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!

Ahead of Convention: “Issues Facing Confessional Lutheranism Today”

The following podcast is a July 12, 2013, Issues, Etc. interview of Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS) President Rev. Dr. Matt Harrison, ahead of the 2013 Triennial LCMS Convention (July 20-25, 2013). Heading into our own WELS Convention next week, SP Harrison's remarks are a good reminder of the issues underlying the challenges we face, as well.

 

This podcast is taken from the July 12, 2013 edition of Issues, Etc.
(Right-click here to save MP3)
Listen to this podcast to hear how SP Harrison characterizes the Issues listed below:

Worldwide Issues...
• Human Sexuality
• Ordination of Women
• Gay Marriage
• Natural Law
• Culture Wars
  
• Gospel Reductionism
• Historical Critical Method
• Death of Systematic Theology
  
• Biblical Inerrancy
• Confessional Integrity
• Unionism
• Open Heterodoxy

Issues within LCMS (and maybe WELS, too?)
• Too many pastors languishing in CRM status
• Two tier pastorate (“called & ordained” -vs- “staff minister”)
• Roles of Men & Women
• Church Growth Movement

Are there Synodical or other fundamental issues that were not directly addressed by SP Harrison in this interview, that confessional Lutherans in America ought to concern ourselves with? Yes, of course. A couple that come to mind – which seem to currently be on prominent display on the LCMS website – are:

• National Rural and Small Town Mission Conference: The plight of the small rural congregation is a serious concern. In some corners of LCMS, there seems to be a concerted effort to strengthen rural congregations, to keep them serving Lutherans into the future instead of abandoning them and forcing rural Lutherans to travel inordinate distances each week to attend suburban mega-churches. I know of two rural LCMS congregations nearby that are languishing (one of which is hanging on by its fingernails, with basically only a couple large dedicated families remaining), and another in a nearby small town (a “small town” that is actually the largest town in the county) that can't get a pastor and is very near giving up – and will be giving up a nice masonry gothic structure on main street, as well. The local pentecostals will thank them for the building. Far too many rural WELS congregations are being counciled to close up shop, and sell their property, as well (and again, it's usually the renegade pentecostals that gobble up that property). I know of two in my own vicinity that have been so counciled, and continue to refuse – but finding pastors to serve them seems to be getting more and more difficult. I know of another nearby rural congregation that left WELS for a more accommodating Lutheran church body, after being pressured to merge with a larger WELS congregation.


• How can we as Lutherans live in but not succumb to the culture?: Too many Lutherans are under the mistaken impression that “being in the world but not of it” really means “look like you're of the world in every possible way, but deny it when asked and act offended when a fellow Christian mistakes you for being worldly.” Perhaps there was a time when Christianity was of such positive and overwhelming influence in society, that it was hard to distinguish being “of the world” from merely “being in it.” Not anymore. Society has progressed so far beyond what Christian liberty can justify, that there can now be no possible way of maintaining fidelity to our faith while also adopting the World Views and Worldly Ways of unregenerate society. We are called out by God from among them, such that now there can be no mistaking, “being in the world but not of it” means that, as we continue to live in all Christian propriety, we actually appear differently to our unregenerate neighbors. Much like the early Christians in pagan culture were noticeably different – yes, even weird, though in a curious and endearing way – as they helped those around them in their various forms of need.

What other fundamental issues can you identify?

 

The Average Layman is Defenseless!

Today, we reprise a lecture we featured twice in 2011 under the title, 'non rockaboatus' is an organizational disease: Lectures by Dr. Walter Martin, but with a different emphasis. After the facts exposed in last week's post, Do any Lutherans want to be Dresden Lutherans? Meanwhile, the Groeschelites continue their agenda..., it is abundantly clear that our Synod is wracked with division and, as a consequence, is in steep decline right along with the rest of the visible Church. And with the Church, so goes Western Civilization itself, whose political, legal and educational structures were built upon the framework of Christian teaching.

Stating as much in our conclusion to that post (the section entitled The Collective Descent of American Lutheranism), we submitted that the time of inaction, the time of armchair lamentation over the state of our Synod and of American Lutheranism, the time of complacent Synod watching as if it were a mere spectator sport, has come to a close. Yesterday was the time to act. Today is the time to do so feverishly. Tomorrow will be too late. After tomorrow, it will be time to separate and start over. The following will suggest one of the more potent actions laymen can take, but the reader will have to read to the end to discover what it is, and why it is among the most potent forms of action.

Dr. Walter R. Martin (d. 1989) was an expert on the occult, and from the 1960’s onward, disseminated countercultic and apologetic information through his organization, Christian Research Institute (CRI). At least one of Dr. Martin’s works, The Kingdom of the Cults, remains a very valuable resource, one which I consult with semi-regularity as need arises. An associate of Dr. Rod Rosenblatt and Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, Dr. Martin was, like they, an influential Christian intellectual, a man with the courage and ability to engage in public debate with his opponents, and, as a fierce defender of Christian orthodoxy in the face of truly diabolical liberal Christianity, more than equipped to defeat them.

Over the past three years, several of Dr. Martin’s lectures have been featured by Chris Rosebrough on his internet radio show, Fighting for the Faith – a daily program in the lineup of Pirate Christian Radio (PCR). I remember these PCR features, since I am of about the same age as Mr. Rosebrough, and remember Dr. Martin’s voice and manner of teaching from my youth, in a way similar to Rosebrough’s reminiscences. We confessional Lutherans would be mistaken if we should think that our struggles are unique to us. Others have already gone through the struggle that is now hard upon us. We would be fools not to learn from their experience and take their advice.

---

Dr. Walter Martin on the Cult of Liberalism

 

(lecture begins @~58min, 30sec)
A Cue to Theological Change: A Change in the Terms used by the Church
“Any person who does not know that today in the United States, and in denominational structures worldwide, we are in an accelerating apostasy, does not know, I repeat, does not know what is going on...” (1hr 12min)

“They were using all of our terminology... What you have to understand is very hard... the major denominational structures on the United States today have pumped all of the meaning out of Christian terminology, and have nothing but a hollow shell. And people are attracted by the shell...” (1hr 28min 50sec and following)

Questions:

1. What happens over the course of a generation or two when the church begins to use old familiar terms with subtly, though increasingly, different emphasis?
2. Or, what happens when entirely new words, words previously unfamiliar in Church usage, words with less precise meaning, words with less established theological meaning, replace the old, precise, established and familiar terms? Is the deprecating declaration, “these terms are synonymous,” a sufficient explanation?
3. What happens when well established ecclesiastical terms, having widely understood meaning, are simply dropped from use?
4. What ecclesiastical terms can you identify which meet the above three conditions?
5. If we are to heed Dr. Walter Martin's warnings, ought laymen to be suspicious whenever pastors or theologians use the authority of the church to push their language games as authoritatively binding on the laity?

---

The Average Layman is Defenseless!
“You can see these people in the cults and the occult if you have any degree of discernment at all, because they are outside the church. But how do you see the Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopalian professor of theology? How do you get him in a place where you can find out what his theology really is? The moment you question him, he reverts to orthodox terminology, and then if you press him for the definitions of his terminology, he claims that you're being suspicious, bigoted and unloving. The average layman is defenseless! He's got to take what comes from behind the pulpit and recommended by his church authority because the moment he opens his mouth, he's accused of being divisive in the church, unloving, and disturbing the fellowship of the faith! When it is the devil behind the pulpit, not the victim in the pew, that's responsible for it!...” (1hr 36min 12sec)

“That is why I am concerned about the cult of liberalism as never before. We can identify the other cults, but how do you identify somebody that looks like you, acts like you, sounds like you...? Do you want the answer? ...1 Thessalonians 5:14ff ...put everything to the test, cling tenaciously to what is good...” (1hr 38min 30sec)

Questions:

1. Is it proper for the layman to assume that ALL pastors who may serve him, or that ALL theologians who may serve his church body, are orthodox on every point of Scripture teaching?
2. When St. Paul commended the Bereans for verifying his teaching by searching the Scriptures, what was he commending if it was not a cautious reception of his words? Was he commending an open and uncritical reception of his teaching?
3. How can a layman identify potential theological corruption in his pastor or his church's theologians? Unfamiliar terminology, or unfamiliar use of familiar terminology, perhaps?
4. How then does the layman examine a pastor or theologian who, by definition, by virtue of the Office he holds, is not allowed to wrong, about anything, ever?
5. How does a layman examine a Minister of the Word, whose operating assumption is that he is always orthodox and that laymen always need guidance and correction? Will a personal conversation bring about correction in the Minister's theology? Will writing a letter suffice?

---

Theological Language Games and the Destruction of Orthodoxy
“British theology was corrupted by German theology – Friedrich Schleiermacher, Albrecht Ritschl, David Strauss – and finally [it came] to America... Where do you think we got the God is Dead Theology from? From historic Christianity?... We did not! We got it from a good solid Baptist theological seminary, known as Colgate Rochester in New York, which was absolutely orthodox, but which sold out to liberalism! And when it did, they embraced the theology of Paul Tillich, and ended up with God is Dead. It was called at the time, The Gospel of Christian Atheism – did you ever hear such linguistic nonsense in your life!?” (1hr 40min 30sec)

Questions:

This is at least the third point in Dr. Walter Martin's lecture where he emphasizes the language games of theologians as evidence of changing theology.

1. How can changes in the use of language possibly result in changes to one's theology, if one's use of language doesn't change the way he thinks about theology?
2. What is the potential threat to the Christian when his pastors and theologians defend dramatic changes in the language he ought to use when contemplating and expressing his Christian convictions?
3. From what primary source might Christians be most vulnerable to subtle, or even overt, changes in language use and the threat of its impact on their theology?
4. Why is it safest to stay with historical and well-established terminology of the church?
5. If the concern is that our "contemporary generation" doesn't use historic ecclesiastical terminology in everyday conversation and therefore doesn't understand it,
   1. Was there ever a time when ecclesiastical terminology was in such wide use in everyday conversation that it was understood on the basis of its everyday usage?
   2. How might catechesis have helped people understand the church's use of language in the past?
   3. How might catechesis help in the same way, today?

Dr. Walter Martin also makes the strong suggestion here that not only can "orthodox" seminaries go liberal, but gives evidence that they have done so.

6. Is it possible for an orthodox Lutheran seminary to go liberal?
7. How can a Lutheran layman know, or even suspect, that his seminary is going liberal?
8. What can the Lutheran layman do to correct problems in his Synod's seminary, if he suspects, or if it is confirmed that such problems exist? Will a personal conversation bring about the desired correction? Will writing a letter suffice?

Finally, Dr. Walter Martin singled out three Germans – European liberal theologians from the era of 19^th Century European Evangelicalism – as having ruined British and American theology. Surely, these German theologians had no impact on 19^th Century American Confessional Lutheranism... did they?

---

A Declining Regard for the Scriptures: Spiritual Death and Social Destruction
“[Liberalism] is a cult because it follows every outlining structure of cultism. It has its own revelation, its own gurus, and its denial, systematically, of all sound systematic Christian theology. It is a cult, because it passes its leadership on to the next group, that takes over either modifying, expanding or contracting the same heresies, dressing them up in different language, and passing them on. It is theologically corrupt, because it is bibliologically corrupt; it denies the authority of Scripture and ruins its own theology. And, it ends in immorality. Because the only way you could have gotten to this 'homosexual,' morally relativistic garbage, which is today in our denominational structures, is if the leadership of those denominations divide the authority of the Scriptures, and Jesus Christ as Lord. That is the only way we've gotten there.” (2hr 28min 50sec)

Questions:

1. How does the Christian's view of the inspiration, inerrancy and perspicuity of the Scriptures impact his theology?
2. How does the teaching of the church impact society in general – that is, apart from its immediate impact on the people who sit in the pews and hear it directly?
3. How might false doctrine, therefore, in addition to destroying faith, also become a social evil?
4. Given that most liberal churches have abandoned orthodoxy, and have embraced the "social gospel" in place of the "Gospel of Jesus Christ," can their fixation on issues of "social justice" be classified as precisely the opposite? Not as the "good" they would have it to be, but as an unmitigated evil perpetrated by liberal churches, which result, rather, in gross injustice?

---

Immunizing Christians against Theological Poison
“Every major theological seminary that has turned from orthodox Christianity began with disbelief of biblical doctrine... Corrupt Bibliology led them to the next step. Theology began to be touched by it... And finally they had emptied the Gospel of all its content, and simply were using the outward shell so that they could go on collecting money from the people and the churches, because they knew that if the people in the pews knew that they were apostate they'd throw them out. So the strategy was: hang on to the trust funds, hang on to the money that we've got, hang on to the properties we control, we will gradually educate the laymen into this new approach to theology. And then, finally, we will take control of everything. This is the gradual process of feeding you theological poison, until you become immunized enough so that you don't know what is happening to you. And when you wake up to what is happening to you, it's too late. They've got everything...” (1hr 26min 10sec)

“Look what happened... Look at the votes. We were very subtly, systematically, squeezed out. All of the positions of leadership were given to people who denied the foundations of the faith...” (1hr 30min 35sec)

Questions:

1. The fixation of liberals is what:
   1. Preserving sound teaching? ...or
   2. Preserving the organization as an institution?
2. The process of changing theology while maintaining the organization requires that liberals retain the laity while retraining them "gradually" – through a use of familiar terms with subtly, though increasingly, different emphasis, by introducing foreign terms and dropping common ecclesiastical terms.
   1. Why do they need to retain the laity? What does the laity offer them?
   2. Why is the change gradual?
   3. Why is changing the organization's language the best way to change the thinking of those in the organization?
3. Is it possible for an orthodox Lutheran Synod to go liberal?
4. How can a Lutheran layman know, or even suspect, that his Synod is going liberal?
5. If sound teaching is not valued by a liberal Synod as highly as the organization itself, what does the Lutheran layman have that would be so sufficiently valuable that a corrupt organization would pay heed to the orthodox advice of a layman?
   1. Merely his orthodox advice? ...or
   2. His money?
6. Can organizational change which laymen must purchase with their money be relied upon as genuine?

“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!

 

Homosexuality, God, and The Bible

The Whole Truth!

There has been much discussion and debate about homosexuality, not just in the secular world, but also within various Christian denominations. In all this, the most important consideration must be what God says on the issue. Therefore, the question for all Christians must be: What Does God say about homosexuality in the Bible?

Human Questions – Divine Answers

Question: Isn’t the Bible silent about homosexuality, or isn’t it true that what is written does not show it to be against God’s will, and not really sinful?

Answer: Actually, the Bible is very clear on the subject of homosexuality in such passages as Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26 & 27, First Corinthians 6:9, and First Timothy 1:10, where homosexuality is called sin.

Question: But do these passages really talk about what we know as homosexuality?

Answer: In the Leviticus passage God forbids a man to “lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” The word for “lie” is the Hebrew word for bed, and is also used for marriage, and the act of consummating a marriage; therefore, there can be no doubt as to what Moses is referring; for a man to have intercourse with a man as he would with a woman is disgusting to God! Indeed, there are numerous Old Testament passages, that all condemn homosexuality: Genesis 19:1-29; Leviticus 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:17; Judges 19; and First Kings 14:24, 15:12, and 22:46.

Question: But the Old Testament laws are no longer binding on New Testament Christians, right?

Answer: True enough for the most part, but then we have the passages in St. Paul’s letters, given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. These are certainly authoritative to any who would claim to be Christians!
- In Romans 1: 26 and 27, Paul speaks of “shameful lusts,” and describes this as happening when “women exchanged natural relations for un-natural ones,” and also “men committed indecent acts with other men.” The term “unnatural” literally means “against the natural order of things.” As for what that natural order is, all we need to do is look back to Creation. In Genesis 2:24 we see that the natural order is that of husband and wife (i.e., male and female) becoming “one flesh.” Therefore, according to the One who created humans, any sexual intercourse aside from male and female is un-natural - not the natural or intended use of the Creator - in other words, wrong! Please forgive the bluntness here, but it is necessary so as to leave no doubt as to what the Bible is talking about. The term “indecent acts” means any “deed of shame having to do with one’s genitalia.” Since Paul says these acts are being done between men and men and between women and women, the meaning is clear to anyone who is willing to see it: the use of one’s genitals with those of the same sex is shameful to God.
- In First Corinthians 6:9 God condemns “homosexual offenders” and “male prostitutes.” The first term comes from the Greek word for “soft, weak, sick,” and was often used for “effeminate” men, and especially for catamites; i.e. men and boys who allowed themselves to be sexually used or even abused for money or goods. The second word was very commonly used for a sodomite, someone engaging in homosexual anal intercourse; or pederast, someone using young children, usually boys, for sexual purposes. The same word is used in First Timothy 1:10; only there, the NIV translates it as “pervert.” The term is a compound word from two Greek words meaning “male,” and “marriage act, bed, or intercourse.” Again, sorry for the explicit language, but the meaning could not be more understandable and to-the-point; male to male, or female to female sexual activity is sinful, period.

Question: But isn’t it really just homosexual “activity” that’s condemned in the Bible, not homosexual “orientation?” Isn’t it possible that a person can be a “non-practicing homosexual,” like being a non-practicing Catholic or Jew?

Answer: The main definition of homosexuality is “sexual desire for those of the same sex” (Webster’s New World Dictionary). Jesus teaches us clearly that sin begins in the “heart,” or mind (Matthew 5:27,28). Thus, the very attraction itself to members of one’s own gender is just as sinful as attraction to someone other than your own spouse, whether any overt action takes place or not. Thus, the Bible is clear that so-called “homosexual orientation” is sinful also.

Question: Isn’t it possible that certain people are born as homosexuals; and therefore God cannot condemn them because He created them that way?

Answer: We have already seen that God does indeed proclaim homosexual thoughts and actions as contrary to His will, and therefore wrong, morally sinful, and thus certainly imperfect. Yet, when we look back at creation, Genesis 1:31 tells us, “God saw all that He had made, and it was very good.” The Hebrew word here means “good in every way; totally perfect.” Thus, it is completely impossible for God to create homosexuals. The fact is, God does not create or make homosexuals anymore than He creates or makes any other kind of sinner!

Question: If that’s the case, then what is the origin of homosexuality?

Answer: In Mark 7:21-23 Christ says, “For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man unclean.” And St. James reminds us, “When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, not does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.” (1:13-15)

Question: Does this mean that all homosexuals are lost and condemned to hell for all eternity, with no hope of salvation?

Answer: Absolutely not!
- Yes, the Bible does speak out strongly against both homosexual desire and activity. Indeed, the Holy Scriptures are crystal clear – one could even say quite open and blunt – on the subject. Simply put, homosexual thoughts or acts are definitely against God’s will and therefore sinful, pure and simple.
- However, they are no different from any other sin. They have been completely paid for by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross and can be forgiven. Homosexuality is not the one and only “unforgivable sin,” and homosexuals should not be shunned or looked upon as hopelessly condemned to hell.

Question: How can homosexuals be saved?

Answer: Just like every other sinner – faith in Jesus Christ as Savior!
- However, so that a person may receive the eternal benefits of this free forgiveness, the truthfulness of God’s condemnation of homosexuality needs to be acknowledged. People cannot claim to believe in Jesus, but then also say He was and is a liar on a particular subject!
- And unfortunately, homosexuals are not going to admit they are wrong, confess their sin, and repent of their soul-destroying life-style if they are told that what they are doing or thinking its fine with God and not a sin, and thus “natural,” and “normal.”
- It is, therefore, a great tragedy that the leaders of most church bodies today deny the clear teaching of the Bible and allow for – or even promote – homosexuality as normal and natural and not sinful.
- Such people are actually leading homosexuals away from forgiveness and salvation, and thus shall themselves receive a terrible judgment from God. Jesus said in Matthew 18:6 and 7, “If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!”

Summary: Our Savior wants everyone to repent, believe in Him, and be saved. That includes people caught in the sin of homosexuality. It is the church’s duty to proclaim this truth. May God help us to always do so clearly, for the salvation of many!

Pastor Spencer
 
On Tuesday, look for -

God, Marriage, and the State in Our World Today

“Pursuing freedom from Scripture's clear teachings, by arguing for their ambiguity, results only in tyranny” – Part Two

Erasmus, the Ambiguity of Scripture, and the Tyranny of Man’s opinions

“Though it has been overshadowed by the engagement on the will, an additional major issue in Luther’s Bondage of the Will [a.k.a. De Servo Arbitrio or simply ‘DSA’] concerns the clarity of Scripture. Seeking to protect the integrity and power of human choice, in his Diatribe Erasmus had claimed that the Bible is ambiguous on key matters. In reply, Luther asserted its clarity.”

That quote is the opening sentence of a paper delivered by Rev. Dr. James Nestingen (NALC) at the Lutheran Free Conference that was held on the MLC campus in November 2011 (bold and underline emphasis is mine). The title of his paper was “Biblical Clarity and Ambiguity in The Bondage of the Will”. I was personally present for the reading of this paper at the Conference, along with reactions delivered by Rev. Scott Murray (Vice President, LCMS) and Professor Joel Fredrich (WELS, Martin Luther College), which were essentially appreciative of Dr. Nestingen’s paper.

And I must commend the Conference for their choice of Dr. Nestingen to cover this topic. If anyone cares to do an internet search for information about Nestingen, he will find that Nestingen is Professor Emeritus, Luther Seminary in St. Paul, MN, and has apparently been conservative enough throughout his career to have been considered, at least by some, a thorn in the side of the ELCA. Furthermore, he is a recognized Luther scholar. But what makes his insight so interesting, and useful, is the liberal context in which he spent his career and to which he applied his studies. The ELCA had opened itself up to the perspectives and sensibilities of secular and unregenerate culture, while, again under the guise of offering a Gospel “relevant for Christian living,” its message and ministry devolved to a “Third Use” form of moralistic social activism, consistent with those Worldly perspectives and sensibilities. In other words, the issues raging in the ELCA, to which Dr. Nestingen applied his studies, and to which he applies his analysis of Luther’s Bondage of the Will relative to the perspicuity of Scripture, are very much the same issues raging in greater society today, which impact us everywhere outside the walls of our church buildings, and threaten to enter our Church through our exposure to these issues everywhere else. Professor Fredrich briefly touches on this observation in his reaction paper, confirming for the reader that the observations and applications Dr. Nestingen makes are probably out of reach for WELS scholars – they would never think to make them on their own, simply due to lack of exposure to the issues. Thus, Dr. Nestingen's insight on this topic was much appreciated by me and others.

After covering two of Luther’s preliminary arguments in Bondage of the Will, Dr. Nestingen begins with the issue of ambiguity vs. perspicuity:

“[T]he assumptions of the arguments [Erasmus] employed against the reformer have become so dominant in public culture that they seem inescapable. So searching out the implications of Luther’s replies concerning the clarity of Scripture has to proceed at two levels, one in relation to the historical conflict itself, the other in relation to the victorious heritage of humanism in these times.

“To begin with, Luther’s preliminary arguments expose the assumptions that drive Erasmus’ argument throughout. From the start, Erasmus assumes sufficient detachment from Scripture and the authoritative traditions of the church to choose skepticism as an available alternative. He is the agent, surveying the range of claims before him, discerning their relative value. Having taken such a position for granted, Erasmus’ goal is to preserve his options. Just as he picks and chooses among truths presented to him, in his own mind he will preserve his alternatives before God.

“Thus Erasmus, in illusion if not in reality, remains sovereign... he stands aloof as arbiter of Scripture, the faith of the church and what falls most appropriately on the ears of the peasants. The major premise of the argument controls the conclusion — from the beginning, Erasmus is the acting subject.

“Further, the preliminary argument demonstrates Erasmus’ appraisal of authority. It is essentially negative, setting limits without offering anything significantly positive — the authority of law as opposed to gospel. So it limits and confines without any acknowledged promise or benefit...

“Thus, finally, Erasmus’ freedom is negative. It is an innate quality of the will that asserts itself over and against the authorities that encompass and seek to limit it, not a positive gift or bestowal granted in a life-determining relationship with its saving Lord. Consequently, the self has no alternative but to seize on ambiguity — the absence of any compelling significance or meaning — as though it were liberty. No wonder Luther later described Erasmus as ‘Christless, Spiritless and cold as ice’” (pp. 5-6, bold emphasis mine).

From here, Nestingen goes on to analyze Luther’s argument for the perspicuity of Scripture, identifying in them two levels of clarity: the first “external,” and the second “internal.” In the former case, Luther was essentially referring to the domain of man’s reason set to the tasks of textual criticism and biblical hermeneutics. In the latter, he refers to the Holy Spirit active in the believer, who works to illuminate the Scriptures meaning. Quoting Luther, Nestingen writes,

“Because of the power of sin, ‘All men have their hearts darkened, so that even when they can discuss and quote all that is in Scripture, they do not understand or really know any of it.’ Thus, ‘the Spirit is needed for the understanding of all Scripture and every part of Scripture’” (pg. 5).

and three pages later helpfully amplifies this this, as follows:

“[T]he internal perspicuity of Scripture is not a matter of reason but of faith that has been worked by the Holy Spirit... This begins with a death... and it continues in a daily dying and rising. This death eliminates the self as actor... The gospel is Christ’s work now carried through by his Spirit... bringing the faithful into the rhythm of dying and rising with him...

“Thus internal clarification of the gospel involves continued proclamation and administration... As the gospel creates faith, faith returns to the word daily and afresh. Ambiguity in this context becomes intolerable, threatening to undermine what has become life-defining. But clarification in faith is not merely remedial — it is a joyous renewal in the promises and gifts of the gospel. ‘This is what makes our theology certain,’ as Luther wrote in the Galatians Commentary, ‘it takes us outside of ourselves and brings us to rest in Christ Jesus’” (pg. 9, bold emphasis mine).

It is worth pointing out, as does Professor Fredrich in his reaction paper, that it is proper to consider “external” and “internal” perspicuity together, not separately. One could imagine that separating the two, and admitting only the latter, would result in general preference for and overruling emphasis on the “personal meaning” that individuals may take from their own unique reading of the Scriptures. Such would amount to a self-referential “anthropocentric” Gospel, where meaning is determined from man’s fallen sensibilities; and as unique readings vary, the clear message of the Gospel would swiftly descend into chaos. In any human organization, like the ELCA for instance, unity of teaching could only be asserted, and order could only be maintained around that teaching, not by appeal to and mutual agreement on the objective meaning of Scripture, but democratically: “We shall officially adopt those opinions regarding the teaching of Scripture which are shared by the majority of individuals, determined by vote. Those having opposing opinions are to be silent.”

And such church organizations, insofar as they open themselves up to worldly sensibilities, share fully with the world in these Erasmian conclusions:

“Contemporary uses of Erasmus’ argument for ambiguity follow a similar pattern... Only the measurable, quantifiable and repeatable can be considered factual or truthful; everything else, unable to meet such standards, falls into the category of values or personal opinion. In effect, what Charles Saunders Pierce called ‘the argument from personal tenacity’ has become normative [i.e. ‘it’s true because I say so,’ added Dr. Nestingen as he read this paper]. There literally is no law regarding personal and inter-personal relations — there are just choices.

“In this context, by such standards, the claim that biblical law is ambiguous goes without saying. Ancient, it is by definition out of touch with contemporary realities. Patriarchal, it was conditioned by an age in which male-female relationships — as currently defined by the privileged — were by definition inappropriate. With these and similar objections, the assertion of ambiguity requires no further explanation or defense. It is an assumption that needs no further investigation and brooks no challenge” (pg. 9, bold and underline emphasis mine).

“For this reason, in the mainline churches where the argument for ambiguity has been deployed, the next step has not been the one a reasonable person... would suggest. Because by contemporary definition the self cannot move beyond the self-assertion evident in the use of any form of standard, there’s no point in further examination of the arguments. Bondage to the self represents a given, an a priori which makes further examination pointless. In fact, Erasmus for all of his vaunted cultural significance, has become something of an antique. Only theologians talk about free will anymore. In a cynical reversal, while the heirs of Erasmus reduce the gospel to an appeal — speaking of faith as one alternative among many — the culture describes what the law has condemned as predestined and so beyond any choice...

“For the church, appeals to the supposed ambiguity of the biblical text bring an end to any further conversation. Students of Scripture can cite any number of passages that, at the level of external clarity, require further study. Such investigation is the logical next step, and entirely reasonable. But when a church body invokes ambiguity to legislate a particular reading of passages, the possibility of any other reading has been officially eliminated. The authority of the Scripture has been taken over by its interpreters to enforce their commitments. Imperially silenced, those who disagree, who hold to the biblical priority set by the Formula of Concord, have been effectively excluded, literally unchurched” (pp. 9-10, bold and underline emphasis mine).

Dear reader, we ought to thank Dr. Nestingen for alerting us to the tactic of asserting Scripture’s ambiguity as opportunity for supposed liberty, and for locating the modern source of this tactic in Erasmus – who opposed Luther in this regard. It seems, in our post-modern age, when ALL truth and meaning are self-referentially experiential, that the “discovery” of ambiguity in the Scriptures, having become great sport, has accelerated to an alarming rate!

But it is time for you to comment.

• Have we opened ourselves to the unregenerate and anti-biblical thought patterns of post-modernism? Have we at least been less than watchful for the osmosis of such ideologies from the World?
• Do we see in our own midst the tactic of appealing to Scripture’s “ambiguity” on display?
• Does the acceptance of various anthropocentric aberrations of the Church Growth Movement, including Sectarian Worship, depend, at least in part, on an appeal to “ambiguity” and the license that it grants?
• Does the advocacy of certain translations of the Bible appeal to “ambiguity” – “ambiguity” that we really never knew was there before, but which seem to have been revealed to us in the peculiarities of the post-modern perspectives rampant in popular culture?

If you recognize this tactic at work, where do you identify it? What are its implications for the pure teaching of God’s Word, and for Unity under that teaching?

“Pursuing freedom from Scripture's clear teachings, by arguing for their ambiguity, results only in tyranny” – Part One

Without the “Theology of the Cross” man misuses the best in the worst manner

The title of this two-part series of posts was taken from the closing sentence of my previous post, When the Third Use of the Law pre-dominates.... Through the eyes of those who were there, we caught a glimpse in that post of the decay in clarity of Scripture’s teaching that occurred in the ELCA. As the Second Use of the Law was replaced over time with its Third Use, the perspicuity, or clarity, of Scripture and certainty of its teaching was rendered more and more ambiguous, requiring man to supply clarity in matters which Scripture had previously been thought to clearly teach. Under the guise of offering a Gospel “relevant for Christian living,” Third Use preaching offered little more than a degenerate form of moralistic social activism, well-suited for the itching ears of those no longer disposed to endure sound doctrine, who’ve instead turned to chasing their own lusts (2 Ti. 4:1-5). This decay lead the ELCA officially into the antinomianism it now revels in, having, at its Church Wide Assembly in 2009, officially placed “sin into the ‘not-sin’ category, by majority vote,” declaring that monogamous homosexual relationships “[are] God-pleasing... against the clear Word of Scripture” (quoting from my previous post). The tyranny in this is that in the ELCA, man has become the arbiter of Scripture’s clarity and meaning, rather than Scripture itself, and from the verdict of man’s declaration there is no appeal – that is, there is no recognized higher authority to which one may appeal (Scripture having been declared ambiguous, or unclear because it has been made difficult to understand), making man and his declarations the final authority.

This is what two average individuals, one layman and one clergyman, present in the ELCA throughout its decline, seemed to independently observe. But we don’t really need direct observation of these events to predict that such would happen. Do we?

Scripture clearly teaches that Satan is full of pride and covets God’s glory for himself (Is. 14:13-14; Ma. 4:8-10), and that at the instigation of Satan man Fell into this same sin, in this way separating himself from God: the sin of pride and of desiring equality with God (Ge. 3:1-19). This sinfulness remains part of our fallen human nature. We want to be like God. We desire His wisdom and authority for ourselves. We long for ourselves a share in God’s glory. Being entirely unlike God, however – that is, being unrighteous, unjust, unloving, lacking knowledge, having no real power over Creation, and certainly not being everywhere present all the time – we abuse the Revelations of Himself to us, in our efforts to rob Him of the glory that belongs only to Himself:

In the case of General Revelation – or God’s revelation of Himself to all of mankind within His Created Order – contemporary man studies it not just for the purpose of understanding it and of being good stewards before God in its use, but studies according to his own definitions, contrived by him to specifically rule out any authority above man, for the purpose of bringing Creation under his immediate control. Being like God means that man can predict, guide and control Creation on his own terms, or at least convince himself that he can; and if such control results in death or suffering, this is not significantly different than the results man observes in God’s own control of Creation.

In the case of Special Revelation – or God’s direct revelation of Himself to all of mankind in the clear Word of Scripture, which He has preserved for us, just as He promised, down through the ages to today – man studies it not just for the purpose of understanding it and of being good stewards of its teaching, but for the purpose of discovering where it is wrong, inconsistent or incomplete, and in need of man’s correcting and clarifying efforts. Being like God means that, just as we suffer various shortcomings, we recognize the same in Him – His “failure” to perfectly preserve His Word, for instance, or His “failure” to inspire His Word in perfectly clear terms suitable for direct translation into any language. As His equal, man takes great honor in critiquing God’s Word – in the same manner we would the written work of any of our colleagues – helpfully pointing out His errors, contradictions and lack of clarity, in the hopes that our efforts will assist God in producing a more excellent and well-received message.

Man naturally pursues a “Theology of Glory.” The consequences of this with respect to God’s many gifts to mankind are clearly stated by Dr. Martin Luther, who stated in his 24^th Thesis at the Heidelberg Disputation, “without the 'Theology of the Cross' man misuses the best in the worst manner.” It should come as no surprise, therefore, that where man permits himself the freedom and authority to arbitrate God’s Revelation, he does so with the force and finality of God Himself. It should also come as no surprise that man, according to his nature, does work toward this very end – whether deliberately or quite unconsciously – and that he revels in the glory assigned to him for his efforts.

It seems most charitable to assume that no confessing Christian would deliberately seek a place of judgment over God’s Word, and to leave it at that – remaining oblivious to its likelihood and limiting ourselves to the messy job of first recognizing when it happens and then reacting to it long after the fact. This is, however, a dangerously pollyanna attitude, since the tactic of arguing for the abstruseness of Scripture, in order to deliberately accumulate authority and glory to man, is not unknown in the history of the Church. In fact, this is exactly how, and why, Erasmus, in his Freedom of the Will (a.k.a. De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio, or Diatribe), and later supporting works, argued for the ambiguity of the Scriptures – to maintain the freedom and authority of man over against Scripture. And Erasmus’ arguments have remained active as a dominant force in Western Society and, through it, the Christian Church – more so today, perhaps, than ever before.

To be continued in Part Two, tomorrow... (“Pursuing freedom from Scripture's clear teachings, by arguing for their ambiguity, results only in tyranny” – Part Two)

Reprise: 'non rockaboatus' is an organizational disease: Lectures by Walter Martin

In commentary following yesterday's post, Michele Bachmann as an Example of the Importance of Catechesis, David Kreuter suggests that certain attitudes regarding ways of thinking about or dealing with problems, or, one may reasonably conclude, "established processes" which descend from a culture described by such attitudes, could "destroy" our "ability (or Will) to think critically about the most important things."

Intrepid Lutherans has existed for just over a year now, and in that time we have "rocked the boat" by publicly discussing public manifestations of "problems" such as the following:

• pulpit plagiarism from sectarian sources
• the growth of sectarian worship
• the willingness to invite pop-culture to dominate the church's practices
• laymen ministering without Divine Call
• the increasing use of Cell Groups (Ecclesiolae in ecclesia)
• the decline of sound Law & Gospel preaching
• dangerously sloppy expression of our central teaching, "Justification by Faith Alone" (and the thinking and practice which descends from such sloppy expression)
• the abuse of overly broad definitions of "love" and "adiaphora"
• decline in respect for pure doctrine and the significance of doctrinal differences between Christians (which impacts our understanding and practice of Fellowship)

and most recently we have expressed concerns regarding

• the need for periodic examination of pastors, and
• our choice of Bible translation and the principles we employ in making that choice

In this time, we have publicly defended against the unjust excommunication of a layman – who still does not know what his error is – and we have publicly admonished celebrity WELS pastors for their very public involvement leading and promoting a conference entitled "Change or Die," an entirely wrong notion which exalts man's genius and effort in achieving numeric growth in the church at the expense of exclusive reliance on the Means of Grace. In nearly every issue we have addressed, we have done so in a way that not only “exposes the issues”, but remediates these issues through application of sound Lutheran doctrine, and we have always been willing to entertain discussion on such issues. Just check our Catalog of Intrepid Posts to read through our blog posts over the past year.

For this "boat rocking" we have been roundly criticized. Some even regard us as the greatest threat that WELS is currently facing (no kidding!). Some of those who have expressed concerns resonating with ours have been warned not to participate in our public discussion. Even outside of those who have received such expressed warnings, although there are many who enthusiastically agree with and support Intrepid Lutherans (despite our failings!), few feel free to do so publicly.

Why is this? Should we even concern ourselves with an answer to that question?

In answer to the latter question, we are re-posting our blog post from May 9, 'non rockaboatus' is an organizational disease: Lectures by Walter Martin, which features audio lectures, with some key transcriptions, telling the tale of American Christianity's demise in the last generation from the perspective of one who valiantly fought epic battles against error, and lost – and who is warning what's left of Christianity to be on guard. Error is separate from Truth, it divides people by gathering to itself adherents from among those easily beguiled and those dissatisfied with the Truth, and it divides organizations by populating established structures with its adherents and abusing their otherwise wholesome processes to serve its own ends. This is what happened to American Christianity. It did happen. It is what happens.

Are we on guard? Have we lost our will to think critically about the most important things? May we heed Dr. Martin's warnings.

---

Given that a number of our Lutheran readers may resonate more with non-Lutheran commentators than they do with confessional Lutheran authors and speakers, we thought it would be of interest for them to hear a little from a renowned Baptist of the previous generation, regarding the maintenance of doctrinal integrity in the face of liberalism: Dr. Walter R. Martin.

Dr. Martin was an expert on the occult, and from the 1960’s onward, disseminated countercultic and apologetic information through his organization, Christian Research Institute (CRI). After his death, he was succeeded as “The Bible Answer Man” and President of CRI by Hank Hanegraaff – a popular commentator who can be heard these days on many, though not all, “Evangelical” radio stations. At least one of Dr. Martin’s works, The Kingdom of the Cults, remains a very valuable resource, one which I consult with semi-regularity as need arises.

Over the past two years, several of Dr. Martin’s lectures have been featured by Chris Rosebrough on his internet radio show, Fighting for the Faith – a daily program in the lineup of Pirate Christian Radio (PCR). I remember these PCR features, since I am of about the same age as Mr. Rosebrough, and remember Dr. Martin’s voice and manner of teaching from my youth, in a way similar to Rosebrough’s reminiscences. Anyway, lest we Lutherans should fall under the mistaken impression that our struggles are unique to us, I supply links to the following lectures, along with selected quotes, in which Dr. Martin defines liberal theology as “cultic,” and makes it clear what the orthodox Christian’s response ought to be. Others have already gone through what we are approaching – it may be of some use to examine and appreciate their own assessments.


Walter Martin on the Cult of Liberalism

 

(lecture begins @~58min, 30sec)
1hr 12min, and following...
“Any person who does not know that today in the United States, and in denominational structures worldwide, we are in an accelerating apostasy, does not know, I repeat, does not know what is going on... There was a time when one could pick a Presbyterian church, a Methodist church, an Episcopal church walking down the street, send somebody into it, and be reasonably sure that he would hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Today before you'd send people into most of these churches, you would need a psychiatrist if you opened the door and just said 'Go'... because you would know what you did!

“The Episcopal church which I came from, has a rigid orthodox background. Thirty-nine articles of the church, Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed... good solid theology. Yet, the Episcopal church fell so far from its position that it let James Pike continue as one of its representatives. They didn't dare bring him before the House of Bishops – want me to tell you publicly why? Pike said so, I might as well quote him. He said, 'You will never take me to trial before the House of Bishops for my theology, which you say is heretical, because I am an attorney, and I will defend myself, and I will prove that you, in the House of Bishops, are as heretical as I am.' Do you think they listened to him? You bet they listened to him. Because Pike would have proven it. Do you realize that James Pike was an Episcopal Bishop in the United States, denying the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, Salvation by Grace, the Vicarious Atonement, and the Bodily Resurrection of the Lord, the Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed, all the creeds of Christendom, and the Episcopal Church never touched him?! Know why? Because they are as corrupt as he is! They don't dare touch him... The Presbyterian denomination has suffered the same inroads. Today you can be ordained in the Presbyterian Church and deny the Deity of Jesus Christ. The Baptists have had their fare share – we’re up to our eyeballs with it! The Missouri Synod fought them to the death, and won. They said, 'We don't know how we're going to get along without you, but we're going to.' And they threw them out... The Southern Baptists are fighting the same war right now – I know, I'm in the Convention. We don't know how we're going to get along without them, but we are going to. Because if we don't, there is no such thing as a little bit pregnant... you are or you're not! Well, there's no such thing as a mild form of cancer. It's cancer. If you don't get rid of it, you don't deal with it, it get's you! We have to deal with these things today. If we don't, they'll end up getting what's left of the Church... What did the Apostle Paul say? 'They will gather to themselves teachers who will tickle their ears, and the Truth of God will be turned into mythology.' It's here!”

1hr 20min, and following
“Every major theological seminary that has turned from orthodox Christianity began with disbelief of biblical doctrine... Corrupt Bibliology led them to the next step. Theology began to be touched by it. Their view of the Cross and the Virgin Birth immediately was questioned. Then came the miracles of Christ. And finally they had emptied the Gospel of all its content, and simply were using the outward shell so that they could go on collecting money from the people and the churches, because they knew that if the people in the pews knew that they were apostate they'd throw them out. So the strategy was: hang on to the trust funds, hang on to the money that we've got, hang on to the properties we control, we will gradually educate the laymen into this new approach to theology. And then, finally, we will take control of everything. This is the gradual process of feeding you theological poison, until you become immunized enough so that you don't know what is happening to you. And when you wake up to what is happening to you, it's too late. They've got everything.”

1hr 28min, and following
“Look what happened... Look at the votes. We were very subtly, systematically, squeezed out. All of the positions of leadership were given to people who denied the foundations of the faith...”

1hr 34min, and following
“The Jehovah's Witness is easily detected. The Mormon has his bicycle. The Christian Scientist has the Monitor to get you to subscribe to. The religious science people are telling you that you can have health and prosperity and you can rise above all these torrents of life, floating over them as the ping-pong ball soars over Niagra Falls... You can see these people in the cults and the occult if you have any degree of discernment at all, because they are outside the church. But how do you see the Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopalian professor of theology? How do you get him in a place where you can find out what his theology really is? The moment you question him, he reverts to orthodox terminology, and then if you press him for the definitions of his terminology, he claims that you're being suspicious, bigoted and unloving. The average layman is defenseless! He's got to take what comes from behind the pulpit and recommended by his church authority because the moment he opens his mouth, he's accused of being divisive in the church, unloving, and disturbing the fellowship of the faith! When it is the devil behind the pulpit, not the victim in the pew, that's responsible for it! I've used the term ‘devil’ a couple times. That's mild. God uses much stronger language. He describes those who pervert the Scriptures as enemies of the Cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetites, and whose glory is in their earthly shame...”

1hr 37min, and following
“That is why I am concerned about the cult of liberalism. We can identify the other cults, but how do you identify somebody that looks like you, acts like you, sounds like you...? Do you want the answer? ...1 Thessalonians 5:21ff ...put everything to the test, cling tenaciously to what is good.”

2hr 19min, and following
“[Liberalism] is a cult because it follows every outlining structure of cultism. It has its own revelation, its own guru's, and its denial, systematically, of all sound systematic Christian theology. It is a cult, because it passes it's leadership on to the next group, that takes over either modifying, expanding or contracting the same heresies, dressing them up in different language, and passing them on. It is theologically corrupt, because it is bibliologically corrupt; it denies the authority of Scripture and ruins its own theology. And, it ends in immorality.

“Because the only way you could have gotten to this 'homosexual,' morally relativistic garbage, which is today in our denominational structures, is if the leadership of those denominations divide the authority of the Scriptures, and Jesus Christ as Lord. That is the only way we've gotten there. And there is a remedy for this, brothers and sisters. The remedy? Is to start asking questions! Start demanding definitions of terminology. Start insisting that people tell you what they're giving your money to before you give them a dime. Examine the people that occupy the chairs of theology in the seminaries, and if they are not given to the historic Christian faith, out with the rascals! Examine your churches, your sessions, your boards... and find out who is in the faith! You're told to do this in First Corinthians. You're told to do this in Galatians. You're told to do it everywhere in Scripture: Examine to see whether they are in the faith; test all things; make sure of what is true! I'm not being harsh. I'm not being judgmental. I am being thoroughly consistently Christian, in the light of historic theology and the Holy Bible. And I think we have a right to demand that the men who occupy the seats of learning and who preach from the pulpits either preach Jesus Christ or we cut off their pensions, their salaries, their golf club memberships, and let them go on living as social workers, because it is obvious they don't have any theology that is going to save anybody. With Luther, Here I Stand.”


Walter Martin: It's Not Unloving to Confront Error



(lecture begins @~18min)
18min, and following
“Tonight we are dealing with an extremely complex subject, we are dealing with 'positive confession' and the health and welfare groups, some of which have crossed over from merely Christian forms in their expression of theology, into the area of the Kingdom of the Cults. Ten years ago... I did a paper on the 'Errors of Positive Confession.' I was vilified, rather openly, by a large number of charismatics on the ground that I was being divisive and unloving, and because I was being 'critical of brothers'. The fact is, you can be a brother and be in very serious doctrinal error, and if you have a large ministry and a lot of people watching you on television or listening to you on radio, and if you are not responsive to your peers it is possible for you to lead literally millions of people into false doctrines – not meaning to do so, but being in ignorance yourself. And we are dealing today with doctrines which have progressed from simply ignorance to outright heresy, and finally, to blasphemy.

“If the Christian church does not address these subjects, if Christian leaders... pastors and teachers do not stand up and say 'Enough! this is what the Scripture says, and you are answerable to Scripture!,' then we are going to have false doctrine running rampant all over the Christian world, and nobody will be able to police it or stop it... [To whom is anyone accountable, theologically??]

“...So the gospel of the checkbook has replaced the Biblical Gospel of authority in the church. Now, so long as nobody insists on accountability, then it will go on; but, the church has awakened, and people are demanding accountability, and that is as it should be. No minister should be afraid to account for his theology, privately or publicly. And if he has questions about it, and he won't answer them, then we have every right to suspect him. That is not unloving, it is not heresy hunting, it is not divisive, it is not unloving, it is thoroughly Biblical. Often, when I cite people's names publicly, they say, 'But, why can't you just name the thing? Why do you have to name the person?' Because, in Scripture, Paul gave us our example; when he confronted evil in the church, he said 'Hymenaeus and Philetus have erred concerning the Truth, they are teaching that the Resurrection has passed, and they are overturning the faith of some.' He named them. And then Hymenaeus and Alexander... So, consistently through church history it has been necessary to confront evil. It doesn't make you popular, alot of people don't love you, but the people that will end up loving you are the one’s delivered because of the confrontation.”


If our Lutheran leaders and laymen won’t listen to fellow Lutherans who quote Scripture and the Confessions, maybe they prefer the testimony of the Baptists?

'non rockaboatus' is an organizational disease: Lectures by Walter Martin

Given that a number of our Lutheran readers may resonate more with non-Lutheran commentators than they do with confessional Lutheran authors and speakers, we thought it would be of interest for them to hear a little from a renowned Baptist of the previous generation, regarding the maintenance of doctrinal integrity in the face of liberalism: Dr. Walter R. Martin.

Dr. Martin was an expert on the occult, and from the 1960’s onward, disseminated countercultic and apologetic information through his organization, Christian Research Institute (CRI). After his death, he was succeeded as “The Bible Answer Man” and President of CRI by Hank Hanegraaff – a popular commentator who can be heard these days on many, though not all, “Evangelical” radio stations. At least one of Dr. Martin’s works, The Kingdom of the Cults, remains a very valuable resource, one which I consult with semi-regularity as need arises.

Over the past two years, several of Dr. Martin’s lectures have been featured by Chris Rosebrough on his internet radio show, Fighting for the Faith – a daily program in the lineup of Pirate Christian Radio (PCR). I remember these PCR features, since I am of about the same age as Mr. Rosebrough, and remember Dr. Martin’s voice and manner of teaching from my youth, in a way similar to Rosebrough’s reminiscences. Anyway, lest we Lutherans should fall under the mistaken impression that our struggles are unique to us, I supply links to the following lectures, along with selected quotes, in which Dr. Martin defines liberal theology as “cultic,” and makes it clear what the orthodox Christian’s response ought to be. Others have already gone through what we are approaching – it may be of some use to examine and appreciate their own assessments.


Walter Martin on the Cult of Liberalism

 

(lecture begins @~58min, 30sec)
1hr 12min, and following...
“Any person who does not know that today in the United States, and in denominational structures worldwide, we are in an accelerating apostasy, does not know, I repeat, does not know what is going on... There was a time when one could pick a Presbyterian church, a Methodist church, an Episcopal church walking down the street, send somebody into it, and be reasonably sure that he would hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Today before you'd send people into most of these churches, you would need a psychiatrist if you opened the door and just said 'Go'... because you would know what you did!

“The Episcopal church which I came from, has a rigid orthodox background. Thirty-nine articles of the church, Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed... good solid theology. Yet, the Episcopal church fell so far from its position that it let James Pike continue as one of its representatives. They didn't dare bring him before the House of Bishops – want me to tell you publicly why? Pike said so, I might as well quote him. He said, 'You will never take me to trial before the House of Bishops for my theology, which you say is heretical, because I am an attorney, and I will defend myself, and I will prove that you, in the House of Bishops, are as heretical as I am.' Do you think they listened to him? You bet they listened to him. Because Pike would have proven it. Do you realize that James Pike was an Episcopal Bishop in the United States, denying the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, Salvation by Grace, the Vicarious Atonement, and the Bodily Resurrection of the Lord, the Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed, all the creeds of Christendom, and the Episcopal Church never touched him?! Know why? Because they are as corrupt as he is! They don't dare touch him... The Presbyterian denomination has suffered the same inroads. Today you can be ordained in the Presbyterian Church and deny the Deity of Jesus Christ. The Baptists have had their fare share – we’re up to our eyeballs with it! The Missouri Synod fought them to the death, and won. They said, 'We don't know how we're going to get along without you, but we're going to.' And they threw them out... The Southern Baptists are fighting the same war right now – I know, I'm in the Convention. We don't know how we're going to get along without them, but we are going to. Because if we don't, there is no such thing as a little bit pregnant... you are or you're not! Well, there's no such thing as a mild form of cancer. It's cancer. If you don't get rid of it, you don't deal with it, it get's you! We have to deal with these things today. If we don't, they'll end up getting what's left of the Church... What did the Apostle Paul say? 'They will gather to themselves teachers who will tickle their ears, and the Truth of God will be turned into mythology.' It's here!”

1hr 20min, and following
“Every major theological seminary that has turned from orthodox Christianity began with disbelief of biblical doctrine... Corrupt Bibliology led them to the next step. Theology began to be touched by it. Their view of the Cross and the Virgin Birth immediately was questioned. Then came the miracles of Christ. And finally they had emptied the Gospel of all its content, and simply were using the outward shell so that they could go on collecting money from the people and the churches, because they knew that if the people in the pews knew that they were apostate they'd throw them out. So the strategy was: hang on to the trust funds, hang on to the money that we've got, hang on to the properties we control, we will gradually educate the laymen into this new approach to theology. And then, finally, we will take control of everything. This is the gradual process of feeding you theological poison, until you become immunized enough so that you don't know what is happening to you. And when you wake up to what is happening to you, it's too late. They've got everything.”

1hr 28min, and following
“Look what happened... Look at the votes. We were very subtly, systematically, squeezed out. All of the positions of leadership were given to people who denied the foundations of the faith...”

1hr 34min, and following
“The Jehovah's Witness is easily detected. The Mormon has his bicycle. The Christian Scientist has the Monitor to get you to subscribe to. The religious science people are telling you that you can have health and prosperity and you can rise above all these torrents of life, floating over them as the ping-pong ball soars over Niagra Falls... You can see these people in the cults and the occult if you have any degree of discernment at all, because they are outside the church. But how do you see the Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopalian professor of theology? How do you get him in a place where you can find out what his theology really is? The moment you question him, he reverts to orthodox terminology, and then if you press him for the definitions of his terminology, he claims that you're being suspicious, bigoted and unloving. The average layman is defenseless! He's got to take what comes from behind the pulpit and recommended by his church authority because the moment he opens his mouth, he's accused of being divisive in the church, unloving, and disturbing the fellowship of the faith! When it is the devil behind the pulpit, not the victim in the pew, that's responsible for it! I've used the term ‘devil’ a couple times. That's mild. God uses much stronger language. He describes those who pervert the Scriptures as enemies of the Cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetites, and whose glory is in their earthly shame...”

1hr 37min, and following
“That is why I am concerned about the cult of liberalism. We can identify the other cults, but how do you identify somebody that looks like you, acts like you, sounds like you...? Do you want the answer? ...1 Thessalonians 5:21ff ...put everything to the test, cling tenaciously to what is good.”

2hr 19min, and following
“[Liberalism] is a cult because it follows every outlining structure of cultism. It has its own revelation, its own guru's, and its denial, systematically, of all sound systematic Christian theology. It is a cult, because it passes it's leadership on to the next group, that takes over either modifying, expanding or contracting the same heresies, dressing them up in different language, and passing them on. It is theologically corrupt, because it is bibliologically corrupt; it denies the authority of Scripture and ruins its own theology. And, it ends in immorality.

“Because the only way you could have gotten to this 'homosexual,' morally relativistic garbage, which is today in our denominational structures, is if the leadership of those denominations divide the authority of the Scriptures, and Jesus Christ as Lord. That is the only way we've gotten there. And there is a remedy for this, brothers and sisters. The remedy? Is to start asking questions! Start demanding definitions of terminology. Start insisting that people tell you what they're giving your money to before you give them a dime. Examine the people that occupy the chairs of theology in the seminaries, and if they are not given to the historic Christian faith, out with the rascals! Examine your churches, your sessions, your boards... and find out who is in the faith! You're told to do this in First Corinthians. You're told to do this in Galatians. You're told to do it everywhere in Scripture: Examine to see whether they are in the faith; test all things; make sure of what is true! I'm not being harsh. I'm not being judgmental. I am being thoroughly consistently Christian, in the light of historic theology and the Holy Bible. And I think we have a right to demand that the men who occupy the seats of learning and who preach from the pulpits either preach Jesus Christ or we cut off their pensions, their salaries, their golf club memberships, and let them go on living as social workers, because it is obvious they don't have any theology that is going to save anybody. With Luther, Here I Stand.”


Walter Martin: It's Not Unloving to Confront Error



(lecture begins @~18min)
18min, and following
“Tonight we are dealing with an extremely complex subject, we are dealing with 'positive confession' and the health and welfare groups, some of which have crossed over from merely Christian forms in their expression of theology, into the area of the Kingdom of the Cults. Ten years ago... I did a paper on the 'Errors of Positive Confession.' I was vilified, rather openly, by a large number of charismatics on the ground that I was being divisive and unloving, and because I was being 'critical of brothers'. The fact is, you can be a brother and be in very serious doctrinal error, and if you have a large ministry and a lot of people watching you on television or listening to you on radio, and if you are not responsive to your peers it is possible for you to lead literally millions of people into false doctrines – not meaning to do so, but being in ignorance yourself. And we are dealing today with doctrines which have progressed from simply ignorance to outright heresy, and finally, to blasphemy.

“If the Christian church does not address these subjects, if Christian leaders... pastors and teachers do not stand up and say 'Enough! this is what the Scripture says, and you are answerable to Scripture!,' then we are going to have false doctrine running rampant all over the Christian world, and nobody will be able to police it or stop it... [To whom is anyone accountable, theologically??]

“...So the gospel of the checkbook has replaced the Biblical Gospel of authority in the church. Now, so long as nobody insists on accountability, then it will go on; but, the church has awakened, and people are demanding accountability, and that is as it should be. No minister should be afraid to account for his theology, privately or publicly. And if he has questions about it, and he won't answer them, then we have every right to suspect him. That is not unloving, it is not heresy hunting, it is not divisive, it is not unloving, it is thoroughly Biblical. Often, when I cite people's names publicly, they say, 'But, why can't you just name the thing? Why do you have to name the person?' Because, in Scripture, Paul gave us our example; when he confronted evil in the church, he said 'Hymenaeus and Philetus have erred concerning the Truth, they are teaching that the Resurrection has passed, and they are overturning the faith of some.' He named them. And then Hymenaeus and Alexander... So, consistently through church history it has been necessary to confront evil. It doesn't make you popular, alot of people don't love you, but the people that will end up loving you are the one’s delivered because of the confrontation.”


If our Lutheran leaders and laymen won’t listen to fellow Lutherans who quote Scripture and the Confessions, maybe they prefer the testimony of the Baptists?