The BoC says these two - Law and Gospel are to be urged upon Christians. Just been thinking about this in my quiet moments.
It is so right for me to hear this again and again. I just noticed that if I don't, I could wind up thinking that my sin is much greater than the sacrifice of Jesus that paid for it, and this is wrong.
Our souls do hunger to hear again and again, the good news, the beautiful true story of Jesus and his love.
83 comments:
Hi,Lito. We haven't touched base for a while, but this topic attracted me. I know how dear the Law/Gospel paradigm is for Lutherans, and believe me, I could divide Law and Gospel with the best of them once upon a time. But the problem is, it is really a paradigm that is imposed upon Scripture, rather than one inherent in it. On top of that, it is a paradigm that was unknown in the Christian tradition until the 16th Century. And it isn't even true to Paul's use of the terms "Law" and "Gospel". I can see how it has been helpful for many Lutherans in the way you describe, but there are plenty of believers out there who know that Jesus' sacrifice is sufficient for all their own sin and the sin of every human being, who don't work with this paradigm. So, I recognise that it can help and can protect certain truths of the Gospel, but it also obscures others, such as Jesus' command to "love one another as I have loved you" and his teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, and Paul's insistence upon the "obedience of faith" and his affirmation that it is the "doers of the Law who will be justified" etc. In other words, the paradigm obscures as much as it clarifies.
Hi David,
Glad you dropped by.
Firstly I do see Law and Gospel in Gal 3. Also I read that Ambrose was into this too. However, I suspect when you were in seminary you were trained on Walther's Law and Gospel. Unfortunately, Walther's UOJ shined forth in that book. I am not a buyer of Walther after rereading some of the things he said. He made plenty of over statements. Also if you follow his method, you will wind up not having the 3rd use of the Law.
I am a firm believer of the 3rd use of the Law. I believe there is the place of the Law in the Christian's life.
There is a time for everything, and through the Word being used by the HS, we get exposed to what is needed at that time.
As an aside, I could not criticize Walther enough. Just for your info.
LPC
David,
Check out Lutheran Catholicity for evidence refuting your claims that th elaw/Gospel paradigm was unknown before the 16th century.
Of course, the doctrine of Law and Gospel in its purity was brought forth by our father in the faith, Bl. Martin Luther, but it was not unknown to the Fathers, which could be because...ahem...it's scriptural.
Also, none of the caveats you raise apply to Law/Gospel properly understood; in fact there have been some excellent expositions of the Sermon on the Mount by Lutherans recently - those of David Scaer come particularly to mind.
Sorry for butting in, Lito.
(I wonder if David was educated in Walther at sem? I don't think so, but it would be interesting to know.)
Pr. Mark,
You can butt in anytime. I would be surprised if David was not trained in Walther since Brett my pastor was I heard just a year behind David at the Sem.
LPC
Mmm...I think Brett was several years, if not a decade, behind David. Brett was at sem when I was there, and we didn't study Walther.
Perhaps David can enlighten us?
I wonder why Brett said to me that they studied Walther.
LPC
Well, Brett was four years ahead of me Lito - it's possible - actually probable - that he had a different lecturer. The only one I can think of who would have used Walther is Dr John Koch, who was St Louis educated and would have taught homiletics. I had a different lecturer for that subject. Worthwhile checking with Brett, I'd be interested to know if they actually read Walther's book. Most of the guys in my class wouldn't have known who Walther was!
Getting back to Law-Gospel, Martin Chemnitz has some germane things to say on why the Fathers were inconsistent in their understanding and application of it. I will try and post something on it by Monday.
Pr. Mark,
May be it is providential that people of the sem did not get exposed to Walther early. LOL. My critique is that if Walther is taken to the max, you will wind up wiping out the 3rd use of the Law. I think Pr Fraser Pearce I heard has been skeptical of Walther, that is what I heard.
You can confirm with Fraser.
Anyway, it is not good for Oz pastors to take their feeding from US Holy Fathers. I think you know by now I have no more sacred cows.
I should think that it would be wonderful to be cut down by the Law that way the Gospel becomes sweet. If I do not hear the two in full power, I do wind up thinking my sins are much greater than the sacrifice of Christ and that would be a disaster (for me and maybe for some also).
I would be interested on what Chemnitz says on why some Fathers missed the boat on this topic.Can you inform me?
LPC
Will do on Chemnitz - but I won't have it done until Monday or Tuesday - Confirmation and a Funeral before then!
LC-MS are generally pretty strong on 3rd use, how do you see Walther being responsible for anti-3rd use teaching? My view is this comes from from Werner Elert, a German theologian who influenced several LC-MS theologians after WWII when they studied at Erlangen in the early 1950s. These people became "Seminex" and eventually joined the ELCA, well, most of them. Explains a lot about the ELCA, eh? That's a potted history.
Co-incidentally, I was speaking to Fraser yesterday, but we didn't speak about Walther.
Probably it depends on who in the LC-MS you are talking to. UOJ is very strong in LC-MS. Just listen to how Issues Etc criticize the piousness of Evangelicals.
Their criticism of the piety of Evangelicals goes to the point that it obscures also the BoC contention on the 3rd use of the Law.
In so far as LC-MS hold Walther as a saint and would not dare say anything contrary to his teachings, I admit, I am doing guilt by association;-) in making that conclusion, i.e. judging Walther by his disciples (at Issues Etc).
In the LC-MS, one is allowed to spit on Luther's grave (.e. disagree with Luther) but not on Walther or Pieper's.
As an aside, in the ultimate sense, the Christian does not love his neighbor as he ought, if God should mark it, but his desire to love his neighbor is as per BoC lauded by God because it is also him who is working that in the Christian.
LPC
As an aside, I could not criticize Walther enough. Just for your info
Well, we agree on that then. I was never a fan of Walther. He wasn't the dominant theme at Luther Sem, but he had a presence.
Actually, it was Doc Janetzki who was really keen on Walther, if you must know. Brett was at Sem when I was there, in my very last years. His wife and I worked together in the seminary library.
And Pastor Mark, I know you think you can find your Law and Gospel paradigm in Ambrose and in many other Fathers, but what you are doing is reading back into them the meanings you give these terms, in the same way Lito sees it in Galatians 3. Sorry, there is no way of convincing you of this, because the "Law/gospel" glasses are well and truly welded on. You can only see it once you have taken the glasses off.
David,
Thanks for clarifying on the influence of Walther at the Sem. Actually I would find it surprising if he did not have a presence there considering all so called orthodox Lutherans find him to be a hero more than Luther.
Re: anchronistic reading. You may have a point but similarly you could also playing blind, having eyes, you just refuse to see as Jesus said, no?
Law/Gospel is simply the play up of the thematic points of the salvation story. The Law shows us our sin, even Scripture does says this, if there is no Law there is no sin. Since sin is there, we need an answer to that dilemma and the Gospel does that. The Gospel ain't if the Law ain't either.
LPC
So, what do you think St Paul meant by "the Law", Lito?
Hi LPC,
I just found your web-site and wanted to greet you as we both seem to have much in common. I, too, am an orthodox Lutheran who came out of years in Calvinism. In fact, I pastored a Calvinist church here in Los Angeles and also taught for several years at John MacArthur's Grace Community Church. I have not been able to find any like-minded orthodox Lutheran congregations here in L.A., but am now in association with a small group of churches in Australia called the "Evangelical Lutheran Congregations of the Reformation".
Here is a link to an article that I recently wrote for their convention on the issue of Calvinism. I hope you will find it interesting and useful.
http://sites.google.com/site/arlomax/takingthemaskoffcalvinism:thedangerofhum
God's Blessings,
Stuart Wood
Bible Lutheran Church of Los Angeles
Dear Pr. Stuart,
Thanks for letting me know of your journey. I have not heard of ELCR but I will have a look. You wrote a very fine article. I smiled when you quoted Luther speaking of Madame Reason. Luther's code word for this was Madame Hulda
I am glad you informed me of the existence of the ELCR. This is the first time I have heard of it. I have heard of the AELC.
I left Calvinism about 5-6 years ago. I was a Christian looking for a confession. I was fellowshipping for about 4 years in a Presby church but I could not sign my name on the WCF, the closest I could come was the Heidelberg and Belgic, but because of what I have found in Scripture regarding the Sacraments, they did not do well for me.
Calvinism promotes the formulatio of new confessions, as history shows, but that is not the same with Lutheranism. The latter has a built in homogeneity of confession, whereas Calvinism promotes heterogeneity. It was because Calvin though he signed a version of the Augsburg Confession wanted to be via media between Luther and Zwingli. He did not succeed in fact he is confusing to read. This is not the case when you read Luther. Luther was thorough going and forthright.
I am happy to learn more about your walk and work.
LPC
Dear LPC,
Thank you for getting back to me and for taking the time to read my article on Calvinism. There is actually an ELCR church in Melbourne which meets in a very nice home. It has about 30 to 40 people attending and is led by Lay Leaders, Alun Noll and John Kleinig. They do some reading services and three pastors from Queensland regularly take turns serving them. One Pastor's name is Bryce Winter who lives in Kingaroy, Australia. He is very knowledgeable and friendly and I am sure he could give you a good summary of the history and teachings of the ELCR. I will try to see if he would mind me posting his email address, but in the meantime you could also contact him via the phone directory (that's how I found him). His church is Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Kingaroy.
God's Blessings to you,
Stuart
Stuart,
I live in Victoria, but Kingaroy is in Queensland. Just point Pr. Winter also to this blog, we can discuss things and take things from there.
Right now, there are many young zealos people here who are transitioning to Calvinism, mainly of course from generic Evangelicalism. I do pity them as I believe they are getting what we call a bum steer, i.e., misdirection. Mostly they get enamoured by the neo-legalistic writings of John Piper.
God help, save, defend and comfort you.
LPC
Hi LPC,
I have just sent Pastor Winter an email with a link to your blog. Hopefully he will contact you soon. I think you will find the ELCR very true to both the Scriptures and to the orthodox Lutheran Confessions. I have also met with and preached before the Melbourne church several times myself while in Australia (once in Melbourne and once in Nagambie). They are an excellent group of rightly-minded Christians, whose fellowship I know you would enjoy.
God's Blessings,
Stuart
Stuart.
Thank you.
BTW, are you able to email me or post a bit of your story as to what led you out of Calvinism to Lutheranism? I am curious of your experience.
Hope you have time for that.
LPC
Hi LPC!
O Pr. Stuart Wood said the following message about the ELCR:
"The Priority of Faith
It is a privilege for me to share with you some things that I have learned while on my Christian pilgrimage. What follows is partly testimony, partly instruction, and partly warning. As far as I am aware, the ELCR is one of the last remnants of the visible, orthodox, historical Church here on earth. Not that there are not other Christians elsewhere, but you have the high honor of still holding to the Word of God in all of its truth and purity. May God preserve this unique and valuable heritage in these last days of Satanic assault."
(Stuart Wood, Christian Faith versus Human Reason, website: https://sites.google.com/site/arlomax/christianfaithversushumanreason)
Which is the website of the church where the Pr. Stuart Wood is a pastor?
Which is the history of the church where the Pr. Stuart Wood is a pastor?
Jorge,
I do not know now which congregation he pastors.
You can search perhaps Pr Stuart Woods in the internet and ask those that match this name if ever he went to Extra Nos to comment.
LPC
Hi LPC!
Thanks for your response!
Hello LPC!
It is written in the article "Concerning Church Fellowship" (https://clclutheran.org/2011/12/concerning-church-fellowship/) that was posted in a site of the CLC (Church of the Lutheran Confession):
"It is true that the trend of our times is toward union, particularly also among Lutherans, and the great mergers of the current century seem to testify to its effectiveness. There was the Norwegian merger of 1917 (ELC), the formation of the United Lutheran Church in 1918 (ULCA), the American Lutheran Church (ALC) and the American Lutheran Conference in 1930, as well as the recent (1960) organic union of the chief partners in that Conference into one large body (TALC). And larger mergers are being planned."
Which are the larger mergers of lutheran churches that are being planned?
Jorge,
I am not current on the movements of these synods.
I belong to an independent group of Lutherans who are non-synod affiliated and we have not organized ourselves to synods.
Lutheran unity needs to happen along the chief article of the faith - justification but other matters are added to it etc.
God bless,
LPC
Hello LPC!
Thanks for your response!
Hello LPC!
If I am correct, the doctrine of Objective Justification is a false Lutheran doctrine because it is written in the following theme-setting statement from Hunnius' A Clear Explanation of the Controversy among the Wittenberg Theologians:
"Our Churches have always taught and still teach the justification that is by faith and that pertains to believers, but that by no means extends to the whole world." (Chapter II: Concerning Justification, p.57)
LPC,
I found the phrases that I quoted above in following link: http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/02/another-hunnius-translation-against.html?m=1
LPC,
What are the Lutheran church bodies and the individual Lutheran pastors and professors that reject objective justification and teach only subjective justification?
Hi Jorge,
I only know of one who publicly repudiates UOJ, it is the ELDONA in USA.
Then there are also independent Lutherans in USA and in AU that reject UOJ. I am friends with Dr Gregory Jackson and we have a fellowship all of whom reject UOJ.
Most continental Lutherans I observe from EU who do not idolize C F W Walther will likely be anti-UOJ.
In AU I have met a pastor from Germany who knows the work of C F W Walther and pukes at his teachings. Indeed C F W Walther made a cult of US Lutheranism, he is responsible for its division and lack of testimony.
Hope this helps.
Hello LPC!
Thanks for your response!
LPC,
Maybe there is not currently church that is fully lutheran.
Maybe the many lutheran churches that say they subscribe to the Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod Adopted 1932 are not fully lutherans because the Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod Adopted 1932 teach objective justification in his position about "Of Justification":
"Of Justification
17. Holy Scripture sums up all its teachings regarding the love of God to the world of sinners, regarding the salvation wrought by Christ, and regarding faith in Christ as the only way to obtain salvation, in the article of justification. Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Romans 5:19; II Corinthians 5:18-21; Romans 4:25; that therefore not for the sake of their good works, but without the works of the Law, by grace, for Christ’s sake, He justifies, that is, accounts as righteous, all those who believe, accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ’s sake their sins are forgiven. Thus the Holy Ghost testifies through St. Paul: “There is no difference; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” Romans 3:23-24. And again: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law,” Romans 3:28. (https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/doctrine/brief-statement-of-lcms-doctrinal-position#justification)"
Examples of lutheran churches that say they subscribe to the Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod Adopted 1932 are Evangelical Lutheran Congregations of the Reformation, abbreviated ELCR, website: (https://elcr.org.au/), Lutheran Churches of the Reformation, abbreviated LCR, website: (https://lcrusa.org/), Illinois Lutheran Conference, abbreviated ILC, website: (https://www.illinoislutheranconference.org/), Concordia Lutheran Conference, abbreviated CLC, website: (https://www.concordialutheranconf.com/), Church of the Lutheran Confession, abbreviated CLC, website: (https://clclutheran.org/).
LPC,
Is there currently church that is fully lutheran?
If yes, what are the churches that are fully lutherans?
What is the history of the true lutheran churches?
LPC,
I need of lutheran instruction of Pastor Gregory Jackson (http://bethanylutheranworship.blogspot.com/) because I want to know the True Lutheranism.
What is contact of Pastor Gregory Jackson?
Hi Jorge.
I mentioned you to Pr Greg Jackson, so when you email him at
greg.jackson.edlp@gmail.com
he will respond to you.
In the English West in as much as they idolized CF W Walther and his anointed children, I would not consider them fully Lutheran.
Those who do not belong to these major synods are likely more faithful to the plain AC and Scriptural teaching, a lot of independents - it seems to me.
Walther turned Lutheranism to be a cult like group but of course, just like in the time of Elijah, God has his people there although maybe a minority who reject UOJ and do not go for Walther's idea of Church and Ministry.
Please email Dr Jackson. Let me know after a few weeks if you did not get a reply and I will chase up.
God bless you, real good.
LPC
Hello LPC!
I sent a email to pastor Gregory Jackson.
Thanks for your response and email of pastor Gregory Jackson!
LPC,
Please ask to God to give me pastors according to his heart.
Hello LPC!
I am confused about responses that you sent to me.
You wrote the following response to me above (https://extranos.blogspot.com/2010/11/re-hearing-law-and-gospel.html?showComment=1616156603698&m=1#c8630273292679636451):
"Hi Jorge.
I mentioned you to Pr Greg Jackson, so when you email him at
greg.jackson.edlp@gmail.com
he will respond to you.
In the English West in as much as they idolized CF W Walther and his anointed children, I would not consider them fully Lutheran.
Those who do not belong to these major synods are likely more faithful to the plain AC and Scriptural teaching, a lot of independents - it seems to me."
You wrote AC in your response that I quoted above.
What is AC?
You wrote the following response to me above:
"Walther turned Lutheranism to be a cult like group but of course, just like in the time of Elijah, God has his people there although maybe a minority who reject UOJ and do not go for Walther's idea of Church and Ministry."
Does UOJ mean Universal Objective Justification?
Hi Jorge,
AC means Augsburg Confession
UOJ means universal objective justification
Hopefully Dr Jackson has emailed you.
You can message me at telegram look for LPC.
God bless,
LPC
Hello LPC!
Thank you very much for your response!
The pastor Greg Jackson sent a response to me.
LPC,
Please write the meaning of the acronyms if you write acronyms in your response.
The pastor Stuart Wood said in a response above to you about the ELCR that he think you will find the ELCR very true to both the Scriptures and to the orthodox Lutheran Confessions:(https://extranos.blogspot.com/2010/11/re-hearing-law-and-gospel.html?showComment=1290118512866&m=1#c652435881117404171):
"Hi LPC,
I have just sent Pastor Winter an email with a link to your blog. Hopefully he will contact you soon. I think you will find the ELCR very true to both the Scriptures and to the orthodox Lutheran Confessions. I have also met with and preached before the Melbourne church several times myself while in Australia (once in Melbourne and once in Nagambie). They are an excellent group of rightly-minded Christians, whose fellowship I know you would enjoy.
God's Blessings,
Stuart"
LPC,
It is written in book The Religious Bodies of America, F. E. Mayer, professor of Systematic Theology in Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Publisher Concordia Publishing House: (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Religious-Bodies-America-F-Mayer/dp/0758602316), we read re the Mennonites, a section of the Enthusiastic or Inner Light Bodies:
In their Biblicism and legalism the Mennonites classify as sinful many practices wich other devout Christians consider adiaphora... Women are obliged to wear "the devotional covering" in public worship."
It is written in Sixth Edition of the book My Church and Others of John Theodore Muller in Part I Doctrine XIX Of the Sacraments (https://lutheranmissions.org/my-church-and-others/):
"WE REJECT as uncriptural the following teachings:
"2. That besides Baptism and the Lord’s Supper there are “ordinances” of God that are equally binding: Mennonites, Irvingites, Mormons, Six Principle Baptists, (Foot-washing, laying on of hands, anointing the sick with oil, etc.) See passages above."
LPC,
This is a continuation of the message I wrote above.
It is written in book Handbook of Denominations
in the United States of the
Frank S. Mead in chapter BRETHREN AND PIETIST CHURCHES (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Handbook-Denominations-United-States-2001-05-30/dp/B01JXMS476/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Handbook+of+Denominations+in+the+United+States+of+the+Frank+S.+Mead&qid=1616467837&sr=8-1):
"An international religious revival began in Germany in the late 1600s with the
writings of Jakob Philip Spener (1635–1705). Spener decried the barren
intellectualism, theological factionalism, and general ineffectiveness of the
Protestant churches of his day. He called for a new type of Reformation that
would complete the promise of Luther’s Reformation. Luther had reformed the
church doctrinally and liturgically; Spener wanted to reform it morally and spiritually. He called for pastors to find ways to make the doctrine of the
priesthood of all believers effective in the hearts and souls of the people. To do this, he proposed that pastors form small groups of believers to meet for study, prayer, and mutual encouragement. The staples of modern church life, such as Sunday school, youth fellowship, and women’s circle meetings, grew out of this idea. Also, Spener urged pastors to leave polemics aside and concentrate on edifying preaching that could transform individuals from sinners to laborers for God. This “religion of the heart” spread throughout Protestant Germany and profoundly influenced John Wesley’s (1703–91) early Methodist movement. When Pietism, as it was called in Germany, came to the U.S. in the 1740s, it helped to fuel the First Great Awakening.
In the 1750s Philip Otterbein (1726–1813), a German Reformed pastor of Pietist leanings, began his career as an evangelist in Pennsylvania and Maryland. His activities led to the formation of the United Brethren Church, later called the Evangelical United Brethren (EUB). This body was one of the groups that eventually formed The United Methodist Church in 1968. Although there are only a few, relatively small denominations in the U.S. that emerged out of German Pietism, Christianity in all its varieties has been influenced by this spiritual
movement.
LPC,
This is a continuation of the message I wrote above.
It is written in book Handbook of Denominations
in the United States of the
Frank S. Mead in chapter BRETHREN AND PIETIST CHURCHES:
Many Pietist bodies use the name “Brethren” in various forms. For them, the church is primarily a company of brothers and sisters in Christ joined together by the Holy Spirit for mutual edification. The inner spiritual life, piety, is cultivated in prayer and study of Scripture and through association with fellow believers. For most Brethren, the local church is central, but they are often bound in close-knit national communities. The church claims their primary loyalty and is understood
more as a community of people who love God and one another than as part of an organization or a body that formulates doctrine. Brethren do not emphasize rigid doctrinal standards; rather, the Spirit of God within each person, binding them together in love, takes precedence for them. They usually live a simple, unadorned life. In their early decades in Europe and the United States, most Brethren were separatists from the state and conventional churches. While not manifesting a judgmental attitude, they devoted themselves to a moral purity that
set them apart from other Christians as well as from general society.
Many Pietist groups took the New Testament literally and endeavored to put its teachings into practice, even in the minute details of their daily living. At the heart of their religious ritual was the love feast, or agape, the serving of the Lord’s Supper, preceded by a ceremony of foot washing. They saluted one another with a kiss of peace, dressed in the plainest of clothing, covered women’s heads at services, anointed their sick with oil for healing and consecration, refrained from worldly amusements, and refused to take oaths, go to war, or engage in lawsuits.
Those Pietist groups that were not Brethren tended to be more embracing of the secular world.
Many of the Brethren churches stem from the work of Alexander Mack, Sr.
(1679–1735), in Schwarzenau in Wittgenstein, Germany. After his experience of conversion, Mack was convinced of the need for those who had experienced regeneration to form separate communities modeled on the early church’s practice of sharing goods in common. Exiled from the Palatinate for preaching separatism, Mack gathered a company of fellow refugees and in 1708 took the bold, and at that time illegal, step of rebaptizing adult believers. Eventually persecution in Germany led these German Baptists to emigrate to the U.S.
They were known for years simply as German Baptist Brethren, but that title has largely disappeared, except in the case of the Old German Baptist Brethren, who were also known as “Dunkers.” The terms “Brethren” and “Dunker” have been the cause of much confusion. Dunker is a direct derivation of the German tunken,
“to dip or immerse,” and is identified with the peculiar method of immersion
employed by this group of churches in which the new believer is immersed three times, face forward, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."
LPC,
Did C. F. W. Walther, Franz Pieper and John Theodore Mueller teach the importance of the women’s head covering when the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LC-MS) was orthodox?
If yes, what are the proofs that shows that C. F. W. Walther, Franz Pieper and John Theodore Mueller teached the importance of the women’s head covering when the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LC-MS) was orthodox?
Was the doctrine of the importance of the women’s head covering initiated by the pietists?
If yes, why the ELCR (Evangelical Lutheran Congregations of the Reformation, website: https://elcr.org.au/) affirms the importance of the women’s head covering?
Hello LPC!
Maybe the following message is very informative:
The pastor Gavin Winter is a pastor of the ELCR (Evangelical Lutheran Congregations of the Reformation, website: http://elcr.org.au/).
The pastor Gavin Winter said in the history of the Lutheran Church in Austrália that he wrote that however the matter of the wearing of the head covering in public worship arose, Pastor Hunter refusing to support the position taken by the ELCR:
"CALLING OF PASTOR/CONTROVERSY. Within a short time the need was seen to provide assistance for Pastor Kleinig in his huge workload. A pastor named Keith Hunter in 1967 was called from the LCR in America (its members were formerly members of the Missouri Synod). The ELCR had sought and obtained fellowship with the LCR in 1966. Pastor Hunter served ELCR congregations at Maryborough, Gympie, Woombye and later Brisbane. However the matter of the wearing of the head covering in public worship arose, Pastor Hunter refusing to support the position taken by the ELCR. This lead he and about 40 members to sever fellowship with the ELCR in 1971. In the following year, the ELCR severed fellowship with the LCR in America. For a time the Hunter group remained independent, in due time calling pastors from America to serve them, and finally forming the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Australia."
The following link is the link of the history of the Lutheran Church in Austrália that the Pastor Gavin Winter wrote: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://elcr.org.au/wp-content/uploads/History-of-the-Lutheran-Church-in-Australia-GL-Winter.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiEsoWmso_tAhXDDrkGHQr6BpkQjBAwA3oECA4QEg&usg=AOvVaw33nnReVI-7nk0Yd4NfIhdL
The ELCR (Evangelical Lutheran Congregations of the Reformation) affirm the importance of the women’s head covering.
The Pastor Stuart Wood also affirm the importance of the women’s head covering.
The Pastor Stuart Wood is the pastor of The Bible Lutheran Church of Los Angeles.
They have no website. Pastor Stuart Wood is contactable by email: : https://www.blogger.com/profile/11984240631695114968
O Pr. Stuart Wood said the following message about the ELCR:
"The Priority of Faith
It is a privilege for me to share with you some things that I have learned while on my Christian pilgrimage. What follows is partly testimony, partly instruction, and partly warning. As far as I am aware, the ELCR is one of the last remnants of the visible, orthodox, historical Church here on earth. Not that there are not other Christians elsewhere, but you have the high honor of still holding to the Word of God in all of its truth and purity. May God preserve this unique and valuable heritage in these last days of Satanic assault."
(Stuart Wood, Christian Faith versus Human Reason, website: https://sites.google.com/site/arlomax/christianfaithversushumanreason)
The ELCR is in fellowship with Pastor Stuart Wood and the small home church with no denominational affiliation where the pastor Stuart Wood is a pastor (The Bible Lutheran Church of Los Angeles.)
LPC,
What are your affirmations about the fact of the ELCR (Evangelical Lutheran Congregations of the Reformation), the Pastor Stuart Wood and The Bible Lutheran Church of Los Angeles to affirm the importance of the women’s head covering?
Please don't forget to answer the following questions:
Did C. F. W. Walther, Franz Pieper and John Theodore Mueller teach the importance of the women’s head covering when the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LC-MS) was orthodox?
If yes, what are the proofs that shows that C. F. W. Walther, Franz Pieper and John Theodore Mueller teached the importance of the women’s head covering when the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LC-MS) was orthodox?
Was the doctrine of the importance of the women’s head covering initiated by the pietists?
If yes, why the ELCR (Evangelical Lutheran Congregations of the Reformation, website: https://elcr.org.au/) affirms the importance of the women’s head covering?
Hi Jorge,
Firstly you can message me using FB Messenger - find my handle "Doc Lito", we can continue conversation there.
Re: ELCR, I read their position and in as much as they support the LC-MS Brief Statement of 1932" I would deem them to be Waltherian and not orthodox Lutheran, no matter how much they appropriate the label for themselves.
Re: Head Covering, this is an adiaphora, it is a matter of indifference and is optional. My wife for example would be happy to wear it in church but that could be misconstrued as a matter of more pious or holier than those who don't.
I do not know if Walther, Pieper and Mueller taught the importance of women head covering. They are not my prophets and don't care what they taught. I consider it a waste of time. Eph 4:14. You got the Bible, you go to it and stand on it - everything that is not of faith/conviction is sin. Rom 14:23.
This is not found also in the Augsburg Confession. Beginning with Walther, I saw that they equate themselves to be the pure representation of solid orthodoxy. I think they just believe their own false advertisement or propaganda.
When you make rules and assert that those rules spell heaven or hell for you as those destinations then you are back again into legalism.
BTW I do not care what the ELCR affirm. Luther said you can get other doctrines right but if you get justification wrong you are still in a pool of poop. Universal Objective Justification misses the right way to view faith and justification, it mixes Justification with Atonement, just like the others analogously mix Justification with Sanctification.
You go to the Scripture first - that is your first port of call. All the rest are secondary.
Not every doctrine should be seen on the same level as each other.
Also people are in a journey. Even St Paul said that of himself Phil 3:14. When a body claims they got everything in a bag, they have arrived. They are no longer students of the Word, they stopped being disciples.
I hope this helps you get grounded on the Word. That is your shield against false teachers.
The HS is with you each time you open and learn from it.
John 10:27.
LPC
Hello LPC!
Thanks for your response!
Hello LPC!
I could not find your Telegram.
What is your email or the link of your Telegram?
Hello!
Maybe the Pastor Stuart Wood and the pastors of the ELCR (Evangelical Lutheran Congregations of the Reformation) will answer the questions that are written in the following message:
Dr. Theodore Engelder, the sucessor of Dr. C. F. W. Walther and Dr. Franz Pieper as senior dogmatician of Old Missouri Synod, edited in 1934, a work called Popular Symbolics and on page 273 he comments the following about the German Baptist Brethren (Dunkers):
"When the Lord's Supper, which is always held in the evening, is celebrated, the love-feast and the rite of foot-washing, which is held to be divinely prescribed,
precede it. The hand of fellowship and the kiss of charity are added to the ceremonial of foot-washing, for which the sexes meet separately. In the services the women are expected to be "veiled," which means, according to their terminology, that they must not be without a cover for their head (misapplication of 1 Cor. 11, 13).
The sick are anointed with oil in the name of the Lord - a practise due to the misunderstanding of Jas. 5, 14."
I found this book in following link (https://archive.org/details/MN41551ucmf_1).
What are your affirmations and opinions about the phrases that are written in page 273 of the book Popular Symbolics that I quoted above?
This is a continuation of the message I wrote above.
Dr. J. T. Mueller, Professor of Systematic Theology, Concordia Seminary from 1920, wrote in the 1923 Theological Monthly of the then Orthodox Missouri Synod, the following:
"Are I Cor. 11: 2-16 and I Cor. 14:33-40, as well as I Tim. 2:11-15 parallel injunctions; in other words: If the Church disregards the command of Paul in I Cor. 11, is it not inconsistent to disregard the injunctions of Paul in I Cor. 14 & I Tim. 2? In I Cor. 14 and I Tim. 2 he enjoins that women should be silent in the Church. Conservative Lutheranism has not insisted on carrying out the first injunction. It has not regarded it as essential at the present time that women be veiled in the Christian churches. In many congregations women even approach the Lord's Supper with their heads uncovered. Now, if this be permitted, must not the Church also permit women to take part in the public deliberations and the general function of the Church, especially in public preaching and teaching?
"In studying the arguments of the apostles, the reader notes at once that Paul adduces no direct command of God wich makes it imperative for woman to be veiled in the assemblies. The whole matter is a question of propriety, of observing a custom indicative of woman's subordinate position. From this custom the women at Corinth were not to depart; for by this they would reject the authority of man, adopt the customs of women of doubtful virtue, offend the angles, who witness the propriety or impropriety of the conduct of the Christians, and set aside the propriety suggested by nature as well as the agreement of the churches. In the whole argument the apostle presupposes a definite custom prevailing at his time. That custom the apostle approved of, since it was in accord with the rule made by God that woman should be subject to man, with the propriety suggested by nature, with the dignity of the angels, and the general understanding prevailing among the Christian churches. The apostle urges the custom very strongly. Nevertheless, he weighs his arguments very carefully, and by no word does he indicate that the custom of veiling should be observed by all Christians for all time. Not so much the custom as rather what the custom indicates, namely, the subordination of woman, is the point that he wishes to stress.
"A woman who refuses to wear a veil in a Christian assembly and a woman who insists upon speaking in the churches both, according to Paul's argument, revolt against the decree of God which subordinates woman. However, there is this difference: the unveiling of woman in the Christian assemblies is conducive to the propagation of errors and false doctrine - v. 14.
This is a continuation of the message of John Theodore Mueller I wrote above.
"The harm done by unveiling is done only when the vailing of women is a symbol of her subordinate position, as it was in the Christian congregation in the time of Paul. In our time, especially in the Western world, this custom no longer prevails. In our
time women veil their heads simply for the sake of propriety or because wearing a veil is in vogue. Viewing the passage in this light we might interpret Paul's thought as follows: Since woman should be subject to man, and since the custom of veiling was indicative of the subordinate position of woman; since furthermore, the unveiling of women might give offence and lead strangers to classify Christian women with the hetairae of that time, the Christian women of Corinth were to follow the custom prevalent. More than this the text does not suggest! Paul does not insist that what was the custom at that time should remain a custom for all time. On the other hand, woman, when speaking in the congregation not only revolts against the clear command of God, but also usurps authority over the man, subverts the divine rule of order, and entails upon the Church the perils of false doctrine and general diserder and confusion, through her amenability to fraud and deception. It is for these reasons that Paul forbids women to speak in the churches - an injunction to remain in force at all times."
What are your affirmations and opinions about the phrases of Dr. J. T. Mueller, Professor of Systematic Theology that I quoted above?
For example, what are your affirmations and opinions about the following phrases of Dr. J. T. Mueller, Professor of Systematic Theology that I quoted above?
"Conservative Lutheranism has not insisted on carrying out the first injunction. It has not regarded it as essential at the present time that women be veiled in the Christian churches. In many congregations women even approach the Lord's Supper with their heads uncovered."
Please write all the details that you can write about the phrases of Dr. J. T. Mueller, Professor of Systematic Theology that I quoted above.
It is written in book The Religious Bodies of America, F. E. Mayer, professor of Systematic Theology in Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Publisher Concordia Publishing House: (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Religious-Bodies-America-F-Mayer/dp/0758602316), we read re the Mennonites, a section of the Enthusiastic or Inner Light Bodies:
In their Biblicism and legalism the Mennonites classify as sinful many practices wich other devout Christians consider adiaphora... Women are obliged to wear "the devotional covering" in public worship."
What are your affirmations and opinions about the phrases that are written in book The Religious Bodies of America, F. E. Mayer, professor of Systematic Theology in Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Publisher Concordia Publishing House about the Mennonites, a section of the Enthusiastic or Inner Light Bodies that I quoted above?
What are the differences between the ELCR (Evangelical Lutheran Congregations of the Reformation) and the old Missouri Synod of Walther, Pieper, John Theodore Mueller, Stoeckhardt, A.L. Graebner, Bente, etc?
Hi Jorge,
I do hope Pastor Stuart Wood is listening so he can clarify the position on head covering requirement in the church.
LPC
Hello LPC!
Thank you very much for your response!
LPC:
I believe you have corresponded with pastor Stuart Wood in the United States who is in fellowship with the ELCR (Evangelical Lutheran Congregations of the Reformation).
The Pastor Stuart Wood is the pastor of The Bible Lutheran Church of Los Angeles.
They have no website. Pastor Stuart Wood is contactable by email: https://www.blogger.com/profile/11984240631695114968
The ELCR is in fellowship with Pastor Stuart Wood and the small home church with no denominational affiliation where the pastor Stuart Wood is a pastor (The Bible Lutheran Church of Los Angeles.)
Maybe the Pastor Stuart Wood will answer about the position on head covering requirement in the church if you to send a email to him.
Jorge,
Please email him using rivergums@sbcglobal.net
God bless,
LPC
Hello LPC!
I sent the following message to pastor Stuart Wood:
"Hello pastor Stuart Wood!
I sent questions about the position on head covering requirement in the church in subject " Re-hearing Law and Gospel" of the LPC (https://extranos.blogspot.com/2010/11/re-hearing-law-and-gospel.html?m=1).
The LPC sent the following response to subject "Re-hearing Law and Gospel (https://extranos.blogspot.com/2010/11/re-hearing-law-and-gospel.html?m=1)":
"Jorge,
Please email him using rivergums@sbcglobal.net
God bless,
LPC" (https://extranos.blogspot.com/2010/11/re-hearing-law-and-gospel.html?showComment=1618793667511&m=1#c1684318663046428741)
Pastor Stuart Wood,
Cheers!"
LPC,
I repeat:
Maybe the Pastor Stuart Wood will answer about the position on head covering requirement in the church if you to send a email to him.
Cheers!
Hello!
LPC, pastor Stuart Wood, please answer the following message:
Maybe the pastor Stuart Wood will answer the following questions about the doctrinal position of the ELCR (Evangelical Lutheran Congregations of the Reformation) about head covering requirement in the church and evangelism.
It is written in pages 13 and 14 of THE RIGHTEOUS WILL NOT BE FORSAKEN - A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN SYNOD OF AUSTRALIA, this history there is in following link (http://www.knightgeorge.info/mobile/others.html):
"THE LEGALISTIC E.L.C.R. TODAY
The history of the E.L.C.R. is one of isolation. Today they stand completely
isolated from every Lutheran church body. It was not long after Pastor Hunter left the legalistic E.L.C.R. that they severed their sole bond of fellowship with the Lutheran Churches of the Reformation. (L.C.R.) in America. Pastor Kleinig had little choice when the L.C.R. backed Pastor Hunter in the dispute over head-covering as God's permanent
Moral Law. Even today they still enforce the head-covering rule. Today it is even reported that the covering practice is "extended to include infants in arms." "Small girls could not even wear shorts." One man with family members still in the E.L.C.R. correctly claims they are "inward looking with no evangelism outreach." 25
25 Written interview with Selwyn Winter"
Pastor Stuart Wood,
Is it true that even today the ELCR (Evangelical Lutheran Congregations of the Reformation) still enforce the head covering rule?
Is it true that today it is even reported that the covering practice is "extended to include infants in arms"?
Is it true that the ELCR (Evangelical Lutheran Congregations of the Reformation) is "inward looking with no evangelism outreach"?
Did Martim Luther and the creators of the Formula of Concord affirm the importance of the women’s head covering?
Did Martim Luther and the creators of the Formula of Concord affirm that the covering practice is "extended to include infants in arms"?
LPC,
Please answer the questions that I wrote above.
Pastor Stuart Wood,
I will expect your response.
Hello LPC,
I searched about the affirmations of Martim Luther about women's head covering in Google.
Martim Luther said the following about women's head covering:
"Otherwise and aside from that, the wife should put on a veil, just as a pious wife is duty-bound to help bear her husband's accident, illness, and misfortune on account of the evil flesh." (Susan Karant-Nunn & Merry Wiesner (ed.), Luther on Women: A Sourcebook (Cambridge Univ.
Press, 2003), p. 31. [https://books.google.com.br/books?id=BE8yAl6K0tQC&lpg=PA31&dq=%22Otherwise+and+aside+from+that,+the+wife+should%22&pg=PA31&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Otherwise%20and%20aside%20from%20that%2C%20the%20wife%20should%20put%20on%20a%20veil%22&f=false]).
"Women should not be adorned in the church and congregation as if they were going to a dance, but be covered with a veil for the sake of the angels." (John H Treadwell, Martin Luther (London: Marcus Ward & Co, 1881), p. 217.[https://books.google.com.br/books?id=HW4BAAAAQAAJ&dq=martin+luther+veil+head+-king+corinthians&pg=PA217&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=martin%20luther%20veil%20head%20-king%20corinthians&f=false]).
LPC,
What are your affirmations and opinions about the affirmations of Martim Luther about women's head covering that I quoted above?
Do you agree with the affirmations of Martim Luther about women's head covering that I quoted above?
If not, why you don't agree with the affirmations of Martim Luther about women's head covering I quoted above?
Hi Jorge,
Firstly let us go to the Scriptures where this head covering is discussed 1 Cor 11:2-16.
This is not an easy text to interpret because the head/headcovering in the first part when compared to the second part of these verses is metaphorical where the last part speaks of a the head cover for the woman is by sporting a long hair. Therefore the issue is not decisive based on Biblical text.
The issue here is proper decorum in the church. By the way in that passage it shows that a woman may prophesy - which is, to speak on behalf of the Lord. That is why it can work against the position of women not allowed in pastoral work.
Bibl
In antiquity, women (and men) wore head covering in that part of the Bible workd - all wore these coverings - they are worn both by Gentiles and Jews. So it is a part of the culture there at that time and place.
So to your point about ML. For me, if he meant women are to be modest, I would agree w ML all of us should be modest and decent in our presentation. If he meant it is a rule for the churches, I would disagree.
I do consider ML a wiseman in most cases but I would not dare attribute to him infallibility doing so gives room for Romanists attack that Lutherans have another Pope - Luther. Well he isn't my Pope though I respect his thoughts immensely.
Secondly, the issue of head covering is not discussed in the BoC. Now I subscribe to the BoC but the BoC is not another extra-canonical book to me along side the Bible.
Whereas I grew up in a place and time where both Prots and Romanist women wore a head veil and even my wife wanted to wear one, I would not condemn any one who does not nor anyone who does.
It is a heretical attitude to consider all doctrine of the same and equal importance as the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone.
The problem for me with Lutherans and I have a problem with them - when they hold all doctrines of equal importance as JBFA.
JBFA is major to me, and this is where Christians should major. I do not major in minors like upholding a tradition here or there. Upholding tradition by people is no guarantee that they are not heretics.
Hope this helps.
LPC
Hello LPC!
Thank you for your response!
I am confused about responses that you sent to me.
You wrote the following response to me above (https://extranos.blogspot.com/2010/11/re-hearing-law-and-gospel.html?showComment=1619669190954&m=1#c3255226593457867744):
"Secondly, the issue of head covering is not discussed in the BoC. Now I subscribe to the BoC but the BoC is not another extra-canonical book to me along side the Bible."
LPC,
You wrote BoC in your response that I quoted above.
What is BoC?
LPC,
You wrote the following response to me above:
"It is a heretical attitude to consider all doctrine of the same and equal importance as the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone.
The problem for me with Lutherans and I have a problem with them - when they hold all doctrines of equal importance as JBFA.
JBFA is major to me, and this is where Christians should major. I do not major in minors like upholding a tradition here or there. Upholding tradition by people is no guarantee that they are not heretics."
Does JBFA mean Justification by Faith Alone?
Hi Jorge,
I apologize, I thought you knew my accronyms.
BoC- Book of Concord
JBFA - Justification by Faith Alone
ML - Dr Martin Luther
Hope this leads you to Eph 4:14
LPC
You can also IM me, I am in FB as Doc Lito
Hello LPC!
Thank you for your response!
You wrote the following responses to me above:
"Hi Jorge,
I apologize, I thought you knew my accronyms.
BoC- Book of Concord
JBFA - Justification by Faith Alone
ML - Dr Martin Luther
Hope this leads you to Eph 4:14
LPC"
"You can also IM me, I am in FB as Doc Lito"
LPC,
Is there link that show the list of your accronyms?
What is the link of your FB (Facebook)?
Use this one
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100014801293248
Hello Lito "LPC"!
Thank you for your response about your FB (Facebook)!
Hello Lito "LPC"!
It is written in following site of the Concordia Lutheran Conference (CLC) about objective justification (https://www.concordialutheranconf.com/2001/01/02/what-is-objective-justification/):
"Some Lutheran church bodies, as well as individual Lutheran pastors and professors, reject objective justification and teach only subjective justification. They like to appeal to the Lutheran Confessions to substantiate their anti‑Scriptural position."
Lito "LPC",
If I am correct, the Lutheran church bodies and the individual Lutheran pastors and professors that reject objective justification and teach only subjective justification are ELDONA (EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN DIOCESE OF NORTH AMERICA, website: https://eldona.org/), COELC (Confessional Orthodox Evangelical Lutheran Communion, website: http://coelc.org/) and Pastor Greg Jackson: [http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/] ; [http://bethanylutheranworship.blogspot.com/].
Lito "LPC",
I decided to inform to you that the COELC (Confessional Orthodox Evangelical Lutheran Communion) rejects Objective Justification: PDF (7. On Election “Onto Faith” and “In View of Faith”), websites of this pdf: [http://coelc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/7.-On-Election-%E2%80%9COnto-Faith%E2%80%9D-and-%E2%80%9CIn-View-of-Faith%E2%80%9D.pdf] ; [http://coelc.org/we-believe/].
It is written in pages 1, 3, 4 of the PDF (7. On Election “Onto Faith” and “In View of Faith”) of the COELC (Confessional Orthodox Evangelical Lutheran Communion):
Page 1:
"It is therefore important to clarify ones use of the term “onto faith” to reflect an understanding that God’s elective purpose is accomplished solely through the Means of Grace, by which faith is wrought in the hearts of men, and that it is by this faith alone that man is declared righteous. That is to say that man is justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and that this justifying faith is obtained only through the Means of Grace, that is, the Word and Sacraments. (AC IV & V)"
Page 3:
"2. We reject and condemn the Huberian view of “Universal Election” in which all have been elected and justified regardless of faith."
Page 4:
"7. We believe, teach and confess that the Scriptures tell us to reject and condemn all false teachings that teach contrary to the Word of God (Gal. 1:8-9). Therefore, if anyone uses the terms “Election onto Faith” or “Election in view of Faith” in a manner that is contrary to the Scriptures or the Lutheran Confessions – such as Calvinism, Huberianism or Synergism – then such teaching is to be rejected and condemned."
Lito "LPC",
Do you agree with me that the COELC (Confessional Orthodox Evangelical Lutheran Communion) rejects Objective Justification?
What are the your affirmations and opinions about the phrases of the pdf (7. On Election “Onto Faith” and “In View of Faith”) of the COELC (Confessional Orthodox Evangelical Lutheran Communion) that I quoted above?
Lito "LPC",
I forgot to speak:
Please write the meaning of the acronyms if you write acronyms in your response.
Hi Jorge,
I am familiar with COELC, one of their founders hail from AU. I was approached by them before, but I am not interested in joining any mega or micro synods.
With regards to the "onto faith" vs "in view of faith", IMHO, they try to be a via media between the two and so they reject both. I think the have a mongrel position, just my opinion.
I am not opposed to "in view of faith" in fact, properly understood it is the view of orthodox Lutherans of old like Jacob Andrea as I have read in the treatises opposing Walther's idea of unconditional election which drives you down logically to TULIP.
"In view of faith" is defined as "elect in view of Christ's merit apprehended by faith"
https://extranos.blogspot.com/2019/03/intuitu-fidei-is-just-alright-with-me.html
You can find the reasons why I believe "in view of faith" is compatible with Scripture, by exegesis.
Lasttly, there are Lutherans who reject Waltherian UOJ/OJ and even affirm intuitu fidei (in view of faith), but they can still be infected with the poison of Walther in other areas, areas like their ideas of Church and Ministry and Church Fellowship. A little leaven affects the whole lump. Some IMHO really need to be exorcised of any Waltherian influence because Walther was a splitter of the church united and harmonious. Before Walther came, there was no controversy with the Lutheran ideas of In View of Faith - they never taught UOJ/OJ.
God bless.
LPC
Hello Lito "LPC"!
Thank you for your response!
Are you a Lutheran pastor?
If yes, are you pastor of which Lutheran church?
If not, are you a member of which Lutheran church?
I am not currently pastoring any Lutheran congregation.
I was a pastor of a couple of charimastic churches until 2004.
I am in the books as member of Calvary Lutheran Church here which is a part of LC Au but I do not come regularly due to family duties.
I prefer to pastor my family.
But I do conduct an online Bible study each Monday night Au Eastern Standard Time.
God bless,
LPC
Hello Lito "LPC"!
Thank you for your response!
You wrote above the following response:
"I am not currently pastoring any Lutheran congregation.
I was a pastor of a couple of charimastic churches until 2004.
I am in the books as member of Calvary Lutheran Church here which is a part of LC Au but I do not come regularly due to family duties.
I prefer to pastor my family.
But I do conduct an online Bible study each Monday night Au Eastern Standard Time.
God bless,
LPC"
Lito "LPC",
You wrote LC Au in the phrase "I am in the books as member of Calvary Lutheran Church here which is a part of LC Au but I do not come regularly due to family duties." that you wrote above.
What is LC Au?
What is the website of the Calvary Lutheran Church which is a part of LC Au?
Hello Lito "LPC"!
Maybe the following website is the website of the Calvary Lutheran Church which is a part of LC Au (https://www.calvarylutheranmv.org.au/).
Does the website I quoted above is the website of the Calvary Lutheran Church which is a part of LC Au?
Please excuse me for the questions.
I asked because I don't know how to research.
Hello Jorge,
This is the one https://www.calvarylutheranmv.org.au/
I only go when time permits me.
LC Au - is Lutheran Church of Australia. It is the major Lutheran Synod here in Australia.
https://www.lca.org.au/.
May God lead you where you should go. But where ever it might be, it won't be the way we want it to be.
LPC
Hello Lito "LPC"!
Thank you for your response!
Dear Jorge,
I conduct an online Bible Study each Monday 8PM AEST.
If you are interested let me know and I can email you the zoom link.
LPC
Hello Lito "LPC"!
I am interested in your online Bible Study each Monday 8PM AEST.
What is your email?
Hello Lito "LPC"!
I sent the following email to pastor Gregory Jackson:
"Hello pastor Gregory Jackson!
It is written in following link of Ichabod (http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2017/03/mystery-solved-how-eldona-magically.html?m=1):
"I was often in contact with Rydecki, who eventually had a book to publish. That was another interesting connection. Someone found these Latin sources, Hunnius, dealing with justification. I passed them onto Rydecki, and another friend donated money for him to buy a new version of MS Office."
"The last ELDONA conference had the gang complaining about me all the time, sounding like pre-schoolers who needed a nap, a snack, or both. One interesting whine was this, "Rydecki works with people. Jackson does not." That is pretty hilarious, given the help and support our congregation gave Rydecki when Jon-Boy Buchholz was excommunicating him and foreclosing the congregation's mortgage. I wonder, "Did Rydecki tell the brethren about
The free books I sent him?
The original link to Hunnius?
The gift of MS Office?
The promotion of translations and the ELDONA theses?"
Pastor Gregory Jackson,
What are the Latin sources, Hunnius, dealing with justification?
What is the original link to Hunnius?"
Lito "LPC",
I don't know if Pastor Gregory Jackson will respond to my message I wrote above.
Please ask to Pastor Gregory Jackson to answer to my message I wrote above.
Hello Lito "LPC"!
The following Martin Luther's Statements on Justification are written in pages 13 and 14 of the book Devotional Readings From Luther’s Works For Every Day of the Year of the Rev. John Sander (https://www.lutheranlibrary.org/249-sander-devotional-readings-luthers-works/):
"Ye are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Gal. 3:26.
He who is under the law and works unwillingly is a servant. But whosoever
has faith and works cheerfully is a child; for he has received the Spirit of
God through Christ. Now, the apostle names Christ, referring to the faith
that believes and abides in Jesus Christ. No other faith is effective, no other
faith is the right faith, let one believe in God as one will. Some there are,
particularly among our modern high school men, who say: Forgiveness of
sins and justification depend al together on the divine imputation of grace;
God’s imputation is sufficient. He to whom God does not reckon sin, is justified; he to whom God reckons sin, is not justified.
Were their theory true the entire New Testament would be of no significance. Christ would have labored foolishly and to no purpose in suffering
for sin. God would have unnecessarily wrought mere mockery and deception; for he might easily without Christ’s suffering have forgiven sins. Then,
too, a faith other than faith in Christ might have justified and saved – a faith
relying on God’s gracious mercy not to impute sin. In contrast to this deplorable theory and abominable error, it is the apostle’s practice to speak always of faith in Jesus Christ, and he makes mention of Jesus Christ with a
frequency surprising to one unacquainted with the important doctrine of
faith in him. Hence our learned university doctors no longer know Christ.
They do not recognize the need of him and his benefits, nor understand the
character of the gospel and the New Testament. They imagine Christ to be a
mere Moses – a teacher who institutes laws and commandments showing
how men may be righteous and lead a faultless life. Then they pro ceed with free will and the workings of human nature, designing thereby to fit themselves for grace, and basely storm heaven.
Let us guard against the hellish poison of this false doctrine and not lose
Christ, the consoling Saviour. Grace is given us gratuitously – without cost
to ourselves – and yet the gift to us did cost another much and was obtained
with a priceless, an infinite treasure – the Son of God himself. It is
supremely essential to possess him who has accomplished the purchase for
us. Nor is it possible to obtain grace otherwise than through him."
Lito "LPC",
I wrote above that it is written in the book Devotional Readings From Luther’s Works For Every Day of the Year of the Rev. John Sander that Martin Luther said that "He to whom God does not reckon sin, is justified; he to whom God reckons sin, is not justified."
Why the lutheran churches that currently there are do not teach that he to whom God does not reckon sin, is justified?
Why the lutheran churches that currently there are do not teach that he to whom God reckons sin, is not justified?
Why the lutheran churches that currently there are teach Universal Objective Justification (UOJ)?
Lito "LPC",
Please excuse me, there are currently lutheran churches that do not teach Universal Objective Justification (UOJ), for example, the ELDONA, (Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America, website: http://eldona.org/).
Hello Jorge,
UOJ is only popular in US Lutherans and some parts of the world where C F W Walther has been viewed as a saint but I think a minority outside USA. However, here in Australia, there are those who have not heard of UOJ. Those who are fans of C F W Walther follow his teaching internally and I have met some of them. I also have met some who flat out reject it. The ordinary members do not know of the term at all.
You must understand that those synods in USA which uphold UOJ have their synods traced through Walther. It was Walther who imported this teaching he obtained from Stephan, his bishop when both of them migrated to the States. Thus many synods in USA uphold to UOJ except ELDONA, but I would say ELDONA's rejection of it was fairly recent and can be traced from the influence of Pr Paul Rydecki on the said synod. I would say there are minor synods too that reject UOJ. I have followed some of the teachings of a group called Lutheran Brethren and based on their emphasis on personal conversion, I would be surprized if they helpd to UOJ.
You can see from the quote of Luther you cited that Luther did not believe in UOJ. For Luther it seems to me, that no faith in Christ means no justification. There is no pre-justification without faith - countering what UOJ people imagine.
Sincerely,
Lito
Hello Lito "LPC"!
Thank you for your response!
You said in following response to me that you wrote above that in Australia, there are those who have not heard of UOJ, that those who are fans of C F W Walther follow his teaching internally and that you have met some of them and that you also have met some who flat out reject it:
"Hello Jorge,
UOJ is only popular in US Lutherans and some parts of the world where C F W Walther has been viewed as a saint but I think a minority outside USA. However, here in Australia, there are those who have not heard of UOJ. Those who are fans of C F W Walther follow his teaching internally and I have met some of them. I also have met some who flat out reject it. The ordinary members do not know of the term at all."
Lito "LPC",
Please write the meaning of the acronyms if you write acronyms in your response.
What are the lutheran churches that currently there are in Australia who have not heard of Universal Objective Justification (UOJ)?
What are the lutheran churches that are fans of C F W Walther that follow his teaching internally that you have met some?
What are the lutheran churches that you also have met who flat out reject Universal Objective Justification (UOJ)?
In the USA the synods that follow Walther are the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Evangrlucal Lutheran Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Church of the Lutheran Confession.
I suspect but have not verified the Lutheran Brethren do not follow Walther in his UOJ.
Within the Lutheran Church of Australia I have met those who follow Walther and those who reject him. Sorry I cannot name these pastors for you for privacy reasons.
Please contact Jake Z. He knows more about that for Lutherans in Australia.
Hello Lito "LPC"!
You said in following response to me that you wrote above:
"Please contact Jake Z. He knows more about that for Lutherans in Australia."
Lito "LPC",
What is the meaning of acronym "Jake Z"?
Re; your question to Rev Jackson. He was refering to this book... https://www.amazon.com.au/Theses-Opposed-Huberianism-Lutheran-Justification/dp/1475186541
Hello Lito "LPC"!
Thank you for your response!
Hello Lito!
You said about the poison of Walther in other areas, areas like their ideas of Church and Ministry and Church Fellowship in following response to me (https://extranos.blogspot.com/2010/11/re-hearing-law-and-gospel.html?showComment=1621771989081&m=1#c7955677303969474582):
"Lasttly, there are Lutherans who reject Waltherian UOJ/OJ and even affirm intuitu fidei (in view of faith), but they can still be infected with the poison of Walther in other areas, areas like their ideas of Church and Ministry and Church Fellowship. A little leaven affects the whole lump. Some IMHO really need to be exorcised of any Waltherian influence because Walther was a splitter of the church united and harmonious. Before Walther came, there was no controversy with the Lutheran ideas of In View of Faith - they never taught UOJ/OJ."
Lito,
Is there lutheran books that shows the differences between the doctrinal position of the lutheran church united and harmonious about Justification, Church and Ministry and Church Fellowship and the poison of Walther in various areas, areas like their ideas of Objective Justification, Church and Ministry and Church Fellowship?
Jorge,
The Book of Concord is the basis of unity but I have found so-called "confessional Lutherans" want to add more to it. For example, the synods added Walther's view of church and ministry and so consequently, you have two pastors - one from LCMS and one from WELS who would not pray together. Also, these teach that when you participate in the Lord's Supper with another group then by default you are adhering to the other group's doctrine. This is called false dichotomy fallacy. Going to communion does not mean you are endorsing every position that church body is teaching.
Hello Lito!
Thank you very much for your response!
I repeat:
You said about the poison of Walther in other areas, areas like their ideas of Church and Ministry and Church Fellowship in following response to me (https://extranos.blogspot.com/2010/11/re-hearing-law-and-gospel.html?showComment=1621771989081&m=1#c7955677303969474582):
"Lasttly, there are Lutherans who reject Waltherian UOJ/OJ and even affirm intuitu fidei (in view of faith), but they can still be infected with the poison of Walther in other areas, areas like their ideas of Church and Ministry and Church Fellowship. A little leaven affects the whole lump. Some IMHO really need to be exorcised of any Waltherian influence because Walther was a splitter of the church united and harmonious. Before Walther came, there was no controversy with the Lutheran ideas of In View of Faith - they never taught UOJ/OJ."
Lito,
Please also answer the following questions:
What are the pages of the Book of Concord that teaches about Church and Ministry?
What are the pages of the Book of Concord that teaches about Justification?
Post a Comment