If I leave Lutheranism, I will probably stop going to church entirely.
I am just thinking, well, if the pastor believes the Gospel should predominate, like Walther did, then I am ok, you are ok, so what is the problem? Nothing. So, life becomes boring.
The BoC says the Law and the Gospel should be preached equally, I read that as saying neither one should predominate.
I am typical Walther critic so here I go....
Preaching the Law I believe is the problem. There are those who preach it with the idea that you can do it. That is a problem.
Then there are those that, well, do not preach it all, following Walther's theorem, the Gospel should predominate. This theorem believes that the man in the street is already taken in by the Law. This theorem believes that man admits already that he is a sinner. This presupposition is not correct.
This is not true. The man down the street, does not believe he is a sinner. This is one of the blunders of Walther. In fact, according to Romans 1, people deny or suppress this truth.
I read once Luther even said, he needed to go to the Scriptures to make him believe he is a sinner.
After leaving Pentecostalism, I joked of Andre Crouch's song Christ is the Answer, famous in Pentecostal circle. Well, I said with the others, if Jesus is the answer, so what is the problem?
13 comments:
Merry Christmas, LPC!
JK
you too JK.
LPC
Aloha! Very late comment. New reader here.
I am a fairly new LCMS Lutheran. I am doing a large amount of self study and in my limited exposure to Law and Gospel distinctions (usually referencing Walther) I have never heard that the Gospel should be dominant in preaching.
It is the distinction and proper application that seems to count.
Need conviction? LAW!
Need comfort and encouragement?
Gospel... mmmmmmmmmmm. Good.
So did Walther give dominance or does your "bashing" take liberty?
Your running "discussions" on JBFA and UOJ have me going for the aspirin. JBFA is the only solid foundation from which to even consider exploring UOJ. If UOJ is not robust then it is swept away without loss of JBFA and without loss of the real "J".
Which post of yours really contrasts and compares JBFA and UOJ as debated correctly?
Thank you. Tom Moeller, Texas.
Hi Tom.
Please look at the post with the label justification on the right of the page. This will list all relevant post I have made on JBFA vs UOJ.
Since you are with the LC-MS, I contend with its 1932 Brief Statement Article 17a. I believe this statement Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25;
IS FALSE, an error and a false teaching.
LPC
Thank you for the bulls-eye to aim at (17A that is...)
On the surface that statement is flawed either grammatically or doctrinally. I will look at it with an eye to identify the flaw and resolve to reconcile with scripture or the manual of writing.
Some how I just don't naturally gravitate toward righteous w/o faith, but I can go for righteous "In Christ." "In Christ" can only come by faith.
I will read your posts as well. I like your take.
I have that old police suspicion that some of the folk in this debate are saying the same thing with different words and won't adjust the terminology to discover common ground. Private land is defensible. Common ground is subject to abuse.
Cheers and Go Crusaders!
Tom
Tom,
I have that old police suspicion that some of the folk in this debate are saying the same thing with different words
May be, but we have no business salvaging the hole ridden boat in the first place. That 17a is Huberian. As can be seen by the historical account, the orthodox Lutherans were not satisfied that he used faulty language, Huber was rejected or deposed from Wittenberg by the signers of the Book of Concord.
New false doctrines are actually old ones with a new skin. Walther too rejected Huber while he adopted his concepts. Walther too hated Calvinist while adopting their paradigm of equating the Atonement with Justification and while adopting a type of decretal predestination.
Let me give an advice, apart from Jesus and His Apostles, hold no man holy.
LPC
Justification is a judgement on the man. That judgement is made on the fact that a crime is committed (law) and confession is made. Here is the juicy part... in any court the sentence is not pronounce prior to the allocution of the crime. UOJ seems to neglect allocution (confession before the judge) before pronouncement of punishment (already served by Christ).
Tom,
You seem to come from a legal background. In academia, even if you finished all the requirements of a degree it is illegal for you to affix the letters on your name if the university chancellor has not pronounced it on you. That pronouncement much first happen before you can use the letters.
LPC
Tom,
You seem to come from a legal background. In academia, even if you finished all the requirements of a degree it is illegal for you to affix the letters on your name if the university chancellor has not pronounced it on you. That pronouncement much first happen before you can use the letters.
LPC
I don't use any letters. I don't have any legal training. I am not unaware of how the world works. That's about it.
Been around the block a few times. Works for much if allowed.
Do you see something in my post that prompted your reply?
Tom (not esq.)
Belay my last...
You are giving an academic analogy.
I may be slow but at least I'm dim!
Tom,
Your allusion to looking first at the motivation seems sound I thought you might have enforcement or legal background - mention of police etc.
LPC
I see my time in law enforcement as social work with authority.
Real legal thought is found in the application and adjudication of the laws as booked.
I guess my study of the penal code and practical meaning of the letters was a good foundation for non lawyers.
Interesting, the law is mostly written to be understood “as written” in the specific words used. The trouble is when new "reasonable" meanings, in addition to the historic usage, are introduced, not to clarify but to expand meaning. The natural tendency when an object gets too large to be useful is to pare it down. With the new meaning accreted, the paring will find the historic meaning of lesser value (modern relevance?) than the new understandings (hep to the jive and with it) and be under the ax first (first in first out mentality).
Post a Comment