouldn't go away, and I knew that I would face shame and rejection if I had to stand before Jesus and give an accounting of my life. Because that's all they were preaching: an Accounting. “Be ye perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” Yeah, but I wasn't... I obviously didn't love God... I came to [my pastor] for Grace, and he gave me more Law. Looking back on it I now realize, the teaching and preaching of my church literally cut me off from all hope of salvation. I diligently searched God's Law for little shreds of hope and tiny crumbs of sunlight that could tell me that I would be okay. But there is no comfort in God's Law. There is no forgiveness offered in God's Law. A person can only live under despair for so long. And that is what this kind of teaching produced in me: utter despair. I was literally withering under the heat of God's Law. But what I didn't know, is that that is exactly what God's Law is supposed to do to us. What was missing in my life was Absolution. There's no way he can make it into heaven, he's not even trying! He comforted me with Christ's shed blood on the Cross, he told me over and over again that Jesus' Blood was shed for me, for my sins, all of them, FREE, even the one's I've committed today. I'd never heard a Christian talk this way before. And I'm telling you, there are millions of Evangelicals who've never heard a Christian talk this way before. They don't know the Gospel! He openly confessed his overwhelming need for a Saviour and his utter dependence on Christ's shed Blood on the Cross for his sins. “But now the righteousness of God has been made manifest apart from the Law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe, for their is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are Justified freely by His Grace as a gift through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” I had stopped my incessant worrying about whether I was good enough, holy enough, or perfect enough to be saved. Instead, I was asking a far more important set of questions: “Was Jesus Christ good enough?” “Was Jesus Christ holy enough?” “Was He perfect enough to save me?” “Did Jesus' Blood, which He shed on the Cross, cover all of my sins? Or just some of them?” These texts show that it is all about Jesus Christ [not ME]. His obedience, His ministry, His perfection, His righteousness, His taking my sin and suffering my punishment for me, on the Cross!