Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Ministry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ministry. Show all posts

Friday, November 30, 2018

Pieper tribute 4: Honoring the Ministry

      A few LC-MS theologians today sometimes honor Franz Pieper for his defense of the doctrine of the Ministry or what is called in German the term Amt, Office of Preaching.  But practically all of these do not defend all the Lutheran doctrines that Pieper taught.  Most glaringly, they do not teach and defend his pure Doctrine of Justification and the Doctrine of Inspiration.  This makes whatever praise they have for Pieper's teaching suspect.  — But in the following "tribute" from 1931, we hear one of the best testimonies of Pieper on this teaching:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
The Many-Sided Dr. Pieper.
Honoring the Ministry.
The Lutheran Witness, September 29, 1931, p. 327

“During the summer of 1888 I, then a student of the seminary, was serving the congregation at Carondelet in the absence of Rev. Achenbach. Rev. C. C. Schmidt asked me to conduct services for him in Holy Cross one Sunday afternoon. Before the service Dr. Pieper also came into the vestry and sat down. He was to christen a child after the sermon. When I arose to go before the altar or on the pulpit, Dr. Pieper quickly arose to open the vestry-door for me. Dr. Pieper always acted the gentleman; but I did not look upon this action of his as a mere act of courtesy, but rather as an act of reverence for the preacher of the Word of God, even though this preacher happened to be one of his students. This seemingly insignificant incident I always remembered.”
Rev. J. H. Todt, Manistee, Mich.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The reverence Pieper held for the Ministry was truly a holy reverence. He believed God went with His Word. 
      My mother dearly wanted one of her boys to be a pastor, but none of us did.  I suppose when older ones chose the field of Engineering, that also held my interest. I chose the lesser field, by far. But I remember that after an older brother went to Valparaiso University and we also visited that campus to see him, I was almost shocked at how different their worship was, how different their overall attitude toward the Bible was, than my upbringing.  I remember how I determined then that I would NOT go to Valparaiso University because of this.  At least in this, I made the right choice, even if it was a state university (Purdue).
      This account of Pieper opening the vestry-door reminded me of another door, the Gates of Heaven, and how he labored to keep the pure Lutheran teaching of "The Open Heaven". — Further tributes from the 1931 issues of The Lutheran Witness will follow.

Monday, June 10, 2013

Walther as Theologian – Part 7:The Ministry–I & II

Continued from Part 6.  Table of Contents in Part 1.

Now we come to Pieper's portion on Walther's teaching on the Public Ministry, or the "pastoral office".

Highlighting is my own.  Underlining is in original.
Hyperlinks within this document should be opened in a new tab (or window).


At this point, Prof. McLaughlin broke this article in Lehre und Wehre into a separate month issue of the Orthodox Lutheran Theologian.  So below is what I either call "Part 10" of the OLT or Part 7b of the LuW series.  I have given it the title "The Ministry II".



There is much to learn from Walther on not only the Ministry, but also the layman's role in the Church.  I have been refreshed as I read each portion.  One particular point in this installment refutes the error of Pastor Wilhelm Loehe, a favorite teacher for many in today's LC-MS, especially Prof. John T. Pless.  There are other writers today who point out the errors of today's LC-MS in regards to its practice of denying laymen the right to judge and speak on matters of doctrine.  The pages of the newspaper Christian News often report of them (search "pro-Loehe" on his site).  And Pastor Jack Cascione is an ardent writer on this topic and seems to have a good understanding of Walther's teaching, largely because he defends Universal, Objective Justification.

The next post will be Part 8 – Church Government.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
2024-03-25: after the break below, the full text of Part 7:

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Pieper & Luther: No public ministry now? (Part 5- Parable of Talents)

This post concludes this series on "No Public Ministry today?".  I have now included a Table of Contents on Part 1 for ease of reference.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25:14-30 was so "enigmatic" or mysterious to me in my unbelief, yet became so clear when I was brought back to faith, the faith of my Lutheran upbringing in my confirmation classes.  

The talk of talents and the faithful servants... why were they so good and the other one bad?  What was it about the bad one that made him to be "cast into outer darkness" where there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (a most terrible description!)?  It was this:
Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. (Matthew 25:24)
This is the description of unbelief...  we know our God to be a God of wrath, a "hard man"...  so that a punishment must be made to a righteous God.  In our unbelief, we cannot see that the Law of God can only Show Our Sins, and so cannot save us.  We cannot believe a message from God, a message that is "too good to be true".  We cannot believe that we can possibly "Taste and see that the Lord is good".

This is why the message of "UOJ" (Universal, Objective Justification) is so odorous to some.  It springs from unbelief, not from a lack of knowledge or from a misunderstanding     But "UOJ" is the very Gospel itself, the one that Jesus referred to when he said:
Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15
Do a text search of the New Testament on this phrase: "preach the".  What does the New Testament say should be preached?  The "gospel", the "kingdom of heaven", the "word".

So what is the Public Ministry commanded to preach?  This:
... though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. Isaiah 1:18
Our God is not the master who is a "hard man", but a God of Grace and Mercy.  How can anyone possibly believe this?  Only by His Word, His Word that is written, that simple says:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
God's message is absolutely clear!  It is a UNIVERSAL message, it is an OBJECTIVE message... on the face of it!  He has done it all, paid the full price for all.  There is nothing we can do, only believe.

Dear God!  You are a witness to my tears... you are a God of Grace and Mercy!  You aren't the "hard man"!  Help thou mine unbelief!  In Jesus name!  Amen.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Pieper & Luther: No public ministry now? (Part 4 - Demand too much?)

This post continues from Part 3c where I concluded my examination of the WELS in relation to the sad state of the Public Ministry of external Christendom.  (See Table of Contents on Part 1 for ease of reference.)  In this Part 4, I will finalize my case that we have reached that time when the Public Ministry has become empty.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Now I will tell all "conservative", "confessional" Lutheran teachers of today who propose to proclaim and defend UOJ: ==>> Sit where I am sitting – at the feet of Walther and Pieper, not Sasse or Bonhoeffer, or any other modern theologian since their time.  Even if some have spoken somewhat like Walther and Pieper, yet here I sit having Luther and the Lutheran Confessions poured into my lap with pure Christian teaching, a teaching that brings us God's way by His Word.

Read Walther's "The Doctrine of Election in Questions and Answers" in the new book "The Formula of Concord - Core and Highlights".  Learn how true, pure Christian teaching is done.  Learn from a master who can expound the Doctrine of Election in such a comforting manner that a Christian is left praising God for His Grace and Mercy.  Walther pounds the Kingdom of Heaven into your lap.  How does Walther do this?  Because Walther brought the Doctrine of Justification to light again to our modern world!  And his faithful follower Franz Pieper (The Second Walther!) put all those "luminous rays of the Gospel" on paper... in his Christian Dogmatics volumes.

Am I asking too much to demand that all pastors of my church body proclaim and defend this doctrine front and center?
  • Pieper and Walther say no... when they say that God's chain of salvation is strong, but only by the pure, unadulterated Gospel - the Gospel of Grace - sola gratia and gratia universalis!
  • Pieper says no... when he says (see '"Justification-General" article here): "All praise of Christ, of grace, and of the means of grace, without the right doctrine of justification, is nothing.  All teaching in the Church must serve this article."
  • Walther says no... when he says: "Yes, there are not a few Lutherans who think that doctrine should be treated very lightly lest the hearers become too secure."
After I spoke to a pastor of a small conservative Lutheran church body (late 1990s) about the centrality of UOJ, that this must be at the heart of all their teaching, he responded (paraphrasing):
Yes, we teach Objective Justification, but we have to teach other doctrines too.
Now compare this with how Pieper spoke about the Doctrine of Justification (see essay "Justification-General" here):
All teaching in the Church must serve this article.  Not as though one should or could urge only this article.  All revealed doctrines must be taught with the greatest care.  But even when one is treating of hell the goal must be to show the hearers the deliverance from hell.
The only true defense of Universal, Objective Justification is to proclaim it from the mountain tops!  There are no real "misunderstandings", no caveats, no conditions on the true Gospel... only unbelief.  And there is this – no proper distinction of Law and Gospel without UOJ, the pure Gospel!  And finally, there is no Ministry without the pure, unadulterated Gospel.
God says his Gospel is objective:
1 Cor. 2:9 – Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. [from Isaiah 64:4]
Isaiah 55:9 – For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 
God's ways are far from sight to us, too high for our thoughts.  Only by the working of the Holy Spirit by His objective Word can we actually believe the Gospel, the message (UOJ) that is "too good to be true":
John 3:16 – For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
What better Bible verse is there than John 3:16 to explain the word "universal"?  How can it be confusing?  Who will accuse God of false "universalism" in this verse?

Now I, BackToLuther, will repeat my "war cry" to all Christianity, a saying that I blurted out in a writing to a pastor of the Lutheran Churches of the Reformation (LCR - whom I was considering for fellowship in late 1995):
God did NOT say like Ripley:  “Believe or NOT”!  NO!  He said:  Believe it!  I earnestly desire your salvation!  I sent my beloved Son to take your punishment!  I gave you the receipt by raising Him from the dead!  I am reconciled!  BE YE RECONCILED TO ME!  BELIEVE IT! (2 Cor. 5:19-21)
Indeed, this is a "life or death" situation for me.  Not only for me, but also for all Christianity.

No, my church body will speak like Pieper and Walther about their facilities and publications (see here):
Dr. Walther, at the dedication of our seminary in St. Louis on Jefferson Avenue in 1883, also stated so earnestly that he would rather see that stately and beautiful edifice crumble into dust and ashes than that the doctrine of divine grace be perverted and truth and error, side by side, be taught or tolerated in it.  In the same spirit, three years ago [1926], we dedicated our new group of seminary buildings on De Mun Avenue to their sacred use.  And this is true of all our seminaries and colleges and other synodical buildings at home and abroad.  Before they degenerate into institutions in which the Christian doctrine of divine grace is perverted and souls purchased by Christ unto everlasting life are thus prevented from entering heaven, may they rather fall into ruins
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In the concluding Part 5 to this series is one of the many accounts from the Bible concerning God – the Parable of the Talents.

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Pieper & Luther: No public ministry now? (WELS) (Part 3c)

This post continues from Part 3b where began my examination of the WELS in relation to the sad state of the Public Ministry of external Christendom.  (See Table of Contents on Part 1 for ease of reference.)  In this Part 3c, I continue this review of the WELS by speaking to it directly on the Doctrine of Justification – it is a matter of spiritual "life and death".
- - - - - - - - - - -

    Thank God, dear WELS, that you still mention this doctrine!... that some of your teachers work to defend this doctrine!  But just because some false teachers caricature UOJ (Kokomo Statements, David HartmanLarry Darby, "GJ", etc, etc), does not mean one should shrink back and try to "protect" the Gospel against any "misunderstandings" and stop "pushing the envelope".  I recall very clearly a phone call I had with David Hartman (of Kokomo, Indiana) when I was seeking a "conservative" Lutheran congregation.  At that point I was returning to my Christian faith and becoming grounded by Walther on Justification.  But when Mr. Hartman began to refute UOJ, I became horrified.  I was shaking...  my spiritual life depended on this doctrine – UOJ.  Here was a "conservative" Lutheran rejecting the heart of the Gospel.  There is no horror that Hollywood can portray (Halloween is finally over this year) that comes close to the horror of this.  I believe now that David Hartman was the main author of the well known "Kokomo Statements".  My reaction to Mr. Hartman was -- horror!  My reaction to Larry Darby's unbelief after repeated admonishments regarding the truth of Universal, Objective Justification was "Go to hell, Larry Darby!"  Your WELS committee's reaction to David Hartman (and the Pohlmans) was quite different from mine:
"...our impression of the appellants is that they are earnest seekers after God's truth as expressed in His Word." (See Zarling essay "Stand In Awe of Justification", page 16)
As Luther was not happy that Lyra and Burgensis were not angry enough at the blasphemies of the Jews (see paragraph 69 here), so I, BackToLuther, am not happy that you (WELS) are not angry at the blasphemies of the Kokomo heresy and David Hartman.  Your panel's "hope that a change of heart on the part of the appellants may still be possible" is weak because there is a reason for the Binding Key (John 20:23, Matt. 6:15) – it is an evangelical one... to bring them back to the true Gospel.  Indeed, they "will die in their sins" (John 8:24) unless they turn to the Truth.

But then the Kokomo appellants made a charge (same charge that Larry Darby's wife made during the heat of the "Larry Darby situation"), a charge that should worry the WELS if it is true (Zarling essay, page 16):
What struck the [WELS] panel was a statement repeated several times by the appellants. They said that before Pastor Papenfuss and Circuit-pastor A. Siggelkow had explained the doctrine of justification, they had never been taught objective justification in that way
Could it be, dear WELS, that you may have been sucked in just a bit by the disastrous storm in today's Christianity that was caused by...
today's (English) LC-MS?
...  a storm that has left modern Christians to fend for themselves?... a storm that has caused untold misery and doubt with it's relentless questioning of the pure Gospel and of the truth of the Bible itself?... a storm, like the Superstorm Sandy, that leaves its victims (i.e. weak Christians like me) casting about for their spiritual lives?  This spiritual "Superstorm" was brewing as Pieper was delivering his essay "The Open Heaven"...  this "Superstorm" made landfall when Franz Pieper died in 1931.  (Theodore Graebner stormed out of the room...)

Yes, I will say it, the awesome breadth of Superstorm Sandy, 1500 miles across, is as nothing compared to the devastation and terrible landscape after the fall of the old (German) Missouri Synod!  Yes, I will say to you, today's WELS, that God granted you a wonderful gift by frustrating Walther's attempt to consolidate all the members of the Synodical Conference into one entity.  How was this a gift?  By keeping you (and the ELS) separated from the hellish Superstorm caused by the new (English) LC-MS! (Mark Braun's book does an excellent job of pointing this out.)

But to you, today's LC-MS, I am your "Rip Van Winkle", for God has woke me up from a deadly slumber by faith, a faith that I do not deserve, for I see who the true heroes of the faith are, and they are the ones who truly give All Glory to God Alone.  It is the Lutheran Church from above that Alone gives All Glory to God!

I will leave the WELS for now with the title of Pastor Mark G. Zarling's title for his essay:
- - - - - - - - - - - -

In Part 4 of this series, I will close my case that we have reached that time when the Public Ministry has become empty.

Monday, November 5, 2012

Pieper & Luther: No public ministry now? (WELS) (Part 3b)

[2017-07-09: see added note in red below]
This post continues from Part 3a where began my examination of the WELS in relation to the sad state of the Public Ministry of external Christendom.  (See Table of Contents on Part 1 for ease of reference.)  In Part 2, I examined Paul McCain's defense of the Doctrine of Objective Justification against a pastor in the WELS who has been suspended.  In this Part 3b, I continue this review of the WELS by considering several of their public essays on the Doctrine of Justification.
- - - - - - - - - - -

   How can I fault the WELS when several essays in the extensive web library (wlsessays.net) of the WELS proclaim and defend UOJ... several wonderful articles are contained there.  Search these labels: 
JustificationObjective JustificationJustification – ObjectiveJustification – SubjectiveUniversal JustificationLuther, Martin – and JustificationWorship – and JustificationKokomo Controversy, etc.
Not only did Siegbert Becker write essays on Justification, but also several others.  I have just now spent some time with them and found some refreshment for my Christian faith...  signs of life in today's WELS.  A few examples:
  • Siegbert Becker: Objective Justification (1982) and Universal Justification, (1984).  *** comments added 11/8/2012*** These are some of the best essays to come out of the WELS on Justification and should be read by all.  How my faith was bolstered when a WELS pastor gave me these 2 articles in the 1990s.  Everyone should read these articles.  And so it is also with a sad heart that I must also report of a weakness which I cover in the next section. 
  • E.H. Wendland: Review of Common Confession: Article VI – Justification, 1951. One of the better reviews of the horror going on in the hemorrhaging Synodical Conference; good for true church history. See my Timeline post – 1954, Wendland.
  • Edmund Reim: A History of the Term “Objective Justification”, 1955. Good for true church history, although he stated "...we still have a preference for the simpler terminology of ... a personal justification", a preference of "personal" over "subjective"; but the term "subjective" serves even better to distinguish over against "objective" and avoids any notion of justifying ourself.  I believe Reim left the WELS later over the delay in ending fellowship with LC-MS by the WELS.
  • Richard Balge:  Justification – A Brief Study, 1984. A beautiful essay! No caveats, no conditions, only comfort!
  • Martin P. Janke: The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1986. Emphasizes the difference in Church Fellowship as the reason for division from LC-MS; but claimed "... on this vital doctrine [Justification] we and our former brethren in the LC-MS speak with one voice."  There is incongruity in this stand.
  • Forrest Bivens: The Primary Doctrine in Its Primary Setting: Objective Justification and Lutheran Worship, 1996.  Another good essay – essentially showing the centrality of this doctrine for Worship.
  • Mark Zarling: Stand in Awe of Justification, 1983. I love this title and Pastor Zarling's confession: "... it is not without some trepidation that this paper is presented. I certainly must confess, 'Who is sufficient for these things?'" [2 Corinthians 2:16]; however Zarling makes a misstep in this statement: "Objective justification apart from subjective justification leads to universalism." I will comment on this below.
==>> So, how can I fault the WELS on this doctrine?

1) If the WELS is solid on this doctrine, then they should be publicly pointing it's members to it's public essays proclaiming and defending this central doctrine.  Pastor Bartling's lament against the WELS should not have been needed.  The WELS should be headlining to it's pastors and laity alike that the WELS is a bastion of the true teaching on Universal, Objective Justification.  But why aren't they?  One hopes that this will be forthcoming.  May it be so!

2) One finds in some of WELS essays some problems on this doctrine.  There are some essays that, although they have some value, yet they show some weakness, even serious problems.  (See previous posts on Marquart and Drickamer for examples.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

2a)  President Mischke:  A report of his newsletter of June, 1982 is found in Mark Zarling's essay (pg 2) and quotes him:
A word of caution may, however, be in place. It may be well to remind ourselves not to divide "objective" and "subjective" justification as if they were two totally different things which can be treated in isolation from one another. They are rather the two sides of the same coin, and there can be no "saints" or salvation without faithTo teach otherwise would indeed be universalism.
I will comment much more about President Mischke's message and this charge of "universalism" later.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  

*** comments on Siegbert Becker added 11/8/2012 ***
2b) Prof. Siegbert Becker:  As mentioned above, in spite of the beauty of Becker's essay on Objective Justification, there is a weakness.   I hate to point this out for his essays in general are quite good in defending UOJ.  But he attempts to judge Pieper on the issue of "change or no change in God" On page 7 he says:
When Franz Pieper says that when God reconciled the world to himself a change took place in God he uses language that can be justified by biblical usage. ... But we recognize that this is an anthropopathism, that speaks of God in human terms. ... But the change that takes place does not consist in this that his [God's] anger changes to love.  
Becker goes into a discussion of the Greek word for "reconcile" and seems to forget Luther's description of God's wrath as a "foreign nature" of God.  Because of this weakness of Siegbert Becker, I have had to put him in my "side room" as I keep Luther, Walther and Pieper in my room, my reading room.  Although Becker left the LC-MS, I wonder that vestiges of his early training [link broken 2017] at the University of Chicago and Northern Baptist Theological Seminary were hard to detach from himself.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  

2c)  Prof. John BrugCrucial Issues for Lutheranism Today, 1996. In this essay, the following is stated:
  The biblical message that Christ paid for the sins of the whole world and that God has credited that payment to the whole world is being watered down to a ill-defined religious encounter. This is the greatest tragedy of contemporary Lutheran dogmatics. Lutherans who cherish the clear proclamation of the scriptural doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone as their greatest joy and privilege must vigorously oppose such teaching and strongly disassociate themselves from it.  Equally dangerous is the tendency toward universalism and pluralism within the more liberal elements of Lutheranism. Christ is not longer being upheld as the one way to heaven.
   A well-intentioned desire to resist this trend has, however, produced an unfortunate overreaction among some confessional Lutherans, namely the denial of the teaching which was called “objective justification” in old Synodical Conference terminology. This problem was explicitly addressed in the LC–MS’s fine 1983 statement on justification, but Lutherans can never be reminded too often that the focus of Lutheran preaching is Christ’s completed payment for sin and God’s objective verdict of acquittal pronounced for the whole world.
How is this weak?  Because of this: there is never a "well-intentioned" desire or an "overreaction" or a "confessional Lutheran" nature to a denial of the teaching of "Objective Justification"... rather simply this, unbelief.  The only strife caused by the words of "Universal, Objective Justification" is through unbelief.
Following the above quote is the next statement by Brug:
...The reason many contemporary Lutheran theologians have difficulty coming to grips with the biblical concept of justification is that they have watered down the biblical concept of law
This is not true.  It is very similar to the argument of Prof. David Scaer's essay of a year ago on Walther. It attempts to lay the blame for false doctrine on a watering down of the Law, when the reality is that false teaching springs from a false teaching on the Gospel and the inability to properly distinguish it from the Law.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

2d)  Jon BuchholzJustification, Expounded by Scripture, and Its Application to Mission and Ministry, 2005.  I ran across this essay that got me agitated... I had to get up and get a cookie... I was mumbling to myself as I compared phrases used in this essay with those of Luther, Walther and Pieper, yes, even the WELS own Siegbert Becker.  On page 7, Buchholz says this:
   Having offered this exhortation to careful terminology, please permit me to offer a gentle word of encouragement always to employ terms according to their proper, Spirit-given meaning, lest through careless speaking and writing we raise doubts and confusion, at best, or lapse into heresy, at worst. ...  In our zeal to expound the true, biblical doctrine of objective justification against those who oppose the doctrine, we have, at times, “pushed the envelope,” and employed words and phrases in imprecise and incorrect ways.
If anyone accuses you of "heresy" regarding the Gospel or "pushing the envelope", then remember that the old (German) Missouri Synod was also accused of "heresy" in it's proclamation of UOJ – see my blog post here.

Then Buchholz begins his listing of examples where care should be used when speaking of Justification.  His second point is this:
“God has forgiven the whole world. God has forgiven everyone his sins.” This statement is absolutely true! This is the heart of the gospel, and it must be preached and taught as the foundation of our faith. But here’s where the caveat comes in: In Scripture, the word “forgive” is used almost exclusively in a personal, not a universal sense
The proclamation of forgiveness to an individual in no way mitigates against Objective Justification or Universal Justification.  My confession is this: If the forgiveness that is proclaimed to me is not fully objective (outside me) in nature and also universal in nature, then all my assurance is gone and I'm going to HELL.

Continuing on page 8, Buchholz makes his next point:
"God has forgiven all sins, but the unbeliever rejects God’s forgiveness.” Again, this statement is true—and Luther employed similar terminology to press the point of Christ’s completed work of salvation. But we must also recognize that Scripture doesn't speak this way.  Jesus says, “If you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven” (John 20:23). “If you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins” (Matthew 6:15).
Wow!  Buchholz attempts to pit the Ministry of the Keys against the Doctrine of Justification.  This is dangerous!  The Ministry of the Keys instead flows from the Doctrine of Justification!

Then immediately following the above, Buchholz confirms he is on shaky ground when he says:
There are many impenitent and unbelieving people in the world who embrace God’s forgiveness wrongly and imagine it to be theirs, even while they are living in impenitence and unbelief. 
[2017-07-09: How can one "embrace God's forgiveness" and not believe it? To "embrace" it is to believe it; Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, III. The Righteousness of Faith, paragraphs 59 & esp. 64:  to "embrace God's forgiveness" is not possible for those who have "no genuine repentance", where "no love follows", and where they "persist in sins against their conscience".]

But Siegbert Becker said this in his Objective Justification essay (pg 15):
"...unbelievers do not consider themselves to be forgiven".
The last point I will quote from Buchholz is this (from page 9):
“God has declared the entire world righteous.” This statement is true, as we understand it to mean that God has rendered a verdict of “not-guilty” toward the entire world. It is also true—and must be taught—that the righteousness of Christ now stands in place of the world’s sin; this is the whole point of what Jesus did for us at Calvary. However, once again we’re wresting a term out of its usual context. In Scripture the term “righteous” usually refers to believers. It is a particular term that is typically reserved for the people of God. [footnote 18]
Footnote 18: An exception is in Romans 5:19, where the word δικαιοι is used in the universal sense. 
Even Buchholz himself in his own footnote says Scripture proves his point is incorrect ... he rather should believe what it says:
Romans 5:19 – For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
When I was finishing this review of Buchholz, I was a bit stunned when I realized that District President Jon D. Buchholz is the very one who is reported as suspending the WELS pastor for false teaching on Objective Justification.  As I sat there and read the suspended pastor's comments, I had to wonder that perhaps it was Buchholz's own aberrations on the Doctrine of Justification that were in part a cause of this pastor's fall from Christian doctrine.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  

Whenever the words "caution" or "universalism" (or "careful" or "misunderstanding" or "if - then" or "condition" or "caveat" or "limits" or "pushing the envelope", etc) are used in relation to the Gospel, I immediately sit up in my chair.  Although President Mischke spoke well when explaining that Justification is only one entity, yet he throws in an unfortunate statement that could lead a weak Christian (like me!) to wonder that perhaps that there is no salvation for me, no "sainthood" for me...  my faith is too weak.  Even Pastor Zarling is drawn in a bit by this when he states: "Objective justification apart from subjective justification leads to universalism." – a false statement.  Let me state this unequivocally:
The teaching of Objective Justification can never lead to false "universalism". 
Now listen to President C.F.W. Walther as he answered charges like these (see here):
page 64: It is satanic pride to say: “If God is indeed just, then it is logical that He will want to save all people.”
page 106: Now the papists, Armenians, and other sects come and say: There you see what a fine doctrine the Lutherans have.  They say: ’Eternal life is given unconditionally.’  Accordingly the wicked, thieves, liars, etc., all would be saved.  Just as the Universalists teach, no one would be lost but all would be saved, even the devil....
 But that is nothing but pure swindle. The enthusiasts know well enough that we do not teach that. Rather, such a doctrine (i.e. of Universalists) is a most disgraceful one, by which God is made to be the devil.
The charge of "Universalism" was also leveled at the old Norwegian Synod of Herman Amberg Preus by Lutheran opponents who attacked the practice of Absolution.  The old (German) Missouri Synod came to it's aid by upholding this doctrine in the pages of Lehre und Wehre, 1874, p 140 f., as reported by Franz Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, III, page 192.

And finally Franz Pieper, in his Christian Dogmatics (vol 2, page 22) throws all talk of caution against "universalism" (à la Herman Otten, President Mischke, Prof. John Brug, Jon Buchholz, etc.) to the ground:
The Lutheran Confessions maintain the universality of saving grace in its full extent. They teach the threefold universalism of the love of the Father, of the merit of Christ, and of the efficacious operation of the Holy Ghost, through the means of grace, on all hearers of the Word. (Triglotta 1071, Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, XI, 28 f.)
True Lutherans are true universalists, threefold universalists!
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

In Part 3c, I will conclude this portion reviewing the WELS on this issue of what the Public Ministry (all of them!) should be preaching and defending.

Sunday, November 4, 2012

Pieper & Luther: No public ministry now? (WELS) (Part 3a)

This post continues the series from Part 1 and Part 2 where I study Pieper and Luther on the sad state of the Public Ministry of external Christendom.  (See Table of Contents on Part 1 for ease of reference.)  In Part 2, I examined Paul McCain's defense of the Doctrine of Objective Justification against a pastor in the WELS who has been suspended.  In this Part 3a, I will consider the Wisconsin Synod (WELS) in this situation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It is somewhat difficult for me to judge the WELS, for they are the ones who have evidently suspended a pastor for teaching contrary to Universal, Objective Justification (UOJ).  And they are one of the former members of the venerable Synodical Conference that held to true Christian teaching -- a conference that had as it's core the founding essay in 1872 that proclaimed the true doctrine of Justification.  (For anyone interested, you may download here (doc file) the full English translated text of this essay that was published by the Ohio Synod in it's magazine the Lutheran Standard, November 1, 1872 pgs 163 ff.)

The faithful Wisconsin men were true teachers when they warned the emerging new (English) LC-MS against various errors – errors well documented by Prof. Mark Braun in his book A Tale of Two Synods – Events That Led to the Split between Wisconsin and Missouri.  And their great light Professor Siegbert Becker was one of the few who later wrote so well of UOJ in his two essays Objective Justification and Universal Justification.  These 2 essays were a tremendous help for my weak faith 15 years ago.

But as good as these points are, there is a difficulty and it has to do with this same Doctrine of Justification:
  • Perhaps Mark Braun's book could have touched on this doctrine as a basis for the split, but I haven't found where it did.
  • Perhaps the men of Wisconsin should have more forcefully defended Universal, Objective Justification against the new LC-MS.  Although they did on occasion, yet their focus was largely on various other doctrines: Boy Scouts, military chaplains, "historical critical" Bible interpretation, unionism,  – all good points but these flow from the Doctrine of Justification (the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls).
  • And now today perhaps the WELS should be a bit more forthcoming in it's clear proclamation of this doctrine.  
Why do I make this last point?  Because a WELS pastor (retired?) laments over this in an article in the current issue of Herman Otten's Christian News (October 29, 2012, Vol. 50, No. 42).  Pastor M.J. (Mark) Bartling's article is quite remarkable for it forcefully defends UOJ. In fact I could almost claim plagiarism if that were possible for he makes many of the same points that I, BackToLuther, have made.  Everyone should read it carefully.  But why must he lament over a WELS "conference of presidents" and state this:
The conference of presidents, on the recent call list, Oct. 2012, reports that Paul Rydecki has been suspended from ministry of the WELS. No further information is given, and one is left to wonder what did he do???? 
Then after discovering from a third party source that the reason for the suspension is due to false teaching on Objective Justification, Bartling says:
One wonders why more information concerning suspensions for doctrinal reasons cannot be given. It seems that in order to understand what is going on in the Synod one must go to unofficial sources.
But even Pastor Bartling, who so eloquently defends UOJ, needs to be clarified and corrected on 3 points:

1)  He says this of Objective Justification (OJ) and Subjective Justification (SJ):
The two must go together; — and you can’t have one without the other!!!
Actually, as Bartling teaches elsewhere, you can have OJ without SJ – that is called "unbelief". And Pastor Bartling, should you not also be rebuking Herman Otten who tells the WELS to "Cool it" on their suspension of this false teaching pastor?

2)  Pastor Bartling may exhibit a slight misunderstanding of the history of the downfall of the LC-MS when he states the following:
In the discussions in the 50s between the old American Lutheran Church [ALC] and the LCMS concerning justification, the ALC wanted to teach that God had secured and provided salvation for all people.  This is objective or universal redemption, not objective justification.  The LCMS along with the WELS insisted on the words, that God has not only secured and provided salvation for all, but that God has declared the whole world righteous in Christ Jesus.
The slight misunderstanding is that there was practically no LC-MS professors except Theodore Engelder and Theodore Mueller who held firmly to the old (German) Missouri Synod on the pure Doctrine of Justification. Why?  Long before the 1950s, Professor Theodore Graebner was confused on this doctrine.  And then Professor William Arndt became confused when he attempted to clarify this doctrine in an essay on Justification in the centennial book of the LC-MS, The Abiding Word (1947) where he rather showed a weakness and confusion. (see documentation here).  Already in the 1940s (and truly in the 1930s), the LC-MS was on it's downward spiral on this doctrine.

3)  Then Pastor Bartling made perhaps the most troubling statement:
This they called objective Justification. (A term that is preferred over universal justification, which can cause some misunderstandings.)
Here is perhaps my biggest problem with not only Pastor Bartling, but also the Wisconsin Synod in general.  Universal Justification (and also Objective Justification) cannot be misunderstood, but it can be caricatured and rejected in unbelief.  (I will elaborate later.)
 - - - - - - - - - - - 

In Part 3b, I will delve deeper into the large pool of WELS writings on Justification and find some gems... and some troubling statements.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Pieper & Luther: No public ministry now? (Paul McCain) (Part 2)

In Part 1 of this series, I quoted Franz Pieper and Martin Luther about a possible time when the Public Ministry of external Christendom preached only from unbelief, false doctrine or as Luther put it, "epicurean outrage".  Pieper and Luther stated that the pure Gospel would only then be taught and held by the fathers of the household.  Indeed, heads of the household have the final responsibility given by God to see to a true Christian education for their children.

I then proposed that that time has arrived. The pure preaching and teaching of Christian doctrine, doctrine that has it's basis in Universal, Objective Justification (UOJ), is largely gone from external Christendom.
- - - - - - - - - - - 
To bring this up-to-date, there is a current affair emanating from the Wisconsin Synod (WELS) that again brings to the fore the doctrine of Objective Justification.  According to some reports, a pastor has been suspended from the WELS and other reports indicate it was because of false teaching against "Objective Justification".  As stated before, whenever this topic comes up, I immediately sit up in my chair and investigate.  Why?  Because of my hope that there will be true supporters and defenders of it, not only detractors. And because it is the true Gospel.

And what do I see?  Paul T. McCain is defending against false teaching against Objective Justification.  Hmmm, let us see about this. Rev. McCain is the Publisher of Concordia Publishing House (CPH) of today's (English) LC-MS.

Yes, it was Paul T. McCain who commented on my lack of attending a church and rebuked me when he said:
If you are not attending the Divine Service of Word and Sacrament, all these blog posts are useless to you, and for you.  Repent and return to Christ.
McCain's rebuke loses it's bite when seen in the light of what Luther and Pieper said in my blog post Part 1.  McCain implies his LC-MS does not preach "epicurean outrage", especially himself who rebukes a pastor in a forum for teaching against Objective Justification.  Although I am glad to see this of McCain, yet his synod is a fellowship where not all the pastors are preaching this pure Gospel, that is Universal Justification and Objective Justification (UOJ).  And his rebuke of me indicates he is also weak on this doctrine, for he places the Public Ministry above this doctrine, the doctrine that I believe, the Gospel... the Gospel message that brought me back to the Church, the Church of believers.

And now I see reported that the WELS has evidently suspended this pastor that was teaching false doctrine, teaching contrary to UOJ.  One wonders how this came about... did McCain inform the WELS about this false teacher or were they aware of it themselves?

My response to Paul T. McCain is this: 

1)   If the LC-MS is so orthodox in it's teaching on Justification, then why has the LC-MS not rebuked Herman Otten on this same basis? ... for Herman Otten is definitely weak on this doctrine for he does NOT preach it... yes, he may even hold to the same error as this false teaching pastor in the WELS.  Otten confirmed it again when his advice for the WELS on this matter was to "Cool it". (Christian News, Oct. 15, 2012, pg 6, col 3).  Cool it?  Otten is telling the WELS to "cool it" on the Gospel!  To be sure, the LC-MS has rebuked Otten many times and for many reasons... but not for the main reason – his great weakness on the Doctrine of Justification.  Not even President J.A.O. Preus II rebuked Otten for this reason as he should have, since he was a defender of Universal, Objective Justification (UOJ).  Nor did your leader, conservative President A.L. Barry, rebuke Otten for this reason.  Again, what reason?  The teaching and preaching of the pure Gospel – UOJ! (Steve Stranghoener, a layman, did rebuke Otten.)
  •   *** Update Nov. 6, 2012: My statement on President J.A.O. Preus II may need retraction as I reviewed this article in Christian News, March 3, 1997, top of column 4.)
2)   If the LC-MS is so orthodox in it's teaching on Justification, then why does CPH value so highly the endorsements of heterodox teachers such as these in it's Endorsements for the New Series of Luther's Works
  • Mark U. Edwards, Jr. – Academic Dean, Harvard Divinity School (Unitarian?)
  • Carter Lindberg – Professor of Church History Emeritus, Boston University School of Theology (United Methodist)
  • James Estes – Professor Emeritus of History, Victoria College, University of Toronto (United Church of Canada – Methodist, Congregational, Presbyterian)
  • Amy Nelson Burnett – Professor of History, University of Nebraska—Lincoln (who knows what denomination?)
  • Scott H. Hendrix – Professor Emeritus, Princeton Theological Seminary (Presbyterian)
  • Jane E. Strohl – Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary, Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, CA (Jane?)
  • David M. Whitford – Professor of the History of Christianity, United Theological Seminary, Trotwood, Ohio; Associate Editor, Sixteenth Century Journal (United Methodist)
  • Paul R. Hinlicky – Tise Professor of Lutheran Studies, Roanoke College (ELCA)
  • Susan R. Boettcher – Department of History, University of Texas at Austin (state school, non-denominational)
  • Kirsi Stjerna – Associate Professor of Reformation Church History, and Director for Institute of Luther Studies, Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg, PA (ELCA)
  • Mickey Mattox – Associate Professor, Theology Department, Marquette University (Jesuit, Roman Catholic)
  • Robert J. Christman – Assistant Professor of History, Luther College, Decorah, IA (ELCA)
  • Knut Alfsvåg – Associate professor of systematic theology, School of Mission and Theology, Stavanger, Norway (non-denominational, originally Lutheran)
  • Cornelis P. Venema – President and Professor of Doctrinal Studies, Mid-America Reformed Seminary, Dyer, Indiana
  • Randall C. Zachman – Professor of Reformation Studies, University of Notre Dame, Indiana (Roman Catholic – papist)
  • Joel R. Beeke – President, Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan
  • Jeannine E. Olson – Professor of History, Rhode Island College (state school); Visiting Professor, Boston University (United Methodist)
... or these endorsers of some of your "current peer review titles" that CPH  lists on page 15 of it's "Professional and Academic Resources 2012-2013 Catalog":
  • David F. Aune, Walter Professor of New Testament & Christian Origins, Department of Theology, University of Notre Dame (Roman Catholic)
  • Stephen Burnett, Associate Professor of Classics and Religious Studies, University of Nebraska-Lincoln (state school, Jewish sympathy writings along with Amy Nelson Burnett)
  • Robert B. Chisholm Jr., Dallas Theological Seminary ("Evangelical"?; "Bible conference movement")
  • Kirk Freudenburg, Department of Classics, Yale University (Congregationalist beginnings, non-denominational?)
  • Michael S. Heiser, Academic Editor, Logos Bible Software (Reformed?; non-Lutheran)
  • Dennis H. Magary, Chairman, Department of Old Testament and Semitic Languages, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Evangelical Free Church of America -  free from Lutheran roots?)
  • Eugene H. Merrill, Distinguished Professor of Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary; Distinguished Professor of O.T. Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
  • Nicholas Perrin, Franklin S. Dyrness Chair of Biblical Studies, Wheaton College Graduate School (Reformed?, Methodist?, Presbyterian?, "Evangelicalism?")
  • Andrie du Toit, Emeritus, Professor of New Testament, University of Pretoria; Former President, Societas Novi Testamenti Studiorum (non-denominational - Anglican?)
Rev. McCain, what do these endorsers (scholars!) say about the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification - a justification that is Objective (apart from our works or our faith), a justification that is Universal – for everyone?  If these endorsers do not teach and preach Universal, Objective Justification, then why are they so important to you and your LC-MS?  I tell you, Rev. McCain, that all these endorsers preach or teach an "epicurean outrage" in theological matters.

3)   If the LC-MS is so orthodox in it's teaching on Justification, and only some "lovable" knuckleheads are causing such general unbelief and confusion, then why do most Lutheran forum pastors (let alone laymen) either not get the message of the Gospel, or indeed fight against it?  Even the forum moderator is weak since he had the offending sermon posted on the web.  Does he preach the Doctrine of Universal, Objective Justification (i.e. the Gospel) himself?

I could go on questioning the orthodoxy of McCain's LC-MS and CPH, but could it be, Rev. McCain, that you have picked up enough of the "lingo" of UOJ from those members of the Preus family who actually preach and teach this doctrine, that you want to make your precious LC-MS appear like them, as they seem to have the power of the Spirit?  I pray that you are not like Simon, the sorcerer of Acts 9:18-19, but are indeed seeing the true Gospel.

But Rev. McCain, if all your LC-MS pastors are not preaching this doctrine, if all your professors and teachers are not teaching this doctrine, then how is it that they can preach and/or teach the Gospel?

OK then,
Paul T. McCain – The Great Defender of Objective Justification!
May it be so!  But I will give you a terrible warning Rev. McCain, from the Mouth of Truth:
Matt. 7:22-23 – Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
In the next Part 3a, I will comment on the Wisconsin Synod , the WELS, in this situation (and more on today's LC-MS).

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Pieper & Luther: No public ministry now? Only fathers in homes? (Part 1)

[2025-04-14: added links]
In a previous post where I reviewed an essay by Prof. John T. Pless, I was a bit stunned when I quoted from Franz Pieper's Christian Dogmatics.  Pieper gives a true perspective on the doctrine of the Public Ministry where Pless goes astray.  How was I stunned?  When Pieper said this (Christian Dogmatics, volume 3, page 449) [EN(Internet Archive):
There have been times – and such times may come again – when unbelief and false doctrine so overran external Christendom that orthodox Christians had to depend on the preaching of the Word in the homes
Pieper then backed up his statement with a quote of Luther:
It may happen that the world will become so utterly epicurean that we shall have no public ministry in all the world and the preaching will be solely epicurean outrage and that the Gospel will be preserved only in the homes by the fathers" (St. L. VI : 938; not in Am. Ed.).
This quote of Luther is from his exposition of the Book of Daniel, chapters 11 and 12 (St. Louis Edition, volume 6, pages 917 - 940) and pertains to verses Daniel 12:11-12. Although Luther's preface to Daniel is in the American Edition of Luther's Works (volume 35, pages 294-316), his exposition of Daniel 11 & 12 is not, nor will it be in the New Series to come.  (Regular readers may notice that Luther not only used the Book of Daniel for biblical chronology, but also for other teachings.)  I am presenting below a translation of the full paragraph of Luther's point, again from St. L. VI: 938-939:
But I would like to interpret the daily sacrifice there spiritually, that it was the Holy Gospel which must remain together with the faith and the Church to the end of the world.  Nevertheless, it may happen that the world will become so utterly epicurean that we shall have no public ministry in all the world and the preaching will be solely epicurean outrage and that the Gospel will be preserved only in the homes by the fathers; and this will be the time as was between the words of Christ on the cross: "It is finished" [John 19:30] and "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" [Luke 23:46].  For as Christ after such Consummatum lived a little, so the church can remain a little under public silence of the Gospel.  And as the Jews daily sacrifice was probably in the seventh week done away by the apostle council [Act 15], and yet [column 939] remained afterwards up to the destruction of Jerusalem and was also held by the apostles where they wanted (nevertheless, without need), so may well also the gospel be publicly silent in the pulpit, and yet be obtained by devout Christians in houses.
Wikipedia says of epicureanism that it "emphasizes the neutrality of the gods, that they do not interfere with human lives".  Such was the charge of Martin Luther against Erasmus of Rotterdam (see here).  Such has been my charge against today's (English) LC-MS.  Such is the result of preaching that does not have at it's heart the doctrine of UOJ (Universal, Objective Justification).

Then I, BackToLuther, stated in my blog:
These times are now.  I have found that unbelief and false doctrine have so overrun external Christendom... 
In my earlier blog post "Who Am I?", I stated that I was not attending any church now.  I have not attended a church for over 10 years.  But the decision to not attend any external fellowship was not an easy one.  There was Walther himself saying:
When a person does not desire to hear God’s Word, does not attend church, not even read the Scriptures, but rather pokes fun at divine matters,.... God cannot save him. (Selected Writings of C.F.W. Walther - Convention Essays, CPH, 1981,  page 65)
But this quote from Walther clearly shows the other points Walther makes along with "does not attend church":
  • does not desire to hear God's Word
  • does not even read the Scriptures
  • pokes fun at divine matters
I searched diligently among the former Lutheran church bodies who were members of the old Synodical Conference to find one who not only seemed "conservative", but more importantly held up the doctrine of Universal, Objective Justification – front and center – and was not the least afraid to proclaim it because it "made the listeners too secure".  But the message of the Gospel, as properly distinguished from the Law, is indeed a message "too good to be true", at least to man's way of thinking.

Indeed, Professor John T. Pless, the Public Ministry is important, but not more important than the pure teaching of the Gospel.  Without the pure preaching of the Gospel (i.e. Universal, Objective Justification), the pulpit is "epicurean outrage".

In my next blog post, I will present Part 2 of this... where it applies to events of today... and Paul T. McCain.

- - - - - - - - -  Table of Contents  - - - - - - 
Because this series achieved several posts, I am including this TOC for ease of reference.
Part 1 – Introduction
Part 2 – Paul T. McCain?
Part 3a – WELS – the case of a suspended pastor over the Doctrine of Justification
Part 3b – WELS – review of essays on Justification (UOJ)
Part 3c – WELS and Doctrine of Justification (and LC-MS) – conclusions and an appeal
Part 4 – Do I demand too much?
Part 5 – Parable of Talents (and Public Ministry)