And That’s Enough

It seems today that nearly everyone calling oneself a Christian has adopted a new creed:


I believe in Jesus Christ
as my Lord and Savior,
and that’s enough.
This seems to be what is heard again and again, without fail.  It seems that whenever a person is confronted with Scriptures that clearly teach that this confession of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is clearly defined by further specific doctrine, people fall back to this as the only confession and doctrine that they will permit.

Well, there is, of course, this:

   
I cannot judge what is in another person’s heart.
It seems that people forget that the entire point of the Gospel is salvation for sinners who by Adam’s refusal to trust God’s Word have died to God and the life that is in His Communion.  They seem to forget that the preaching of forgiveness means preaching that people have an actual need to be forgiven.  They seem to forget that the primary cause of the need for forgiveness as proclaimed in the Holy Scriptures is the unbelief and false belief of people.

How can the forgiveness of unbelief and false belief be preached and administered without clearly declaring people's unbelief and false belief?

Why do so many sects exist within what is known as Christendom?

Is it not on account of the diversity of beliefs concerning what the doctrine of the Scriptures really is?

Is it really possible to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior while redefining what He says that this means?  Is it really possible to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior while openly denying what He says concerning the means of salvation?  Is it really possible to trust with true faith in the Messiah or Christ while opposing the very means through which the Scriptures teach that He builds His Church and works in it and through it to save the lost?

Who can even begin to speak of saving the lost without identifying them as the lost?



This group, The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, clearly identifies, even with pictures, those whom they are hoping to save from their lost condition.  How many people consider this to be unloving?  How many people say, “Oh no, I cannot judge these children as being lost”?

If a child is born with spina bifida, do people say that one cannot judge the child as having this deficiency in gestational development?  If someone insisted on calling the diagnosis of such children as cruel, would this not be counted as irrational and even absurd?  How can corrective surgery be pursued for such a child without judging or diagnosing the child as a sufferer of spina bifida?

Yet concerning the most serious broken condition of all, people are inclined to judge that such a condition must not be clearly diagnosed.  They treat the matter of spiritual brokenness to be a matter that should not be diagnosed in absolute terms.  Rather it is said to be a “personal matter.”

Who is really the uncaring and cruel person?

Is it not the person who refuses to acknowledge what has already been clearly diagnosed by the true Physician, the one who truly knows the condition of brokenness of mankind and openly declares both the cause and the cure?  Is not the truly cruel person the one who redefines both the condition and the cure so that neither are rightly recognized?  Is not the truly cruel person the one who administers the cure in an adulterated form that either has no efficacy or may even make the condition worse?

The Lord Jesus through His apostle declares the necessity of speaking the truth in love, saying:

       

     I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)     

      And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.    (Ephesians 4:1-16)

Therefore it seems absolutely necessary to ask:

      Is it really enough to direct people to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior without actually defining clearly and in unmistakable terms what this belief means?

+ + +

Progressivism in Churches

Disintegration in the churches is an issue that weighs heavily upon my heart and spirit as I observe the secular progressivism encroaching and overtaking the various congregations and church bodies.  As the congregations and church bodies move farther from the apostolic doctrine and practice the churches lose their integrity, becoming more and more loosely defined until their identity becomes blurred with the world.  More and more the people speak of gray areas and uncertainty until in the end, nothing really matters anymore and darkness and disillusionment are all that remain.

I have developed a graphic to illustrate how the bright illumination of the Pure Word and Sacraments becomes less and less visible in the lives of the people, congregations, and church bodies as they move farther away from the historic liturgy and doctrine and practice proclaimed by the apostles.

(for larger view click on graphic)

+ + +

The Way of Big Government and Big Party & Church Politics

Today I viewed a couple of videos that were very educational and enlightening. For all of my adult life, meaning from 18 years old forward, I have been bewildered concerning the fact that what the groups with whom I have been affiliated always did was the opposite of what they claimed to be. These two videos caused me to think more deeply and to acknowledge things to which I previously seem to have been wearing blinders. It is not that I did not see any of the conflicting information. But I nevertheless seem to have been running like a horse with blinders, or at least blinders with worn spots.

Here are links to the two videos if you’d like to see them.

Republican Party Origins

U.S. Government & CFR Complicity in Foreign Conflicts

Until a few years ago I have been registered as a Republican. My first experience with active participation in the GOP was as a teenager. The Reagan election was my first time voting. But the local GOP meetings disgusted me. I could not believe what frauds these people were. But I thought it was a localized problem and not the actual way of the party. I thought that the officially publicized platform actually meant something. It did to me, but the party only used it as a diversionary tool. It took me many years to realize this. Even then, my sense of loyalty accompanied by inability to find a suitable party to which I could flee, made it a struggle to leave. After all, in order to vote, one must register as something. Moreover, to leave a party that seemed to say the right things in its platform seemed as though I would be denouncing those things and not just the hypocrisy of the party. I did finally leave and registered with another party.

The greater point of this is what I have realized about my more important affiliations in life. Family and church affiliations are the more important ones in a persons’ life. Of these I have been forced to acknowledge that very similar fraud has been a part of these affiliations. One cannot do much about family. Those ties are essentially impossible to sever entirely. They can be stretched to the ends of the earth, but they never seem to break entirely. Besides, the Lord has established this bond and does not want us to sever it entirely. Only from the dysfunction and delusions are we to be severed entirely. Love and honor of parents and family must continue even in the face of total brokenness and dysfunction. Church affiliation is nearly as unbreakable, but not quite. But the pain of such action is nearly unbearable.

This is the issue that I actually wish to address primarily in this post. My own past church affiliation was the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod. For most of my life I struggled regarding the discontinuity between what this synod professed to believe and what was actually embraced and practiced. In my very early years I was not truly aware of this conflict, as it was not evident in what was taught in the parochial school and my primary example of Christian life and faith was from my parents, Luther’s Small Catechism, and the Bible. With Luther’s Small Catechism as a guide, what the Bible truly teaches of Christ and His Church is easily discernable.

During one of my theological interviews at the seminary one of the professors asked me, “Considering where you are from, how did you get to be so conservative?” At first I mentioned my pastors. But even without his quizzical look I immediately realized this was not so. Then I mentioned my grandfather and parents, but realized this was not so either. Then I realized and said, “Because this is what the Scriptures teach.” It was not until years later that I realized how helpful Luther’s Small Catechism had been, but then, it is nothing more than quotes from the Scriptures with further exposing quotes from the Scriptures.

So then, what of the professor’s question? Why did he even ask such a question? He asked it because of the fallacious facade of conservatism presented by the synod and her leaders. He knew that I did not come to be a devoted believer in the true doctrine of the Scriptures through the influences of my affiliation with this church body. It simply was not possible. Making a public profession of belief and practice and requiring a “quia subscription” to this does not in itself actually produce such belief and practice.

This is another topic in itself requiring at least another discussion. However, at this juncture I will point to what it does produce. The following graphic says more than pages of explanation:

I experience considerable angst when I visit blogs and web sites of pastors and congregations and of Confessional Lutherans who proudly display this graphic. I visit these blogs hoping to find that these people have become aware of the real problem in their church body. On some occasions I am amazed at the impressive scholarship and explanation of true doctrine, that leaves me ready to rejoice, only to have the concluding statements undermine all that was previously said, leading right back to the same compromised doctrine and practice. On some of these sites this graphic is displayed.

When I see this I sometimes actually cry out: “Can’t you see what you are saying?”

Consider what is declared in this graphic: “Still Attending Grandpa’s Church.”

Herein is clearly stated the real problem. Does it jump out of the graphic at you? Do you see what the problem is declared to be?

Whose church do you say that you are attending? To whom do you say that you look for the faith and for your life of worship? To whom do you ascribe ownership of the Church?

Did you really say: Grandpa’s Church?

Do I really need to draw attention to this further? Well, just in case. . .

Whose Church do the Scriptures declare the true Church to be?

To this people often respond that one is only arguing about semantics. Yep! Semantics are indeed the issue.

From Dictionary.com’s semantics.

se·man·tics     [si-man-tiks]

noun ( used with a singular verb )

1. Linguistics .
   
   1. the study of meaning.
      
   2. the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.
      
2. Also called significs. the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote.
   
3. the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.
   
4. general semantics.
   

The commonly misapplied statement of “Let's not argue about semantics.” is used as an example in this definition of semantics.

How is this misapplied? When people use “Let's not argue about semantics.” as a means of bypassing the necessity of agreement concerning the actual accepted meaning of words, then this is a misapplication of the statement. In fact, this misapplication is actually using the term in the exact opposite way that it is meant to be used. “Let's not argue about semantics.” is supposed to mean that the actual accepted meaning of words should be what is used in the conversation rather than using self-devised meanings that lead to confusion of what is really being discussed.

But when people are preaching tolerance as an alternative to acceptance and unity, they prefer to veil their real meaning.

Back to the profession made in the graphic.

The real problem within the big church bodies is that they are indeed preaching faith in the church body and the traditions of the fathers and the sense of familial loyalty, rather than the uncompromised and unadulterated faith in Christ that is taught in the Scriptures.

As long as this is the way, those who are unwilling to sever the ties will continue to say all of the right things only to denounce them in their concluding remarks. This is why the church bodies, which always demand loyalty to themselves, are never reformed. Never reformed.

The Lutheran “reformers” learned this. Though they began with seeking to reform the Roman Catholic Church, they found that it was impossible to do so from within the church body. Reformation is made by an external force, not an internal one.

By way of example, consider a child forming an object with Playdough. If the object loses its correct form, or as is usually the case, it did not turn out properly at all, how does the object become reformed? By reducing it to its original form and forming it all over again. The object is reduced to a ball of dough again, not by the object, but by the creator.

Is this not the very semantic used in Holy Scripture? Is not the Church declared to be the Lord’s Church and even a loaf of dough from which He removes all of the old leaven and forms it all over again as a pure loaf with nothing but pure ingredients?

Here again is the graphic:

In whose image is this church said to be created? Who is actually proclaimed as the creator of this church?

If people continue to insist upon attending the Church of Grandpa, whose word will ultimately be that which is preached and followed? Whose precepts will be embraced?

If it is Grandpa’s Church, then what position of authority is given to the Word of God, Jesus? Can the Rock of the true confession of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God, truly be the foundation of a Church that is built upon Grandpa and his works and words?

Consider the history of the many church bodies that have made their emphasis following in the way of their grandpas. They always, always, always follow the same pattern of resembling Grandpa more and more and resembling the one true body of Christ less and less.

Pointing out such observations is sadly like pouring water on a slanted pane of glass.

+ + +

One holy catholic Church

Today there are many who deny that true unity in doctrine and practice can exist in the Church.

But then, how would they know?


+ + +

Billy Graham & the Future of Christianity

I was shocked by what I viewed today.  While I am sure that this is not new to most people, it was new to me.  Even though I knew that Billy Graham was a false teacher, I did not realize the depth of his hypocrisy and antiChristian beliefs and teaching.  The following is a video clip where he answers Robert Schuller’s question: “Tell me, what is the future of Christianity?”



The transcript can be viewed at On Doctrine: Billy Graham and also below:

   
Dr. Schuller begins by speaking to Billy Graham:

    Dr. Schuller: "Tell me, what is the future of Christianity?"

    Dr. Graham: "Well, Christianity and being a true believer, you know, I think there's the body of Christ which comes from all the Christian groups around the world, or outside the Christian groups. I think that everybody that loves Christ or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the body of Christ. And I don't think that we're going to see a great sweeping revival that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time."

    "What God is doing today is calling people out of the world for His name. Whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts they need something that they don't have and they turn to the only light they have and I think they're saved and they're going to be with us in heaven."

    Dr. Schuller: "What I hear you saying is that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into a human heart and soul and life even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying?"

    Dr. Graham: "Yes it is because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, have never heard of Jesus but they've believed in their hearts that there is a God and they tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived."

    Dr. Schuller: "This is fantastic. I'm so thrilled to hear you say that. There's a wideness in God's mercy.

    Dr. Graham: There is. There definitely is."

Growing up, I always wondered about the times that my mother would tune in the TV to the Billy Graham crusades.  Everything that was portrayed was entirely foreign.  As a child I found it to be entirely hokey.  It certainly was not preaching of the Gospel.  I did not know enough to articulate what my spirit knew was wrong, but I wanted nothing to do with it.

This type of theology and preaching always leads to spiritual bankruptcy.  This view of evangelism is fraudulent.  The Sacraments are discarded for emotional appeal.  The decisions of men are elevated above the conviction and calling and comfort of the Holy Spirit.  People are led to rely upon themselves and their own reason and strength, and in the end, faith is reduced to wishful thinking and Christ is reduced to a platitude.


† † †

Confessional Subscription

Does it seem like the churches today who claim to embrace a Confessional Subscription understand this in like manner to a magazine subscription? Do the churches who claim to subscribe to the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church treat their Confessional Subscription like an old subscription to a magazine that upon delivery by the postal carrier is then tossed onto a dusty stack? Do they perhaps dust off the stack from time to time to show others how big their stack is?

A recent post on a “Confessional” blog of a prominent clergyman leaves a person wondering just this. In fact, one of his loyal readers responded with a gentle challenge, which was guffawed and brow beaten into submission.

The post is actually copied and pasted from another blog and then praised as a wonderful example of true Lutheran confessionalism. It is a portion of another translation/edition of CFW Walther’s Church and Ministry.

Isn’t that grand? Isn’t that splendid? Yet another edition of Church and Ministry, as if one translation into English was not sufficient. And with all of the English translations of the Book of Concord, that was translated again not long ago, too. Wow, the Concordia Triglotta and the Jacob’s Edition and the Tappert Edition and the Kolb Edition were not sufficient!

Now the new president of the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod has shown how devoted he is to the faithfulness of the LC-MS fathers and has shown how truly scholarly he is by producing another translation of Walther’s Church and Ministry. The portion that is posted by President Matthew Harrison on his blog Mercy Journeys with Pastor Harrison is entitled, ““Missouri's Position on Intercommunion - Warning! Strong Lutheran Content!” This is copied and posted by Paul McCain at “The LCMS Position on Intercommunion: WARNING – STRONG LUTHERAN CONTENT.”

McCain introduces it, saying:

From the president of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, Pastor Matthew Harrison, via his blog site. Pastor Harrison is providing the Missouri Synod with a new edition of C.F.W. Walther’s Church and Ministry, this is from his revised translation.

In the Comments section the following comments were shared:

From Jeff K:

Kind of a jarring juxtaposition to the immediately preceeding post where you heartily commend us to listen to Dr. Albert Mohler, a Baptist. Last time I checked Baptists denied the Real Presence in the Lord’s Supper and Baptismal Regeneration.

McCain responds:

Insert face palm here.

I invited you to listen to an academic lecture, not to take communion with him.

Good grief.

Then after a supportive comment from an ELCA pastor Jeff K responds:

OK, I figured that you would draw a distinction between a lecture and Communion, and I hope that you would continue to post good things that you hear from Dr. Mohler. May God have mercy on all of us who call on His Name but for conscience sake are not able to share His Supper with each other on this side of heaven. @ptmccain

I offered a comment in which I encouraged Jeff K not to abandon his very valid challenge, and the ever fair and magnanimous and open McCain deleted my comment. Imagine that!

Jeff’s question or challenge is a valid concern. McCain’s answer is typical of the modern understanding of Confessional Subscription. “We hold to a quia subscription to the Lutheran Confessions. We hold them to be true expositions of God’s Word and we treasure them! Just look at how many translations we have made!”

But did McCain even read what Jeff did? Jeff noticed and responded both to the statement by Walther as well as Walther’s quotation from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession from the Book of Concord that Walther boldly quotes and Harrison translates.

First the statement of Walther:

B. Every believer for the sake of his salvation must flee all false teachers and avoid fellowship [Gemeinschaft] with heterodox congregations [Gemeinden] or sects.

Next the quote from the Apology:

2. Witnesses of the Church in Its Official Confessions

Apology: “Nevertheless, we should not receive or listen to false teachers, for they no longer stand in Christ’s place [Christus statt] but are antichrists [Widerchristi]. And Christ clearly commands [befohlen] us regarding them: ‘Beware of false prophets’ (Matt. 7:15). And Paul [writes] to the Galatians: ‘If anyone preaches any other gospel to you, … let him be accursed’ (Gal. 1:9)” (Ap. VII/VIII [IV]. 48; German text, Triglot, pp. 242–43; Mueller p. 162; BSLK 246.20f.).

Let’s see if we can decipher what Jeff must have misunderstood.

Walther says: “Every believer for the sake of his salvation must flee all false teachers and avoid fellowship with heterodox congregations or sects.”

What does McCain say? “Insert face palm here. I invited you to listen to an academic lecture, not to take communion with him. Good grief.”

What does the Apology say? “Nevertheless, we should not receive or listen to false teachers, for they no longer stand in Christ’s place but are antichrists.”

So McCain encourages people to listen to lectures from those whom the Confessions to which he boldly and loudly subscribes say we should not receive or listen to. The Confessions say that such teachers have nothing good to say because they are antichrists. McCain says, just listen but don’t take communion with them.

Jeff says: “Huh?”

McCain says: “Good grief.”

McCain is in agreement with President Harrison. Yet both actually do commune with them as well. Both are in communion with the pastors and congregations of the LC-MS, most of which practice open communion where people who have not even been baptized frequently are communed.

How do I know this? I have read the communion statements of LC-MS congregations where this is what they themselves declare as their practice. I also have spoken with people who are not members of these congregations, who have not been baptized, who do not have any substantive understanding of the faith, who have no idea what the Sacrament is, yet they commune regularly from the hands of smiling LC-MS pastors.

Yes, these people have been some of my customers. Yes, I talk to my customers about what they believe and where they go to church and how they understand the Sacraments. The LC-MS pastors who claim to be so caring and loving and welcoming don’t talk to them about these things, but their arborist does.

So why bother quoting Walther on this issue? Why bother translating the Confessions and quoting them?

What is the point?

It brings to mind the many road signs that say, “Right lane closed ahead.” Which is translated by somewhere between 45 and 85 percent of the drivers, depending on the length of the line:

“Stay in this lane until it runs out and then force your way into line ahead of your neighbors who have respectfully merged and waited their turn.”

It also brings to my mind the many times the same sign has been left posted for weeks after the road work has been completed.

Why do men like McCain and Harrison make so much noise about their Confessional Subscription? Why do they go so far as to translate such things anew and post them for everyone to read, and then deny the meaning of the words when someone asks?

Do you know why? Can you guess?

† † †

Baptism Questions

On another blog I responded to some statements that were made by someone who does not believe that the Scriptures teach that Baptism saves us and that babies are to be baptized. The arguments are very much like the usual arguments against these matters of doctrine and practice.

Much confusion and division exists among people claiming to be believers of the faith declared in the Bible. Many different conclusions are drawn in accord with the many different presuppositions that are imposed upon the Biblical texts that people read and try to understand.

These are not small matters. They actually change the entirety of the faith embraced by those holding the various positions.

I share here the content of what I wrote in response to this person’s objections. This certainly is not a comprehensive dealing with the matter. It does nevertheless address the issues and demonstrates at least some of the Scriptures that speak to these matters.

For your consideration:


† † †

I challenge you to consider several Scriptures regarding the positions that you have stated concerning Baptism.

In John 1:12-13 St. John plainly teaches that receiving Jesus is a passive act on the part of those who are born to become sons of God, that their regeneration or birth is “not of the will of man, but of God,” that is, not of human decision but of God’s action alone.

In John 3 the Lord Jesus teaches the Pharisee, Nicodemus, regarding the regeneration or above-generation or rebirth by which we are brought into the kingdom of God. First He says that except one be “gennethe anothen” = “generated from above” he cannot see or perceive the kingdom of God.

When Nicodemus demonstrated that he was not able to perceive the kingdom of God, Jesus further explained: “except one should be generated out of water and Spirit, not able is he to enter into the kingdom of God.”

So why would Jesus teach that one is not able even to see the kingdom apart from being born from above and then to say that one is not able to enter the kingdom apart from being born out of WATER and SPIRIT unless this were true? Give this serious thought and answer it for yourself.

In Titus 3 St. Paul writes:

But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (Titus 3:4-5)

St. Paul says that God our Savior saved us how? “By the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,” and NOT by works of righteousness that we have done.

In Ephesians 2 St. Paul says that we are saved by grace through faith. He says that this IS NOT of ourselves and not a work of our own but a gift of God. He says that faith is NOT something that we do.

In 1 Peter 3 St. Peter says that Noah and his family were saved BY WATER (vs. 20). Then he says in verse 21, “baptism doth also now save us.” Did St. Peter lie or does baptism save us?

In Acts 2:38-39 St. Peter tells those in whom the Holy Spirit pierced their hearts with the preaching of the Word,

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

St. Peter says that the promise of Baptism is for “you AND your CHILDREN.” He says that the effects of Baptism are the forgiveness of sins (= salvation) and the gift of the Holy Spirit (= faith and communion with God). He says that this promise is for your children.

Which part of this is not a statement of the Scriptures? Which part is not true?

Does the fact that God has worked specially for someone like the thief on the cross so that he was saved, does this nullify the clear words of the Lord Jesus and His apostles regarding the effects and the promise of Baptism?

There is much more that can be said on this matter, but these questions are ones that you should give serious consideration. The statements are recorded in the Scriptures. The question is: why do people reject them and invent their own beliefs instead of what the Scriptures plainly teach?

St. Paul writes:

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11-12)

St. Paul calls Baptism the circumcision of Christ by which we are buried and cut off from the sins of the flesh. He calls faith the operation of God by which we are raised with Christ. This operation of God St. Paul links directly to His working in and through Baptism, the circumcision done without hands, that is, with water and the Word through which the Spirit comes and sanctifies from within.

Yet you and those who have taught you say these things are not taught in the Scriptures. Ask yourself why you follow those who reject these clear passages rather than believing what the Holy Spirit has recorded? What is the reason that you and many others do not believe these words of Scripture? Perhaps no one has ever presented them to you clearly. I do not know the reason, but you would do well to challenge yourself in this matter.

† † †

More on Definition of an Expert

Someone hearing the title of this post rather than reading it could hear:

Moron: definition of an expert.

In my tree business, people will often respond to my question regarding their preferences: “Well, you are the expert. What do you say?”

I always share as much as I know and give the best advice that I am able regarding the condition and health of the tree or shrub, the structural integrity, the extent of damage or disease, the best pruning approach, safety, and such matters. I even give advice regarding the effects that actions can have regarding heating and cooling needs of the house, irrigation needs, and the aesthetic values.

Yet I always remember that my knowledge is limited. I share what I can state with certainty. Regarding what a person would prefer, I leave to the person to judge according to the best information that I can supply.

However, even after expressing that the decision belongs to the customers, they often will ask, “What would you do if it were your tree?”

In the Church, for the sake of the Church, Christ has given some to be “pastors and teachers.” He has given some to serve in the capacity of full-time study of the Word and teaching of the Word.

Prior to the Lord’s suffering, death, resurrection, ascension, and sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the apostles tended to think of themselves as experts. This changed after they perceived the truth, after the Holy Spirit opened their hearts to what really is. St. Paul, the last of the apostles, likewise thought of himself as an expert before his conversion.

Afterwards, however, they perceived themselves and presented themselves entirely differently. Afterwards they were merely men appointed to speak and teach and preach what they had heard and seen. They were promised to be directed by the Holy Spirit and they thereafter spoke what the Holy Spirit directed them to say. When they spoke with absoluteness, they did so only regarding what they had received. They simply reiterated to others what had been told to them.

No one should hold a pastor or teacher more highly than this. The Jews in Berea (Acts 17:10-12) are commended for their caution in trusting Paul and Silas until they searched the Scriptures and found that Paul and Silas were indeed teaching in accord with the Scriptures. In this regard, there were many things that sounded to them as though they were brand new doctrines. But as they searched the Scriptures, they saw that these were not new at all, but were in exact accord with what had been previously written. Baptism fulfilled and superceded Circumcision. The Lord’s Supper fulfilled and superceded the Passover. The Old Testament was fulfilled and superceded by the New Testament, and so on.

Today there are a multitude of doctrines claiming to be in accord with the Scriptures. As St. Paul admonishes, “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12)

Truly we need daily to examine what we hold to be true so as to be absolutely certain that we are not setting ourselves up as self-proclaimed experts, but rather, are hearing what the Spirit says to the churches.

What Would You Change?

My brother, who has endured some terrible hardships in his life, who is aware of many of the hardships that I have faced in my life, who is aware of many of the persecutions from within the church bodies to which we belonged, asked me recently whether I would change anything if I had my life to live over.

I began with a sin that had a big impact upon my life.

He wondered whether I would choose to use more honey and less vinegar in dealing with people. He expressed that he thought that this was perhaps something that he would choose.

I said that I would not.

I expressed that especially in the pastoral ministry I had learned that it is wrong to try to sweeten the truth beyond the sweetness of what the truth proclaims in the Gospel. I shared that I learned that no matter how a pastor tries to sweeten the truth, especially regarding the preaching of the Law of God, that it ends up having the same effect. If the truth is preached, even with sugar coating, if it really is preached, it will be rejected by those who do not want to hear it. The sugar coating makes no difference.

My response was that I would use less honey and let the Word be heard without any compromise. In my earlier years as a pastor I did make what I considered to be some very minor compromises to try to make the truth more palatable. I tried to soften the impact that it would have. I learned very quickly that people see through the coating and realize that what is being preached is going to change everything.

Such is the power of the Word. Even when a pastor chooses the way of hypocrisy, even when a pastor chooses to elevate himself above the Word so as to try to do the Holy Spirit’s work, if the Word is actually preached, if the doctrine is actually held forward, the response will be exactly the same with or without the sugar coating. Those who have ears to hear will rejoice to hear it and will be drawn to the Word. Those who do not have ears to hear will recoil and rebel.

I could have saved myself and the first congregation that I served some time if I had been less patronizing. The spilt that occurred may actually have been smaller if I had acted more like a bull in a china shop. But only God really knows.

It is interesting to ponder the first sermon that was preached after the ascension of the Lord Jesus to heaven. On Pentecost St. Peter certainly did not sugar coat the preaching that he proclaimed. The result was amazing. Those who were unwilling to hear mocked the Gospel openly and went their way. Those who heard the Gospel with glad hearts were baptized and carried the Gospel to many parts of the world.

The preaching of the apostles left no possibility for divisions in the Church. Individual opinion, that is, Heresy, was crushed by forthright preaching of the Truth. Those who insisted on pressing their own opinions, that is, heresies, were counted as unbelievers. The apostles did not allow any talk of percentages of unity. They preached that there is one body and that people were either incorporated fully into this body by the work of the Holy Spirit, or they were not of the body.

And God multiplied their numbers mightily.







- - - - -

G141

αιʽρετικός

aihretikos

Thayer Definition:
1) fitted or able to take or choose a thing
2) schismatic, factious, a follower of a false doctrine
3) heretic
Part of Speech: adjective

From:
G140

αιʽρετ́ιζω

aihretizo

Thayer Definition:

1) to choose
2) to belong to a sect

Part of Speech: verb

WELS & LC-MS once one?

Today I read the following question on my Facebook page:

Question for LCMSers (pastors, laymen, whateva). Since the WELS and LCMS were in fellowship at one point, wouldn't that mean that the LCMS at one point agreed with the WELS views of fellowship, women's suffrage, and the Office of the Ministry? I'm wondering whose position changed, if any?

The answer may be that both changed, but not so much on these issues, but more on how much heterodoxy matters.  The WELS determined that heterodoxy matters just a little more than the LC-MS determined.  Even this is not accurate, it would be better to say that for the WELS their claim to orthodoxy mattered more than with the LC-MS.  The WELS counted themselves more orthodox than the LC-MS had become.

To understand the significance of this one needs to read what Francis Pieper teaches on this matter in his “Christian Dogmatics”, the long-standing standard doctrine textbook for seminarians in the two synods.  In volume III, beginning on pg. 422, Pieper defines orthodoxy and heterodoxy.  He condemns heterodoxy and insists that it must be avoided.  Then, however, he allows that the heterodox communions can be called “Churches in so far as they still retain enough of the Gospel of Christ that men can come to faith in Christ and thus can become true children of God.”

For both the WELS and the LC-MS, following this understanding of Church and fellowship/communion, the issue is not one of orthodoxy versus heterodoxy, but rather it is a matter of better or worse.  Who is the better Church is the question.  Are they good enough that we can tolerate them?

True unity in the faith was not really the issue.  The real issue was that the LC-MS had moved a bit too far for the WELS to tolerate.  (The LC-MS did the same with the ALC.)  The WELS did not cease calling the LC-MS a Church.  Neither did they cease calling the LC-MS Christian.  No, they determined that they had to stand apart from their fellow Christians, not on the basis of them being outside the communion of the saints, but as not being in their communion.

This false view of Church and Communion has led to the demise of both church bodies.  Both church bodies or communions have walked the road of tolerance.  Today, both church bodies have enormous degrees of diversity and yet they each still count themselves as orthodox.

In the revelation given to John, the Lord Jesus condemns tolerance and threatens to take away the preaching office, that is the Holy Ministry, from those who practice tolerance.  He warns that they will lose their identity as the Church and therefore will no longer be able to stand as the light of the world.  Why?  Because they will have tolerated that which is false.  Truth and falsehood cannot be mingled.  Truth that has been mingled with falsehood is no longer the truth.

Thus even among the so-called Lutheran bodies there is division rather than unity, but each continues to call the other Church.  By this they say that their faith is in one who lies, because they call Jesus a liar.  This is why they preach not Jesus Christ and Him crucified, but the WELS and the LC-MS.  This is why the Church Growth Movement has taken over both church bodies.  This is why both church bodies look more and more like those whom they officially denounce and yet call Church.

This is the way of the Pharisees.  This is utter hypocrisy.  It has the same effect as in the days of old.  It has the same effect as when the Pharisees encountered the one whom they professed to worship.  Their worship was of their own making and when the Lord confronted them in their hypocrisy they rejected Him.  They chose rather to seek to preserve their nation and temple and way of life and worship.  Today many faith traditions call themselves Christian, choosing various traditions and manners, clinging to certain basic or essential doctrines but allowing that other matters can be compromised and still be called Church.  In the end they each get what they have chosen, they get to boast of being the Church and to count themselves as more the Church than the others or more orthodox or more friendly or whatever other more is better in their judgment, all part of a loosely defined identity in which no one is really wrong, merely not right enough to stand with “us.”

Agreeing to Disagree

A statement that is very commonly heard today, especially among people discussing their confessions of faith, is “We will agree to disagree.”

Do the people who make this statement even realize what it is that they are saying?

What they are really saying is that despite whatever things that they discuss and debate that they really are in agreement after all. What is the basis of their agreement? They agree that none of the things about which they disagree really matter.

When people say that they will agree to disagree, what they are saying is that they do not count these matters as important enough to press to the point that the other person is left with only two possible responses: either to abandon the belief that has been erroneously held and to come into agreement with the truth; or to reject what the other person believes and to reject the person who presses it as absolute truth.

This kind of conviction regarding what is believed is completely abandoned when people agree to disagree. Such an agreement is an agreement that the areas of disagreement really do not matter beyond being the expression of one’s personal opinion. Therefore the two parties can continue to be friends in the agreement that these matters are not of any real importance. They have agreed that there is nothing so important as to argue to the point of absolute agreement, and so they absolutely agree that nothing is to be absolutely rejected.

I, for one, do not agree.

VBS Crock

It seems that Lutherans have largely forgotten who they are. It seems that Lutherans have forgotten why they are Lutherans. This is demonstrated quite clearly in the crock of Vacation Bible Study programs that Lutherans are using these days. The congregation in which I was raised is a prime example. My “home” congregation is known as Trinity Downtown , formerly known as Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church. The shift from Evangelical Lutheran has taken many years, but now seems to be complete.



The following is the web site’s summary “update” stating the completed activities and fulfilled objectives of the VBS program for 2009:

Vacation Bible School
Crocodile Dock - UPDATE
Vacation Bible School 2009 ended July 24, but the memories and experiences of seeing God everywhere will continue. Approximately 100 children everyday learned how to be fearless kids shining the love of God. We collected well over a hundred canned goods for the food pantries; dozens of bottles of bug spray for Compassion Corner to distribute; children’s vitamins for Hands of Mercy mission in Sudan; and diapers for BETA house. The children made 200 stuffed turtles for Operation Kid-to-Kid, a mission of care and love for children suffering natural disasters. What a great week!


The VBS theme of the Group Ministries materials is restated in this update:

“Approximately 100 children everyday learned how to be fearless kids shining the love of God.”


Is anything missing from this theme?


Is the Gospel in anyway whatsoever even mentioned? Is the name of salvation mentioned as being taught to the children as even a sub-theme? Were the blessings of Baptism in any way a part of what the children were taught? How exactly are the children to be “fearless?” Is this fearlessness the gift of God that accompanies the good conscience of 1 Peter 3:21? What is the source of this fearlessness, since no mention is made of Jesus or the Holy Spirit or the Father or even of God, how did the children see God everywhere? Since the means of grace by which God makes Himself known are not mentioned, how were the children taught to see God? Since the means by which God promises to come to His children with His love are not mentioned, since the means by which God’s love shines in the world are not mentioned, how were the children taught to shine with God’s love? What does this notion mean apart from the means of grace declared in the Holy Scriptures?

Is this what the congregation professes to be? Is this what the congregation has bound itself to teach and practice?

From the constitution of the congregation:

PARAGRAPH 12: DOCTRINAL LITERATURE
In the church and public services of this congregation purely Lutheran hymns, and in all ministerial acts purely Lutheran forms only shall be used. Thus, also, in the parochial school, besides the Holy Scriptures and Luther's Small Catechism, such books only as are purely Lutheran shall be introduced and used for instruction in Christian doctrine, and all other books used in the school shall be free from everything which is in variance with Lutheran doctrine.


PARAGRAPH 19: UNALTERABLE PARAGRAPHS

Of this constitution, paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,16, 17, and 19 shall be unalterable and irrepealable.


Is there a conflict between what Paragraph 12 states regarding the doctrinal literature used in the congregation and school and the materials purchased and utilized in this VBS program?


These materials are produced by Group Publishing. Group’s Statement of Faith says:

Statement of Faith

What we believe:

We believe the Bible is the inspired, authoritative Word of God.

We believe there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

We believe in the deity of Jesus Christ, in his virgin birth, in his sinless life, in his death on the cross, in his bodily resurrection, in his ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in his personal return.

We believe people receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life through Jesus.

Group’s mission:
We equip churches to help children, youth
and adults grow in their relationship with Jesus.


Does this sound like what is stated in Paragraph 12 of the congregation’s constitution? Does this sound like literature that is purely Lutheran? Where are the means of grace? Where is the need for the proclamation of the Gospel? Where is the Holy Spirit’s work of calling, gathering, enlightening, sanctifying and preserving in the one true faith? Where is any declaration of how the salvation that is through Jesus is imputed to those who would receive His forgiveness and eternal life?

According to Group, faith grows through serving others:

Group's Faith In Action

We don’t just say it. We do it!
At Group, hammering nails, painting porches and meeting
practical needs have just as much to do with serving churches as creating books, magazines and curriculum. Each year, more than 20,000 youth and their leaders venture across the U.S. and beyond to grow in their faith by serving others. Whether it’s building wheelchair ramps, insulating drafty trailer homes, working at a homeless shelter, or running a VBS, participants shine the love of Jesus in every dark corner they can find.


Thus, Group teaches that doing good works is the means by which a person’s faith grows.


How do Lutherans teach that faith grows? Lutherans teach in accord with what the Scriptures declare, and as the one holy catholic Church has confessed in the Ecumenical Creeds, that faith grows not through one’s own works, but through the works that the Holy Spirit works through the preaching of the Gospel and through the Sacraments. The Third Article of the Creed directs us to this for our comfort and assurance. Luther beautifully expounds upon this in his explanation to the Third Article, saying:

The Third Article declares:

I believe in the Holy Ghost; one holy Christian Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

Luther explains:

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true.

What a marvelous contrast! One way is pure grace, the other way is completely dependent upon the works and efforts of the individual.

Does it really matter whether pure Lutheran literature is used? Without a doubt!

The literature published by Group always directs away from depending upon the grace of God in Christ. It always directs to little programs and projects of service as the means by which a person convinces oneself that faith is alive and growing. Pure Lutheran literature always directs away from one’s own works and efforts so as to direct us to the pure grace of God in Christ as our only source of hope and comfort. Then we see God being present in the means by which He has ordained. Therefore we do not need to look for Him everywhere, because we actually receive Him through the means of grace. Then, rather than working to become fearless kids who shine the love of God, rather, we take comfort in the promises of God in our baptism and in the Holy Communion and in the pure preaching of the Gospel. Then we rest in His peace rather than working to become certain of our faith. When God is the one who works our faith for us, all that we need to do is what St. Paul writes to the Philippians, to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. What this means is to be certain that we truly are receiving our understanding only through pure Lutheran literature, which always teaches us to trust in God’s grace in Christ. Then we truly are fearless because we realize that in Christ we have no cause to be afraid. (Rom. 8)

So then, why do congregations like the one in which I was raised, Trinity Downtown in Orlando (LC-MS), and Risen Savior in Orlando (WELS), as well as congregations in many places and denominations, use materials from Group, materials that they have promised not to use? Is it because of laziness? Perhaps, but more likely it is simply because they trust in cutesy gimmicks rather than in the Word. If they trusted in the Word they would actually use the Word. But they choose these cutesy cartoons and silly little projects rather than the Word. They hold onto the name of Lutheran for the sake of their tradition and heritage, but they use the methods and doctrine and practice of the preachers of faith by works. Lutherans teach as the Scriptures do, that works are the result of faith, not that faith is the result of works.

So, what is VBS today anyway? The letters stand for Vacation Bible School. This seems to be appropriate, for what is taught does seem to be a vacation from the doctrine of the Bible. But what sort of vacation is that? After all, it is the clear doctrine of the Bible that assures us of God’s love. It is the clear and unadulterated doctrine of the Scriptures that comforts us with the merits of Jesus as the cause of our forgiveness and salvation and new life of peace and hope and joy.

The Holy Spirit continually calls us to congregate to enter into the vacation that God provides, also called the Sabbath. He calls us regularly to take a vacation from the cutesy things that have no substance and have no power to give hope and peace. He calls us regularly to take a vacation from our own self-delusions and our own corrupt and frail efforts at holiness and goodness. He calls us to take a vacation from the lies and the disappointments of the world. He calls us to take a vacation from our own failures. He calls us to receive the holiness offered in Holy Baptism. He calls us to partake of the meal of life. He calls us to step out of the struggles and stresses of daily living in this world of sin and sorrow to rest in the mercy of Almighty God.

Why would anyone choose gimmicks over what the Lord provides? Why would anyone choose works over the freely bestowed gifts that God provides through the means of grace? Why would anyone choose anything other than what is taught and given in the pure Lutheran literature?


As for me and my house, we will continue in the vacation that the Lord provides.






(All images are from Group’s free downloads in connection with the CrocodileDock VBS page. The noticeable absence of anything relating to God, Christ, or the Gospel is not by choice but according to what was provided at the site at the time of downloading.)