Called to “Test all things”

Eight days ago, we blogged about the opening of Faith Lutheran Church – a new, independant Lutheran congregation in the Portland, Oregon, area, formed by some 17 Lutherans who were recently compelled to leave WELS for a variety of reasons, and have now chosen to be served by pastors of the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA). We also mentioned that these Lutherans now also feel compelled to provide a public explanation for their departure from the WELS. Last Monday, we posted the first such explanation: No Longer Alone: Perspective of a Confessional Lutheran Woman. Today, we post the second.

---

Called to “Test all things”
by Mr. Vernon Kneprath
The intent and agreement among those who chose to leave our WELS congregation was to leave peacefully and quietly. Concerns had already been expressed to the appropriate individuals over months and years, regarding what was being preached, taught and practiced throughout the synod. Most of those resigning their membership had stopped attending our local congregation weeks or months prior. When our common goal to return to confessional Lutheranism was realized, and a road to that end became available, it was determined to be prudent to resign our membership in our WELS congregation before working toward organizing a new congregation.

A simple, one sentence letter indicated the undersigned were resigning their membership. The letter was sent by certified mail to the pastor and president of the congregation. It was considered by our group to be more kind and considerate to send one letter rather than many, so that those receiving it would not be in a position of wondering when the next letter would arrive.

For nearly two months we generally avoided initiating dialogue. Some of us were contacted by various members and leaders of our local congregation. We listened carefully, and responded respectfully. Out of the communications that occurred during that time, there was a single individual who approached many of us in a respectful manner, and showed genuine care and concern for us.

The previous Intrepid post gave one individual’s reasons for leaving the WELS. While each of us had our own specific reasons for leaving, there were many shared concerns. Therefore, some of what follows may seem redundant. Unlike the author of the previous post, I had been a lifelong member of the WELS. I was instructed and confirmed with the Gausewitz edition of Luther’s Small Catechism, and remain convinced that it properly represents and teaches the truths of Scripture. But it had become increasingly clear in recent years that I was a confessional Lutheran in a Lutheran church body that seemed to no longer appreciate or desire to be confessional Lutheran.

The Bible teaches that we are to point out error where it exists, and to defend the truth of God’s Word at every opportunity.

”Test all things; hold fast what is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21 NKJV)

Over time, and with a great deal of attention to what was going on among Lutherans in this country, it became apparent it wasn’t necessary to accept the deliberate changes being made to the teachings and practices of churches within the WELS. There is an alternative.

New Bible translations that glorify man and his wisdom rather than honoring God’s unchanging Word do not need to be tolerated or accepted. There is a Lutheran church body that recognizes the potent efficacy of God’s Word in teaching AND in practice.

Contemporary worship, or blended worship, or whatever the latest worship fad, does not have to be tolerated or accepted. There is a Lutheran church body that unabashedly uses the historic liturgy without change or reservation.

An obsession with money, and a link to Thrivent and Planned Parenthood does not have to be tolerated or accepted. There is a Lutheran church body that focuses on teaching and preaching Law and Gospel, leaving it up to God to determine how and when the saints will be blessed.

Man-made gimmicks to fill the pews and the offering plates do not have to be tolerated or accepted. There is a Lutheran church body that preaches the Means of Grace, and only the Means of Grace, as the way in which God grows the church.

Decisions to remove “Lutheran” from a church name, school or website, or other efforts to distance a church from the Lutheran Confessions need not be accepted or tolerated. There is a Lutheran church body that eagerly teaches the contents of the Book of Concord to its members.

The teaching of objective justification, which proclaims that “everyone has been justified, everyone has been forgiven, everyone has been saved,” does not have to be tolerated or accepted. There is a Lutheran church body that preaches, without hesitation or contradiction, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” (Acts 16:31 NKJV)

There is an alternative to a Lutheran church that no longer desires to be confessional Lutheran. The Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America, (ELDoNA) is the Lutheran church that I have found to be unapologetically confessional Lutheran, in teaching AND in practice.


The Lutheran Hymnal - Hymn 260 verse 2 (verse omitted from the WELS hymnal, Christian Worship)

With fraud which they themselves invent
     Thy truth they have confounded;
Their hearts are not with one consent
     On Thy pure doctrine grounded.
While they parade with outward show,
They lead the people to and fro,
     In error's maze astounded.

 

Treatise on Justification, by Rev. Dr. Robert Barnes – Lutheran Reformer, Ambassador to the Smalcaldic Princes, and Christian Martyr

In March of 2012, we introduced an important Reformation figure, Rev. Dr. Robert Barnes, with the post Lutheran Martyr: The story of Dr. Robert Barnes as a lesson in the realities of “Political Unity”. In that post, we learned that

Dr. Barnes was an Englishman, who lived during the reign of King Henry VIII. Like Dr. Martin Luther, Barnes was an Augustinian – though at Cambridge. Following in the footsteps of Erasmus, he left Cambridge for the continent to acquire an education at Louvain, returning in 1523 with his Doctor of Divinity. Recognized for his scholarship, his order made him Prior of his house, a position he used to introduce the classical learning he had been exposed to at Louvain. Of course, knowledge of Luther and his theology was not hidden on the Cambridge campus, but, being Roman Catholic, such theology was officially forbidden and rejected. Knowing that it was being discussed anyway, at times the University even conducted searches for heretical books or pamphlets that may have made their way from Germany. For this reason, scholars often met off campus, to study the text of the Bible and discuss theology. One place they met was the White Horse Inn. Among the group who met there was Dr. Barnes, who was the indisputable leader of that group, Thomas Cranmer, who would later become Archbishop of Canterbury, and William Tyndale and Miles Coverdale – important Bible translators and publishers – along with many others who would later be referred to as the Cambridge Reformers...

In 1525, the Cambridge Reformers agreed that Christmas would be the day that they would announce their allegiance to evangelical theology, and that Dr. Barnes would deliver that announcement in a sermon, from the pulpit of St. Edward’s Church – the chapel of Trinity Hall and Clare Colleges of Cambridge University. As a result, he was arrested, tried and imprisoned, but by 1528, had escaped, finding his way to the University of Wittenberg where he studied under Dr. Martin Luther, fully absorbing his theology, until 1531.

Upon arriving in Wittenberg, Dr. Barnes lived with Rev. Johannes Bugenhagen – the pastor and confessor of Martin Luther, collaborator with Luther on the translation of the Bible into German, and later, Doctor of Theology at the University of Wittenberg – and even before he formally matriculated at the University, was frequently in the company of both Martin Luther and Dr. Philip Melanchthon. Indeed, it is said that even Katherine Luther (Martin Luther’s wife) attempted to teach Dr. Barnes the German language.⁰

While a student of Luther’s in Wittenberg, Dr. Barnes wrote two books. The first was a collection of proof texts for theologians entitled, Sententia Ex Doctoribus Collectae, Quas Papistae Valde Impudenter Hodie Damnant (“Sentences collected from the doctors which the papists today impudently condemn”). His second book was a protest to the King of England for the condemnation he suffered at the hands of the Bishops. It was entitled, Supplication to Henry VIII. It contained several essays. One of them is the essay, Treatise on Justification, reproduced below from a collection works by Dr. Barnes, along with works by William Tyndale and John Frith, that was first published in America in 1842. The title of that collection was Writings of Tindal, Frith and Barnes, and the selections it contains (including the prefacing biographies of these martyrs) were taken from the full collection of their writings compiled in John Foxe’s Actes and Monuments.

On the basis of his Supplication, and his intimate association with the German Reformers, Dr. Barnes was recalled to England and placed in the service of the King, as Ambassador to the Smalcaldic Princes – an appointment which positioned him to greatly influence the doctrinal stances of the early Anglican Church. One can read more about this episode of history in the post Lutheran Martyr: The story of Dr. Robert Barnes as a lesson in the realities of “Political Unity”, including the events leading up to the martyrdom of Dr. Barnes at the hands of King Henry VIII.

I won’t say much about his essay, Treatise on Justification, other than to point out the following:

1. Regarding the false doctrine of Universal Justification – a relatively recent innovation among Lutherans that is now widely confessed among the majority of America’s Lutheran church bodies, and a doctrine which has been very frequently discussed, both at length and in depth, on Intrepid Lutherans (most recently in the post, What do you do with a Certified Letter? Here is one idea... ) – one will not find any support whatsoever in Dr. Barnes’ Treatise for this false teaching . At no point does Barnes confess the doctrine of Universal Justification, nor does he imply it, nor is there a shred of evidence suggesting that such a doctrine is “implicit” in his Treatise. Rather, over and over and over again we read Barnes’ emphatic confession that BEFORE GOD we are JUSTIFIED ONLY BY FAITH!.
   
   It’s almost as if he had read the Augsburg Confession (AC:IV; AC VI; AC:XXIV:28ff) and its Apology (AP:II(IV):48ff; AP:II(IV):86ff; AP:III:61; AP:III:93ff ;AP:III:171ff; AP:III:177; AP:III:265; AP:V(XII):36) and actively discussed in depth with Luther and Melanchthon the doctrines they confessed! Both of those confessional documents were published during his tenure with Luther and Melanchthon in Wittenberg, and they make a confession that is identical to that of Dr. Barnes in his Treatise. That is the evidence I see in what follows, below.


2. Dr. Barnes, like Luther, does not regard faith as an idle or passive thing, but as something that is active.


3. Dr. Barnes, like Luther, sees two different kinds of “faith,” one that does not save and one that does. In one place, he uses this distinction in the manner of Augustana, as “that which merely acknowledges or believes the historical facts of Jesus Christ” and “that which believes we have grace, righteousness, and forgiveness of sins through Christ” (AC:XX:23), but in another place he adduces St. Athanasius to defend the idea that there is one kind of faith that is a gift of God which “justifies,” and that there is a second kind which is also a gift of God “whereby miracles are done.” Unable to find the source and context from the writings of St. Athanasius in English, I note this in footnote 16. I’m not sure if this is a doctrine that has been formally rejected, or a line of thinking that was never developed, but I note it here to alert the reader, because I have never heard this teaching before and thought it was rather curious.


4. Dr. Barnes directly addresses the accusation that “Faith is a work, and therefore cannot justify,” and rejects it. Faith does not justify because it is either “work” or “merit,” rather “faith alone justifies, because it is that thing alone whereby I do depend upon Christ.”


5. Regarding the formatting of the text, there was no bold or italics in the text of the 1842 document from which this was taken. I added these elements of formatting to signify the quotation of Scripture and of the Church Fathers, and to aid in the emphases and distinctions being made by Barnes.


6. Regarding the footnotes, all of the footnotes from the 1842 document are reproduced here (with more explanatory text in most cases), except for one: in many places, the term “justice” was footnoted as “righteousness” for clarification. In those places, I simply substituted the word “righteousness” and omitted the footnote. In addition, I have added several other footnotes directing the reader to sources of quotations from the Church Fathers used by Dr. Barnes, and added one explanatory footnote.


7. The main heading was in the original document, I added the subheadings to help break up the essay a bit, due to its length.


8. Finally, this has got to be the clearest, most direct, most complete and most efficient defense of Justification by Faith Alone that I have yet read. It utterly devastates the works righteousness of the Romans and of other Synergists and Pelagians, and leaves no doubt as to the clarity of Scripture on the issue: apart from faith, there is no Justification whatsoever.

“Faith, however, reconciles and justifies BEFORE GOD the moment we apprehend the promise by faith. And throughout our entire life we are to pray God and be diligent, to receive faith and to grow in faith. For, as stated before, faith is where repentance is, and it is not in those who walk after the flesh. This faith is to grow and increase throughout our life by all manner of afflictions. Those who obtain faith are regenerated, so that they lead a new life and do good works.” (Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Chapter III, para. 212)

“Then, again, [the word regeneratio, that is, ‘regeneration’] is sometimes used pro remissione peccatorum et adoptione in filios Dei, that is, so as to mean only the remission of sins, and that we are adopted as sons of God. And in this latter sense the word is much and often used in the Apology, where it is written: Iustificatio est regeneratio, that is, Justification BEFORE GOD is regeneration.” (Formula of Concord: Solid Declaration, Part III, para. 19)

---

TREATISE ON JUSTIFICATION

This Tract is appended to a Supplication
unto the most gracious prince, King Henry VIII

by Robert Barnes, D.D.

ONLY FAITH JUSTIFIETH BEFORE GOD
If your grace do not take upon you to hear the disputation and the probation of this article, out of the ground of the Holy Scripture, my lords the bishops will condemn it, before they read it, as their manner is to do with all things that please them not, and which they understand not; and then cry they, “Heresy, heresy, a heretic, a heretic, he ought not to be heard, for his matters are condemned by the church, and by his holy fathers, and by all long customs, and by all manner of laws.”

Christ Alone
Unto whom, with your grace’s favour, I make this answer; I would know of them, if all these things that they have reckoned, can overcome Christ, and His holy Word, or set the Holy Ghost to school? And if they cannot, why should not I then be heard, who do require it in the name of Christ? and also bring for me His holy Word, and the holy fathers, which have understood God’s Word, as I do? Therefore, though they will not hear me, yet must they needs hear them. In Holy Scripture, Christ is nothing else but a Saviour, a Redeemer, a Justifier, and a perfect peacemaker between God and man. This testimony did the angel give of Him in these words, “He shall save His people from their sins” (Mt. 1:21). And also St. Paul: “Christ is made our righteousness, our satisfaction, and our redemption” (1 Co. 1:30). Moreover, the prophet witnesses the same, saying, “For the wretchedness of my people, have I stricken Him” (Is. 53:8); so that here have we Christ with His properties.

Now, if we will truly confess Christ, then must we grant with our hearts, that Christ is all our justice, all our redemption, all our wisdom, all our holiness, all alone the purchaser of grace, alone the peacemaker between God and man. Briefly, all goodness that we have, that it is of Him, by Him, and for His sake only. And that we have need of nothing towards our salvation, but of Him only, and we desire no other salvation, nor any other satisfaction, nor any help of any other creature, either heavenly or earthly, but of Him only; for as St. Peter saith: “There is no other name given unto men, wherein they must be saved” (Ac. 4;12). And also St. Paul saith: “By Him are all that believe justified from all things” (Ac. 13:39). Moreover St. John witnesses the same, in these words: “He it is that hath obtained grace for our sins” (1 Jn. 2:2 [Tyndale]). And in another place: “He sent His Son to make agreement for our sins” (1 Jn. 4:10).

Now, my lords, here have you Christ, and His very nature full and whole. And he that denies any thing, or any part of these things, or takes any part of them, and applies them, or gives the glory of them to any other person, than to Christ only, the same man robs Christ of His honour, and denies Christ, and is very antichrist. Wherefore, my lords, First, What say you to this, and unto the properties of Christ? If you grant them, then are we at a point. For they prove that only faith in Jesus Christ justifieth before God. Secondly, If you deny it, as I am sure you will, for you had rather deny your creed, than grant it, how can you then avoid, but that you are the very antichrist of whom St. John speaks? For now have we tried your spirits, that they be not of God, for you deny Christ, that is, you deny the very nature and property of Christ. You grant the name; but you deny the virtue. You grant that He descended from heaven; but you deny the profit thereof. For He descended for our salvation, this you deny; and yet it is your creed. You grant that He was born; but you deny the purpose. You grant that He is risen from death; but you deny the profit thereof, for He rose to justify us. You grant that He is a Saviour; but you deny that He alone is the Saviour. I pray you, wherefore was He born? Was it to justify us in part, to redeem us in part; to do satisfaction for part of our sins? so that we must set a pair of old shoes, a lump of bread and cheese, or a filthy gray coat to make satisfaction, for the other part?¹ Say what you will, if you give not all, and fully, and only to one Christ, then you deny Christ, and the Holy Ghost, and St. John declares you to be contrary to Christ. This may also be proved by a plain scripture of the Holy Ghost, which is this: “No man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, or to look on the book, till the Lamb came, unto whom the elders spake on this manner: Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof, for Thou wast killed, and hast redeemed us by Thy blood” (Re. 5:9).

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

“I need a poor person in my life, so that I can grow in holiness...” --AND-- A Nice Story about the Efficacy of the Word from an Historic Lutheran Source

Frequent Travel and Christian Radio in Wisconsin
In contrast to the past four or five years, which had me working with clients primarily from my home office, these days are filled with a great deal of travel – I put nearly one thousand miles on my car, per week, mostly between Chicago and Minneapolis. To keep me company during my travels, I do have an iPod filled with the finest music, and with many edifying podcasts, lectures and readings from important Christian works (like the Bible, of course, and the Book of Concord). However, use of this type of gadgetry seems to be more of a distraction and frustration for me while I am trying to focus on driving, so I find myself doing what I learned to do before the advent of Satellite Radio, iPods and even CDs: flipping through radio stations. With only one button required to advance to the next station, it is easy to do and there is very little to think about while doing it; and if I rest my hand on the shifter (as I often do), that button is within the lazy reach of my index finger.

And, of course, there is alot of variety on the radio between Minneapolis and Chicago. There is always plenty of pop, rock and country of various flavors, most of which I can hardly tolerate for more than a few minutes at a time (although there is a local station in the Black River Falls area that plays old Country Western and Polka music as I am passing through at about 4am – that’s kind of fun to listen to). Unfortunately, there is a great gaping hole in Wisconsin, between Eau Claire and Madison, with no radio stations dedicated to Classical Music programming. However, one can travel virtually the whole distance with continuous Christian programming of one kind or another. From Minneapolis to Eau Claire, and picking up again in Madison, there are the Evangelical stations – strategically placed, of course, as with their suburban church-plants, to reach out to a target audience with the highest numbers of wealthy middle-to-upper class listeners – while between Eau Claire and Madison, there are at least a couple of Fundamentalist stations.

Fundamentalist Radio
I like listening to these latter stations, as the music tends to be far more tasteful and reverent (even if it is Baptist), and the preaching is nearly always from the King James Version of the Bible. In fact, the language of the KJV falls so naturally from the experienced lips of these Fundamentalist preachers, that one hardly recognizes that it is Elizabethan language they are using. Contrary to what our post-Modern NNIV defenders would require us to think, it’s not those Pastors who habitually use the KJV that have a problem reading and using it in public, it’s the dunderheads with limited literary exposure who stumble and bumble over fine language as something completely foreign to them, and so torture themselves and others in their public use of it as to draw negative attention to the Word of God. I remember thinking this many years ago, as my then-future-wife and I were investigating the peculiarities of the various Christian confessions, and found ourselves visiting Fundamentalist churches for awhile. While we found ourselves “fundamentally disagreeing” with many of their doctrinal positions, we were delighted by their use of English, and their effortless and very natural use of the King James Version of the Bible in their preaching.

Where are the Lutherans?
I’ve found myself re-appreciating the sound of the King James as I’ve listened to these radio preachers over the past months make use of it in such a natural way that I don't even realize that “Nobody talks that way anymore.” There is no occasion to realize it, since, despite the fact that such words are not part of vulgar everyday-parlance, they are nevertheless simple, very easily understood English words. One preacher that seems to be on the radio as I am normally passing into the signal of that particular station, is Dr. J. Vernon McGee. It is always nice to hear a pious Christian speak directly from the text of the Bible in a way which makes it plain that he has the utmost respect for the inspiration, authority and perspicuity of God’s Word, and rather than suggest, through use of clever syllogisms or analogies, that the Bible is inadequate or unclear by preaching what it does not plainly say, merely relies on the text in front of him. In this respect, McGee’s Through the Bible series, though far from perfect, is alot of fun to listen to. He’s not trying to make the Bible sound or speak any differently than how it plainly reads. And so it had me wondering, “Confessional Lutherans, with all of the lip service they pay to the importance of the Word of God, and their utmost reliance upon it, surely must have produced a ‘Through the Bible’ audio commentary series, much like McGee did, for use on Lutheran radio.” So I looked. Not only have I not found any such thing produced by Lutherans in a wholesome Bible translation like the KJV, NKJV or even the NASB, I couldn’t even find any such thing in the wretched NIV.

Of course, maybe it is actually because Lutherans have done market studies and SWOT analyses and, calculating the ROI of such an effort, reasoned that the return on broadcasting the Bible simply wouldn’t justify the expense. How could it? In a route traveled along interstates and major state highways, cutting a path from Minneapolis, between Madison and Milwaukee, and into northern Illinois – the “Trail through the Lutheran Fatherland of the mid-western United States” if there ever was one – not a single Lutheran voice can be heard on the radio in any segment of the route. Not a one. Of course, I may be mistaken. Maybe one of the “Evangelical” stations I usually skip past is actually a Lutheran station, but I just don’t recognize it as Lutheran based on its programming. Yes, that’s entirely possible.

Roman Radio
But there is another category of Christian radio which can be heard, nearly continuously, from Eau Claire to Chicago – which brings me to the quote in the title of today’s post: Catholic radio. It’s everywhere. It’s as proliferate as all of the protestant stations combined, and it isn’t weak-kneed, bland, “ecumenical,” soft-peddling-the-message-to-win-converts programming. It’s full-throated high-church, even creepy at times, Roman Catholicism. Most often, I find myself listening to one of these stations. Why? Because they have the best music, for starters. It’s the only source of classical music from Eau Claire to Madison, and they also frequently play hymns and even allow the organ to be heard over the airwaves (Baptists and Evangelicals don’t use organs). They also have the most interesting commentators. Nearly always very conservative, they feature keenly insightful political pundits and intelligent scholars. Interestingly, one of the programs dedicated to disaffected Catholics who have wandered through Protestantism and are now returning to Rome, frequently features laymen and clergymen who have returned to Rome and speak the language of Evangelicalism and of Rome very well. This is in contrast to Roman priests, who’ve always been nothing but Roman priests, who think they understand Evangelicalism and venture to lecture or even merely question these (former) Evangelicals on Evangelicalism: they have no idea what they are talking about, and are usually called to account and corrected by the laymen and clergymen who know better.

One program I heard last week featured the quote in the title of today’s post: “I need a poor person in my life, so that I can grow in holiness.” The priest who said it was quoting a Cardinal, who offered this as an explanation to the priest after returning to the dinner table following an interruption from a beggar who routinely visited asking for handouts. “Why do you always give this man money?” the priest had asked.

As I heard the answer I thought, “What? Poor people are for the use of the clergy to gain merit in their own minds before God and/or man?” As I was thinking this, the priest, practically swooning with admiration for the Cardinal, commented further, “But you have to be a Valliscaulian to truly understand and appreciate his wisdom here” (Hmmm... contextual theology again. Well, I’m not a “Valliscaulian,” thank you, so I’ll take his words as they stand). His fellow commentator, a nun, let a little air out of his bag, however, when she replied, “Only if you love the poor can they forgive you your gifts to them.”

Again, I thought, “What?”, and was immediately joined by the priest, who asked, “Uh, what? Can you repeat that please?”, which request the nun obliged, adding (and I paraphrase): “The Right to Food is a Natural Right, all of humanity is entitled to food. If the rich have it in abundance, they are obligated to give it to the poor. It is the Right of the poor to have food, so it is a sin to withhold it from them. And it is a sin for anyone to think of their obligation to give as merely a gift that they voluntarily give. But if given in true love and concern for the poor, and no other motivation, the poor can, and should, forgive them this sin.”

There is a need for Lutheran Radio in the Midwest
This exchange brought to mind a story I had recently read in an old edition of the Lutheran Witness. It is a story about the efficacy of the Word, and its simple, yet central message of the forgiveness of sins and peace with God. Offered in the manner and language in which the old Lutherans used to speak, it is a reminder of the need for the Lutheran message, the true simple message of the Scriptures, to once again be heard.

---

The Story of a Bible.
from The Lutheran Witness, Vol. 6, No. 6. August 21, 1887

      “Did he leave any message for me?”
      “Yes, and he cursed the day he ever saw you.”
      This was the answer given by a nun to a lady in London under the following circumstances, which were related to me by a gentleman of culture and piety, as we were sailing along the coast of Norway, from Trowdhjem to Bergen, in and out among the beautiful fjords and snow-capped mountains: Monsignor Capel was asked by a lady of position in London, “How can I find peace of mind?” Instead of pointing her to Christ and telling her that He atoned for our sins on the cross, he bade her dismiss such unwelcome thoughts and attend places of amusement. One day she followed a crowd of people into Exeter Hall, expecting to have her mind diverted from serious thoughts about the future by a musical entertainment. She was surprised when she found herself in a great religious meeting. Annoyed at this, she attempted to get out, but in doing so she knocked some umbrellas on to the floor, and abashed took her seat. Her attention was soon riveted upon the speaker. He explained our relation to God, as under condemnation already, and spoke of Christ’s suffering on the cross as an atoning sacrifice, of God’s willingness, for His sake, to pardon us. She was deeply moved, and at the close she said to some one near her. “Can I speak to the gentleman who has just addressed us?”
      Soon after, in conversation with her, he said: “You will find the truth which I have mentioned often repeated in the Bible.”
      “But I have no Bible,” she replied.
      He quickly handed her his own, saying: “I have pleasure in giving you mine.”
      Some time after this the high Catholic dignitary, remembering the advice he had given this lady, sent the priest to inquire about the state of her mind. Instead of needing his help he soon found that she was able to direct him in the way of life. Before leaving she gave him the Bible that had been given her at Exeter Hall, and begged him to read it with prayer, and to trust alone in Him who “bore our sins in His own body on the tree.” Some time after she received a note from the priest asking her to call upon him. As she was about to take her son to Eton College, she did not accept the invitation at the time.
      When she called some weeks after, she was shown into a room where there was a coffin, and in it the body of the priest. Beside it a nun was kneeling in prayer. The lady approached and asked: “Did he leave any message for me?”
      “Yes,” was the reply. “He wished me to say, if you called, that he died in the full faith of the Catholic Church, and that he cursed the day he ever saw you.” The poor lady turned away, greatly distressed, saying to herself: “If I had gone to his bedside when he sent for me, I might have pointed him to Christ, and he might have been saved through faith in Him, and now, alas! it is too late, I fear through my negligence he is lost forever;” This reflection produced such an effect upon her that it destroyed her peace of mind, which she sought to overcome by foreign travel. One day in Rome a lady approached her and said: “Do you remember standing by the coffin of Father -—-—, and the dreadful message delivered to you?”
      “Yes,” she replied, “and it has followed me night and day.”
      “But it was not a true message. The words he bade me deliver to you were these: ‘Tell her that I bless the day I ever saw her, and that I die in the full faith of Jesus Christ. Tell her that the Bible she gave me was the means of leading me to trust alone in Him for pardon. Tell her I shall meet her in heaven.’ And then,” added the nun, “he gave me that precious Bible, which has also been the means of leading me to see myself as a lost sinner and Christ as my only Saviour. Will you forgive me for telling that falsehood?”

      Dear reader, are you a Christian? If so, may the recital of these facts strengthen your faith in the promise of God, “My word shall not return to me void,” and lead you with more faith and determination to assist in putting the Bible into every sinner’s hand. If you are not a Christian, I pray that these striking incidents may lead you to feel your need of Jesus, and that you can never have lasting peace and joy till you come as a lost soul and believe in Him. He has suffered that dreadful death on the cross in your stead that you might be forgiven and fitted for heaven. Will you confess your sins, and believe in Him? “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn. 1:6). You see how he saved this lady, this priest and the nun. He is willing to save you.

A. Hunnius on the truly confessional Lutheran teaching of Romans 5:18

(Here is an excerpt from a post on www.faithalonejustifies.com)


Aegidius Hunnius has a brilliant section in A Clear Explanation of the Controversy among the Wittenberg Theologians concerning Samuel Huber’s misuse of Romans 5 to prove that all those who have been condemned through Adam’s sin have also been justified by Christ’s obedience (whether they believe in Him or not).

Hunnius takes apart Huber’s (and the official WELS) doctrine piece by piece, concluding with this observation about Huber’s supposed “confessional subscription” to the Lutheran Book of Concord:

And what will Dr. Huber reply to the Book of Concord, which, in citing these very words from Romans, explicitly confirms that those things mean nothing other than that we are justified by faith? This is what the Book of Concord says in the Latin edition, page 666: “Therefore, these statements are equivalent and clearly mean the same thing, when Paul says that we are justified by faith; or that faith is imputed to us for righteousness; and when he teaches that we are justified by the obedience of one Mediator, who is Christ; or that through the righteousness of one man, justification of life comes upon all men. For faith does not justify on account of this, that it is such a good work, or that it is such a splendid virtue, but because it apprehends and embraces the merit of Christ in the promise of the Gospel.” Thus far the Book of Concord.  If the Pauline phrase (that “through the righteousness of one Man, justification of life comes upon all men”) clearly means the same thing as that other statement, “We are justified by faith” (as the Book of Concord clearly and emphatically asserts), then the interpretation is rejected by the sentence of the Book of Concord that imagines from these words of Paul a justification apart from faith—one that extends also to those who have never had faith and never will. Dr. Luther says it even better in [his lectures on] the second chapter to the Galatians: “Where Christ and faith are not present, there is no remission of sins, no refuge, nothing but pure imputation of sins and condemnation.”

Disturbing Tactics: The Trap Question

It becomes increasingly difficult to discuss Biblical doctrine when people are constantly trying to paint others into a corner with the sort of “trap question” that the scribes and Pharisees so often used with Jesus. 

A good example of such a question was submitted this morning on another thread by Pastor Peter Prange.

Dear Paul:

Would you say that Christ's vicarious satisfaction is *sufficient* for all the world but not *efficient* apart from faith?

Just trying to get further clarification.

Cordially,

Peter

One of the marks of a “trap question” is the very “cordial” tone of the question.  It appears innocent.  “Just trying to get further clarification.”  “Help me understand this better.”  It sounds like the author of the question is trying to engage in honest discussion.  Who could have a problem with that?

This cordial tone is intended to disarm the person being questioned.  The respondent wants to assume that the one asking the question is being charitable and honest, and so he wishes to respond with charity as well, putting the best construction on the question.  It also allows the questioner to feign innocence (and shock) in the end if he is caught in his Pharisaical behavior:  “What?  I was just asking an innocent question.  You didn’t put the best construction on it.  That’s your fault.  I will pray for you.”  How pious!

But there are certain words and phrases that are loaded with meaning in theological discussion.  And just as in a chess match when a player attempts to out-maneuver his opponent by hiding his strategy, so a theological “player” will couch his language in innocence while introducing these loaded words, hoping that his opponent isn’t paying attention.  Sometimes he may notice the trap and avoid it.  Other times, he may not see it coming, and then, “Checkmate.”

I invite out readers to research the source of Pastor Prange’s language.  It isn’t the Book of Concord.  It isn’t the language of Lutheran orthodoxy or of Scripture.  It is straight out of the textbook of Calvinism.

I’ll quote here an example, but if one googles “atonement sufficient efficient,” one comes up with about half a million results.

Limited Atonement: Sufficient for All, Efficient for the Elect

Dr. Nettles does a wonderful job of summarizing the “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect” position(s) in his book By His Grace and For His Glory (note pages 302-05).  He believes this view represents “a majority view among Calvinists” though as I demonstrated in previous posts, is not the position he himself prefers.  From this point on I will refer to the Sufficient for All, Efficient for the Elect view as the SFA position.

The SFA position basically affirms both the sufficiency in the nature of the atonement to save all men and the limitation of the atonement to the elect in its divine intent.  It is unlimited in extent but limited in its intent.  According to the Synod of Dort, “The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.”  W. G. T Shedd (a Presbyterian theologian form the nineteenth century) wrote, “Christ’s death is sufficient in value to satisfy eternal justice for the sins of all mankind…Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins for all and every man in the world.” 

This view would say Jesus Christ bore the sins of the entire world (Isaiah 53:1-6) on his shoulders when he died on the old rugged cross.  As the sinless God-man He offered up a perfect sacrifice of infinite value.  The extent of the atonement is universal but the intent of the atonement (to save only the elect) is clearly limited.  Steele and Thomas explain it this way, the atonement was limited in its original design; not in its worth, value, or scope.

Pastor Prange is a learned, intelligent man.  The words he chose in his question were not random, nor were they innocent.  If he wanted to ask me if I held to the Calvinist doctrine of “Limited Atonement,” he could have simply asked.  If he had been intending to have an honest discussion, he would have been open about the source of his language.

Instead, he used the insidious “trap question.”  Unfortunately, this is rather typical in discussions I’ve had concerning UOJ.  Perhaps I have been guilty of it on the other end at times, and if so, I apologize.  The “trap question” is normally an uncharitable form of dialogue.  I say normally, not always, because at times Jesus Himself responded to trap questions with trap questions of His own, (“I will answer your question if you answer mine. John’s baptism—where did it come from?”).  Obviously in these cases, our Lord was perfectly justified in turning the trap back on the heads of those who were wickedly persecuting Him.

As for this “trap question” about “sufficient but not efficient” atonement, I will simply answer as I always have, that I reject the Calvinist limited atonement, as well as the Calvinist absolute double decree of election both to salvation and to damnation, together with all the theological baggage that goes along with these Calvinist heresies.  And in my discussions, I will not be baited into departing from the language of Scripture and the Book of Concord, and I urge our readers both to watch out for these trap questions, and not to employ them as a general rule.

But this incessant attempt of UOJers to pin the charge of Calvinism on those who hold to the Lutheran doctrine of Justification By Faith Alone is nothing new.  Samuel Huber, with his version of universal justification, did the same thing to the orthodox theologians at Wittenberg, because to him, either one has to teach universal election and universal justification, or one must be a Calvinist teaching a limited atonement.  Hunnius, of course, demonstrates Huber's folly.

From the Preface to A. Hunnius’ Theses Opposed to Huberianism:

In this book, he not only miserably and ineptly hijacks and most violently twists the apostolic text with his dreams and deliria, but he also, in unbridled fashion, seeks, beyond all rhyme and reason, to rub the scab of Calvinism off of me, most wantonly inventing that which he knows full well to be made up by him in his own study.  What does one expect from such propensity for fabrication, by which, perhaps, he tries to outdo his own father by whom he writes and speaks?

…I have also recommended these Theses so that it may be clearly seen how barefaced Huber is, how prodigiously vain, how contrary to his conscience is his testimony to impugn us as heretics guilty of a Calvinistic crime, that this man who has been handed over to a reprobate mind has no fear whatsoever, neither before God nor before the Church. 

Another Hunnius Translation against Samuel Huber Published

(Cross-posted from www.faithalonejustifies.com)

 
I am happy to announce the publication of another translation by Repristination Press:

A Clear Explanation of the Controversy among the Wittenberg Theologians

Available in print ($7.99) or Kindle edition ($7.00) from Amazon.

Aegidius Hunnius, writing for the faculty at the University of Wittenberg, explains in greater detail the controversy that had arisen with Samuel Huber. He gives examples of Huber's false doctrine concerning universal election, universal justification, and the supposed regeneration of hypocrites in Baptism. Just as importantly, Hunnius demonstrates how the orthodox Lutheran treatment of the these articles differs from Huber's position.

Though a shorter work than the Theses Opposed to Huberianism, this explanation is more direct and, in my opinion, more enlightening.

Reconciling the world—but not without means

I offer here another piece of Lutheran history on the Lutheran Church's historical understanding of 2 Corinthians 5:18-21.

Some assert that God "finished" reconciling the world to Himself 2,000 years ago, and that He justified all people at that time ("not imputing to them their sins").  Now, they say, He has entrusted the ministers of the Word with the task of announcing that God finished reconciling the world to Himself in the past, and in this way, they say, people become "individually" or "subjectively" reconciled to God.  They claim that Paul is teaching two separate things in these verses:  (1) that God finished reconciling the world (i.e., all people) to Himself at the cross, and (2) that by preaching this truth, ministers of the Word enable hearers to become "subjectively" reconciled as well.

But that this is not how 2 Corinthians 5 should be understood is made clear by Martin Chemnitz's treatment of it in the Examination of the Council of Trent.  He ties the reconciling of the world to the means of grace, specifically to the Ministry of the Word.  God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself through the preaching ministry of Christ.  So also Christ is present in the authoritative preaching ministry of the apostles, still reconciling the world to Himself.

It is not as if God actually "completed" the reconciling of the world to Himself 2,000 years ago, and then gave the Apostles the ministry of telling the world that the reconciliation was completed.  Instead, God even now continues His work of reconciling men to Himself through this ministry. 

I sense that some who balk at this understanding do so, for one reason, because the thought of such an authoritative Office of the Holy Ministry is repulsive to them.  They would rather see the Pastoral Office as simply announcing the fact that pardon has already been issued, so that the pastors are simply passing on information or communicating what was already true.  They don't like the fact that God actually and personally works through the ministry of the Word to pardon sins and to effect reconciliation.  But this is exactly what God says of the Office of the Holy Ministry, not that the apostles/pastors are to announce something that was already done in heaven long ago, but "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

 

10 Now this power of forgiving sin must not be understood to have been given to the priests in such a way that God had renounced it for Himself and had simply transferred it to the priests, with the result that in absolution it is not God Himself but the priest who remits sin. For Paul expressly distinguishes between the power and efficacy of reconciliation which belongs to God, and the ministry which was given to the apostles, so that it is God who reconciles the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19) and forgives sins (Is. 43:25), not however without means but in and through the ministry of Word and sacrament.

Ministers indeed are said to loose and remit sins on account of the keys, that is, because they have the ministry through which God reconciles the world to Himself and remits sins. Thus Paul says (2 Cor. 1:24) that although he has authority, he nevertheless does not lord it over their faith but is a servant and steward of the mysteries of Christ (1 Cor. 4:1), so that he who plants and he who waters is nothing, but He who gives the increase, namely God (1 Cor. 3:7). Nevertheless, he shows that the use of the ministry is useful and necessary, for, says he, we are co-workers, that is, assistants, whose labors God uses in the ministry, but where nevertheless all the efficacy belongs to Him. We are servants, says he, through whom you have believed. Likewise: “I became your father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15). Paul treats this distinction clearest of all in 2 Cor. 5:18–20. It is God who reconciles us to Himself through Christ, not counting our sins against us. To the apostles, however, He gave the ministry of reconciliation. But how so? “He entrusted to us,” says Paul, “the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”

Thus this distinction honors God and gives Him the glory that properly belongs to Him; it also claims for the ministry the honor and authority it has according to the Word of God. For even as it is Christ who baptizes through the ministry and also imparts His body and blood, so also it is Christ who through the ministry absolves and remits sins.

Chemnitz, M., & Kramer, F. (1999). Vol. 2: Examination of the Council of Trent (electronic ed.) (559–560). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

Comparing Huberianism and Lutheranism on Justification, Part 1

One by one, the pieces of history are stacking up against the claim that the Lutheran Church has "always taught" that God has already justified all people (including all unbelievers).  Aegidius Hunnius, writing for the faculty in Wittenberg, condemned Huber's doctrine in no uncertain terms.

The a priori assertion is made by some that Huber's doctrine of "universal or general justification" has nothing at all to do with the modern version of "universal or general justification."  They claim that the exact same terms are being used for completely different doctrines, and that Hunnius was only writing against Huber's version of universal justification, whereas he (together with the whole Lutheran Church of the 16th Century) would have readily accepted the modern version of universal justification.

This is quite a claim.  I would ask those who stand by this assertion to explain, then, the vast difference between modern "universal justification" and Huber's "universal justification."  From the outset, I would like to include in the parameters for discussion that no one is allowed to use the terms "objective" or "subjective."  We should be able to explain what we mean without using those words.

I offer this simple comparison to get things started:

Eduard Preuss - The Justification of the Sinner before God

So, then, we are reconciled (2 Cor. 5:18); however, not only we, but also Hindus, and Hottentots and Kafirs, yes, the world (2 Cor. 5:19). “Reconciled,” says our translation; the Greek original says: “placed in the right relation to God.” Because before the Fall we, together with the whole creation, were in the right relation to God, therefore Scripture teaches that Christ, through His death, restored all things to the former right relation to God. We, then, are redeemed from the guilt of sin; the wrath of God is appeased; all creation is again under the bright rays of Mercy, as in the beginning; yeah, in Christ, we were justified before we were even born. For do not the Scriptures say: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them” (2 Cor. 5:19)? This is not the justification which we receive by faith, but the one which took place before all faith…

Aegidius Hunnius - Theses Opposed to Huberianism

Thesis 1

Huber professes such a justification, for the sake of which Christ has properly, actually and practically conferred redemption on the entire human race in such a way that sins have been equally remitted to all men, including the Turks, and that all men (including unbelievers) have received remission of sins, and that the whole human race has, in actual fact, been received into the grace and bosom of God.

Thesis 20

Huber will never be able to explain his way out of this nonsense of insoluble contradictions and most prodigious absurdities.  Therefore let him enjoy his justification, and let him bless his elect and sanctified people with it – Turks, Jews, and all unbelievers.  We, in the meantime, shall restrict justification to believers only, as prescribed by all prophetic and apostolic Scriptures.